Assigned material quiz 6
video 1
JUDY WOODRUFF, As we just heard, there are reports that President Trump may
not keep the United States in the Paris climate accord, the 2015 agreement signed
by almost 200 nations to reduce the carbon emissions that are driving climate
change. The U.S. is the second biggest emitter of those greenhouse gases globally.
William Brangham has the story for our weekly segment on the leading edge of
science. WILLIAM BRANGHAM, You're going to find out very soon. WILLIAM
BRANGHAM, It's a decision being awaited around the world. WILLIAM BRANGHAM
President Trump, who's repeatedly called climate change a hoax perpetuated by
China, tweeted that his decision on the Paris accord will come over the next few
days. For weeks, Mr. Trump has signaled that he would walk away from the deal. He
pledged to do so on the campaign trail, and has long argued that environmental
regulations cost American jobs. DONALD TRUMP, President the United States,
We're going to cancel the Paris climate agreement. WILLIAM BRANGHAM The
president also appointed Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA, a man in the past has sued to
stop environmental regulations, and who supports withdrawing from Paris. DONALD
TRUMP, President of the United States of America, Paris is something that we need
to really look at closely, because it's something we need to exit, in my opinion. It's a
bad deal for WILLIAM BRANGHAM. And in March, the president signed an
executive order undoing Obama-era climate change regulations. Last week at the
G7 Mr. Trump would not pledge to support the Paris deal, a move that frustrated
many European leaders. That sentiment was repeated today by Jean-Claude
Juncker, the president of the European Commission, who strongly criticized the idea
the U.S. walking away from the agreement. JEAN-CLAUDE JUNCKER, European
Commission The Americans can't just leave the climate protection agreement. So
this notion, I am Trump, I am American, America first, and I'm going to get out of it,
that won't happen. The original Paris accord was signed by the Obama
administration, along with 195 other countries, back in 2015. It voluntarily commits
those nations to decrease their carbon emissions to try and slow the rate of global
warming. The goal was to keep additional warming below 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6
degrees Fahrenheit. Many scientists argue that warming beyond that level could
have serious consequences, global sea level rise, increased storms, heat waves and
droughts, and potentially massive dislocations of people from low-lying nations. For
months, President Trump has been under pressure from competing interests. I'm
hearing from a lot of people both ways. The daughter and adviser, Ivanka Trump,
emerged as a supporter of the U.S. staying in the agreement. The same with
Secretary of Rex Tillerson, who argues withdrawing could hurt U.S. negotiating
power. Tillerson's former company, oil giant ExxonMobil, joined a litany of other
companies who also urged the president to stay in the deal. Exxon described it as an
effective framework address the risks of climate change. But voices urged
withdrawal, including chief strategist Stephen Bannon, as did 22 Republican
senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said that it was an
important part of rescinding President Obama's Clean Power Plan, which has long
been the target of Republican lawmakers. The Trump administration also took aim
today at another rule governing greenhouse gases, specifically emissions of
methane. The EPA is now stopping an Obama administration rule that would cut
down on methane leaks and pollution from oil and natural gas wells. But let's
continue our look at what's at stake if the president opts out of the Paris accord.
Michael Oppenheimer is a professor of geosciences and international affairs at the
Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. He's been a longtime participant in
the U.N. panel on climate change, which produces reports on the subject, and won a
Nobel Prize. And Phil Kirpin is the president of American Commitment, a
conservative group opposed to the Paris agreement. Gentlemen, welcome to you
both. Phil Kirpin, I would like to start with you first. Again, we still do not know if the
president is going to walk from this agreement, but it looks like he is going to. I know
you agree with that. So help me understand. Make the best case why he should
leave Paris. PHIL KIRPIN, American Commitment to the Paris Agreement, American
Commitment the Paris Agreement Well, I think the key point to understand is that the
Paris treaty has no discernible impact on global average temperature and therefore
the alleged climate benefits are illusory. This is an agreement that if every country
met its obligations, according to the conventional EPA model, would reduce global
average temperature less than two-tenths of a degree in the year 2100. But of
course, these countries are mostly not meeting their obligations. We just heard from
Germany, their emissions are up in each of the last two years. The Philippines have
already withdrawn from this agreement. And India, which is allowed to increase
emissions under this agreement, is building too many coal plants to even meet their
target. They're going to go well above it. The U.S. commitment would only avert an
increase in temperature of about 15 thousandths of a degree by the year 2100. So
there's really not much upside here, but there's tremendous downside because this
agreement locks in those EPA regulations you were just talking about in the
introduction, the Clean Power Plan, which increased electricity prices about 20 to 30
percent. That has a very negative impact on consumers across this country with no
benefit to show for it. And it also commits the American taxpayer to pay the lion's
share of the $100 billion per year Green Climate Fund, a direct wealth transfer to the
rest of the world. And so I think the reason the rest of the world likes this deal so
much is that the United States cripples itself economically with regulations, and then
it pays the rest of the world for the privilege of doing so in increased foreign aid. To
me, that's not leadership. That's American losership. And the president is right to...
WILLIAM BRANGHAM. Let me get Michael Oppenheimer here on this. A lot to
unpack there, but the substantive criticism that even people who favor the Paris
agreement are, it is a voluntary agreement. There are no real binding commitments.
Why do you think it is such a great deal that we ought to stay in it? MICHAEL
OPPENHEIMER. The Paris agreement isn't perfect, but it's an important first step.
And that's why the statements of Mr. Kirpin are totally out of context. In fact, what's
happening is global emissions of carbon dioxide have not increased. In fact,
decreased a little over the last three years for the first time while the global economy
was growing because countries are moving to the new energy sources. It would be
foolish to pull out of this agreement because number one, it would do great harm to
our relations with our allies around the world. And secondly, it would condemn the
US the world, and future generations, our own children, to a world with an
unacceptable level of climate change. And it's a real pity, because the Paris
Agreement is the first time that all countries of the world put plans on the table to
reduce emissions, made commitments to reduce emissions, including China, which
is the world's biggest emitter. They're moving forward. Not only are they moving
forward to reduce their emissions, they're moving forward to make money off the
new technologies. They're the world's leading producer of solar photovoltaic cells.
They're the world's leading producer of wind turbines. The U.S. is going to be left in
the dust if we don't cooperate with other nations to bring this threat under control.
And I'm sure that President Trump wants to go down in history, but he doesn't want
to go down in history as the president to condemn the world to a dangerous climate
change. WILLIAM BRANGHAM Phil Kirpin, let me ask you about this. There is a very
strong consensus that, if we continue our current path of fossil fuel use, that there
are gonna be some major implications globally, not just here in the United States,
major economic blows, major physical blows to the planet we live on. What do you
argue we ought to do about that? Well, I think the policies that we've been pursuing
in terms of the fracking boom in the United States, the dramatic increase in gas
production that shifted a lot of our electric generation, is really what's driven global
emissions lower. It's United States emissions dropping pretty dramatically that's
actually making up for other countries like Germany that are increasing with a heavyhanded regulatory approach. And so I think that we can have an approach that's not
central economic planning through the EPA, and we can continue to develop lower
carbon energy sources, including continuing the gas boom, which I think is going to
be the major driver of lower emissions for the foreseeable future. And so I don't know
that we have to necessarily choose between those two things, but I do know that an
agreement that imposes draconian cuts on the United States and we take it seriously
and implement it in a legally way while other countries make promises and then go
ahead and do whatever's in their best economic interest is not one that serves the
United States well or accomplishes those climate-related policy goals that people
may state. You know, part of what Mr. Kirpin says is correct. There has been a
decrease, a significant one, in U.S. emissions, and that is partly due to the
penetration of natural gas. But a lot of the reduction in emissions that has come in
the last few years and is expected to come in the future actually arises from a set of
regulations that the EPA promulgated and which it carefully calibrated be less,
excuse me, that are less than the cost of the damages that climate change will bring.
Yeah, part of the regulations are held up while the courts decide their legality, but
critical aspect, the of motor vehicle emissions, which, by the way, moving to cars
with high fuel economy helps save the industry during the financial crisis. Those
regulations are still in place. And so, in fact, is the Clean Power Plan. It's the law until
the courts say it isn't. It's been said. Phil Kirkman, can I ask you a question about
this? There are a lot of major U.S. manufacturing companies and companies.
There's Exxon, Chevron, Microsoft, Apple, Johnson & Johnson, Monsanto, Dow
Chemical, I could go on and on. They all argue that we should stay in the Paris
Accord. And they make an economic argument for staying in there. And I'm just
curious, don't you find that argument that they're making persuasive? These are not
companies that want to see American industry hobbled in any way, and they think it's
a good idea. MARK SHIELDS, Well, I think large incumbent corporations always look
for advantage to protect themselves from new innovative competitors, and that often
comes in the form of begging for government regulation that tends to lock in market
share by increasing barriers to entry and making it more difficult for smaller
companies that don't have armies of compliance officers and lawyers and
accountants to figure out what the thousands of pages of paperwork that are needed
to be in compliance are. And so there's always this incentive for the largest
companies that have an army of lobbyists who want to make themselves important,
an army of compliance officers who want to make themselves important, to use that
to lock in their incumbency advantage. And I think that's why you've seen all of these
large companies pushing for this. WILLIAM BRANGHAM Michael Oppenheimer, last
quick question to you. Let's say that President decides to pull out. What's the
impact? Do you think that the other countries will continue with their pledges, or do
you think that they will look and say, hey, the U.S. isn't living up to this. Why should
we? MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER I think what will happen is, some of the countries
that have just recently come around to making plans to reduce emissions will not pull
out of the agreement, but will peel off their commitments, and it will reduce the
likelihood that the world will move in a safe direction on climate change.
Furthermore, but some countries will keep reducing their emissions because they're
doing it for a variety of reasons, including protecting their air, like China, which has a
bad air pollution problem, and because, as I said before, they want to sell the new
renewable energy technologies, the clean technologies everywhere, including the
United States, where they are starting to push out coal. It's hard for me to believe
that the U.S. would subject itself to a less favorable position economically. After all,
renewable energy now has four times as much employment in the U.S. economy as
does coal production. Why are we looking into the past instead of the future? Well,
I'm sorry to cut you off. have to go. I'm sorry to say. Michael Oppenheimer, Phil
Kirpin, thank you both very much. Thank you. Thank you for having us.
VIDEO 2
The Earth. You may know it as that blue thing Bruce Willis is always trying to save.
Or from its famous collaboration with wind and fire. Or just simply as that place
where George Clooney lives. Anyway, the Earth had some genuinely bad news this
week. A White House report that says global warming threatens every part of the
U.S. This isn't something in the distant future. Climate change is already affecting us
now. Now? Smart move, Obama. That is a key shift in how to talk about climate
change. Because we've all proven that we cannot be trusted with the future tense.
We've been repeatedly asked, don't you want to leave a better Earth for your
grandchildren? And we've all collectively responded, eh, fuck them. But... Incredibly,
this latest damning scientific report may still face an uphill climb with some of us.
There's that Gallup poll that came out last month which found one in four Americans
is skeptical of all the effects of climate change and thinks this issue's been
exaggerated. Who gives a shit? That doesn't matter. You don't need people's
opinions on a fact. You might as well have a poll asking which number is bigger, 15
or five? Or do owls exist? Or are there hats? The... the debate on climate change
should not be whether or not it exists. It's what we should do about it. There is a
mountain of research on this topic. Global temperatures are rising, heat waves are
becoming more common, sea surface temperatures are also rising, glaciers are
melting, and of course, no climate report is complete without the obligatory photo of
a polar bear balancing on a piece of ice. The only accurate way to report that one out
of four Americans are skeptical of global warming is to say, a poll finds that one out
of four Americans are wrong about something. Because a survey of thousands of
scientific papers that took a position on climate change found that 97% endorsed the
position that humans are causing global warming. And I think I know why people still
think this issue is open to debate. Because on TV, it is. And it's always one person
for, one person against. And it's usually the same person for. Bill Nye and Marshall
Blackburn, welcome both of you to Meet the Press. Bill Nye joins us now along with
climate change skeptic Mark Morana. Joining me now to go head to head, Bill Nye,
science educator and CEO of the Planetary Society. In the crossfire, Bill Nye the
Science Guy. Bill Nye the Science Guy who believes in man-made global warming.
Yeah, that's right. More often than not, it's Bill Nye the Science Guy versus some
dude. And when you look at the screen, it's 50-50, which is inherently misleading. If
there has to be a debate about the reality of climate change, and there doesn't, then
there is only one mathematically fair way to do it. Last Week Tonight presents a
statistically representative climate change debate. Good evening. Joining me tonight,
a climate change denier and, naturally, Bill Nye Science Guy. So, Bill. Bill. John,
humans are causing climate change, no question. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Before
we begin, in the interest of mathematical balance, I'm going to bring out two people
who agree with you, climate skeptic. And Bill Nye, I'm also going to bring out 96
other scientists. It's a little unwieldy, but this is the only way you can actually have a
representative discussion. So, yeah, please... Please file in. Again, this is going to
make the debate difficult. We shouldn't really be having it in the first place. So,
representationally, climate skeptic, please make a case against climate change.
Well, I just don't think all the science is in yet. It's settled. Okay, and what is the
overwhelming view of the entire scientific community? Okay, okay. Any response to
that? Any response? I can't hear you over weight of scientific evidence. This whole
debate should not have happened. I apologise to everyone at home. My thanks to
Bill Nye and the overwhelming scientific consensus.
Video 3
We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in
every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision
will govern our land. From this day forward, it's going to be only America first.
America first. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs
will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect
our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our
companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and
strength. I will fight for you with every breath in my body, and I will never, ever let you
down.
VIDEO 4
Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is its betrayal. By saying
“Our interests come first and what do others matter, we erase what is most precious
about a nation, what makes it live, what makes it great, what is most important, is
moral value. »
Le patriotisme est l'exact contraire du nationalisme. Le nationalisme en est la
trahison. En disant « Nos intérêts d'abord et qu'importent les autres, on gomme ce
qu'une nation a de plus précieux, ce qui la fait vivre, ce qui la porte à être grande, ce
qui est le plus important, c'est valeur morale. »
Video 5
So a final experiment that I want to mention to you is our fairness study. And so this
became a very famous study, and there's now many more, because after we did this
about 10 years ago, it became very well known. And we did that originally with
capuchin monkeys. And I'm going to show you the first experiment that we did. It has
now been done with dogs and with birds and with chimpanzees. But with Sarah
Brosnan, we started out with capuchin monkeys. So what we did is we put two
capuchin monkeys side by side. Again, these animals, they live in a group. They
know each other. We take them out of the group, put them in a test chamber. And
there's a very simple task that they need to do. And if you give both of them
cucumber for the task, the two monkeys side by side, they're perfectly willing to do
this 25 times in a row. So cucumber, even though it's really only water in my opinion,
but cucumber is perfectly fine for them. Now, if you give the partner grapes, The food
preferences of my capuchin monkeys correspond exactly with the prices in the
supermarket. And so if you give them grapes as a far better food, then you create
inequity between them. So that's the experiment we did. Recently, we videotaped it
with new monkeys who had never done the task, thinking that maybe they would
have a stronger reaction. And that turned out to be right. The one on the left is a
monkey who gets cucumber. The one on the right is the one who gets grapes. The
one who gets cucumber, note that the first piece of cucumber is perfectly fine. The
first piece she eats. Then she sees the other one getting grape and you will see what
happens. So she gives a rock to us, that's the task. And we give her a piece of
cucumber and she eats it. The other one needs to give a rock to us. And that's what
she does. And she gets a grape. And she eats it. The other one sees that. She gives
a rock to us now, gets again cucumber. She tests the rock now against the wall. She
needs to give it to us. And she gets cucumber again. So this is basically the Wall
Street protest that you see here.
Video 6
Hello. I'd like to introduce you to a word you may never have heard before, but you
ought to know. Drawdown. Drawdown is a new way of thinking about and acting on
global warming. It's a goal for a future that we want, a future where reversing global
warming is possible. Drawdown is that point in time when atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases begin to decline on a year-to-year basis. More
simply, it's that point when we take out more greenhouse gases than we put into
Earth's atmosphere. Now, I know we're all concerned about climate change. But
climate change is not the problem. Climate change is the expression of the problem.
It's the feedback of the system, of the planet, telling us what's going on. The problem
is global warming, provoked by the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases
caused by human activity. So how do we solve the problem? How do we begin the
process of reversing global warming? The only way we know how is to draw down,
to avoid putting greenhouse gases up and to pull down what's already there. I know,
given the current situation, it sounds impossible. But humanity already knows what to
do. We have real, workable technologies and practices that can achieve drawdown.
And it's already happening. What we need is to accelerate implementation and to
change the discourse from one of fear and confusion, which only leads to apathy, to
one of understanding and possibility and therefore opportunity. I work for an
organization called Project Drawdown. For the last four years, together with a team
of researchers and writers from all over the world, we've mapped, measured and
detailed 100 solutions to reversing global warming. Eighty already exist today, and
when taken together, those 80 can achieve drawdown. And 20 are coming
attractions, solutions on the pipeline, and when they come online, will speed up our
progress. These are solutions that are viable, scalable and financially feasible. And
they do one or more of three things. Replace existing fossil-fuel-based energy
generation with clean, renewable sources. Reduce consumption through
technological efficiency and behavior change. And to biosequest our carbon and our
plants' biomass and soils through a process we all learned in grade school, the
magic of photosynthesis. It's through a combination of these three mechanisms that
Drawdown becomes possible. So how do we get there? Well, here's the short
answer. This is a list of the top 20 solutions to reversing global warming. Now, I'll go
into some detail, but take a few seconds to look over the list. It's eclectic, I know.
From onshore wind turbines to educating girls, from plant-rich diets to rooftop solar
technology. So let's break it down a little bit. To the right of the slide, you'll see
figures in gigatons, or billions of tons. That represents the total equivalent carbon
dioxide reduced from the atmosphere when the solution is implemented globally over
a 30-year period. Now, when we think about climate solutions, we often think about
electricity generation. We think of renewable energy as the most important set of
solutions, and they are incredibly important. But the first thing to notice about this list
is that only five of the top 20 solutions relate to electricity. What surprised us,
honestly, was that eight of the top 20 relate to the food system. The climate impact of
food may come as a surprise to many people. But what these results show is that the
decisions we make every day about the food we produce, purchase and consume
are perhaps the most important contributions every individual can make to reversing
global warming. And how we manage land is also very important. Protecting forests
and wetlands safeguards, expands and creates new carbon sinks that directly draw
down carbon. This is how drawdown can happen. And when we take food and land
management together, 12 of the top 20 solutions relate to how and why We use
land. This fundamentally shifts traditional thinking on climate solutions. But let's go to
the top of the list, because I think what's there may also surprise you. The single
most impactful solution, according to this analysis, would be refrigeration
management, or properly managing and disposing of hydrofluorocarbons, also
known as HFCs, which are used by refrigerators and air conditioners to cool the air.
We did a great job with the Montreal Protocol to limit the production of
chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, because of their effect on the ozone layer, but they were
replaced by HFCs, which are hundreds to thousands of times more potent a
greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. And that 90 gigatons reduced is a conservative
figure. If we were to account for the impact of the Kigali Agreement of 2016, which
calls for the phase-out of hydrofluorocarbons, and replace them with natural
refrigerants, which exist today. This number could increase to 120 to nearly 200
gigatons of avoided greenhouse gases. Maybe you're surprised, as we were. Now,
before going into some details of specific solutions, you may be wondering how we
came to these calculations. Well, first of all, we collected a lot of data, and we used
statistical analysis to create ranges that allow us to choose reasonable choices for
every input used throughout the models. And we chose a conservative approach,
which underlies the entire project. All that data is entered into the models,
ambitiously but plausibly projected into the future and compared against what we
would have to do anyway. The 84 gigatons reduced from onshore wind turbines, for
example, results from the electricity generated from wind farms that would otherwise
be produced from coal or gas-fired plants. We calculate all the costs to build and to
operate the plants and all the emissions generated. The same process is used to
compare recycling versus landfilling, regenerative versus industrial agriculture,
protecting versus cutting down our forests. The results are then integrated within and
across systems to avoid double counting and add it up. to see if we actually get to
draw down. OK. Let's go into some specific solutions. Rooftop solar comes in ranked
number 10. When we picture rooftop solar in our minds, we often envision a
warehouse in Miami covered in solar panels. But these are solutions that are
relevant in urban and rural settings, high- and low-income countries, and they have
cascading benefits. This is a family on a straw island in Lake Titicaca, receiving their
first solar panel. Before, kerosene was used for cooking and lighting. Kerosene on a
straw island. So by installing solar, this family is not only helping to reduce
emissions, but providing safety and security for their household. And tropical forests
tell their own story, protecting currently degraded land in the tropics and allowing
natural regeneration to occur is the number five solution to reversing global warming.
We can think of trees as giant sticks of carbon. This is drawdown in action every
year as carbon is removed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, which
converts carbon dioxide to plants' biomass and soil organic carbon. And we need to
rethink how we produce our food to make it more regenerative. There are many
ways to do this, and we researched over 13 of them, but these aren't new ways of
producing food. They have been practiced for centuries, for generations. But they
are increasingly displaced by modern agriculture, which promotes tillage,
monocropping and the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which degrade the
land and turn it into a net emitter of greenhouse gases. Regenerative agriculture, on
the other hand, restores soil health and productivity, increases yield, improves water
retention, benefits smallholder farmers and large farming operations alike, and brings
carbon back to the land. It's a win-win-win, win-win. It's not just how we produce
food, but what we consume that has a massive impact on global warming. A plantrich diet is not a vegan or a vegetarian diet, though I applaud any who make those
choices. It's a healthy diet in terms of how much we consume and particularly how
much meat is consumed. In the richer parts of the world, we overconsume. However,
in low-income countries, show an insufficient caloric and protein intake. That needs
rebalancing, and it's in the rebalancing that a plant-rich diet becomes the number
four solution to reversing global warming. Moreover, approximately a third of all food
produced is not eaten, and wasted food emits an astounding eight percent of global
greenhouse gases. We need to look where across the supply chain these losses and
wastage occurs. In low-income countries, after food leaves the farm, most food is
wasted early in the supply chain, due to infrastructure and storage challenges.
Food's not wasted by consumers in low-income countries which struggle to feed their
population. In the developed world, instead, after food leaves the farm, most food is
wasted at the end of the supply chain by markets and consumers. And wasted food
ends up in the landfill, where it emits methane as it decomposes. This is a
consumer-choice problem. It's not a technology issue. Preventing food waste from
the beginning is the number three solution. But here's the interesting thing. When we
look at the food system as a whole and we implement all the production solutions
like regenerative agriculture and we adopt a plant-rich diet and we reduce food
waste, our research shows that we would produce enough food on current farmland
to feed the world's growing population a healthy, nutrient-rich diet now until 2050 and
beyond. That means we don't need to cut down forests for food production. The
solutions to reversing global warming are the same solutions to food insecurity. Now,
a solution that often does not get talked enough about. Family planning. By providing
men and women the right to choose when, how and if to raise a family, through
reproductive health clinics and education, access to contraception and freedom
devoid of persecution, can reduce the estimated global population by 2050. That
reduced population means reduced demand for electricity, food, travel, buildings and
all other resources. All the energy and emissions that are used to produce that
higher demand is reduced. by providing the basic human right to choose when, how
and if to raise a family. But planning cannot happen without equal quality of
education to girls currently being denied access. Now, we've taken a small liberty
here, because the impact of universal education and family planning resources are
so inextricably intertwined that we chose to cut it right down the middle. But taken
together, educating girls and family planning is the number one solution to reversing
global warming, reducing approximately 120 billion tons of greenhouse gases. So is
drawdown possible? The answer is yes. It is possible. But we need all 80 solutions.
There are no silver bullets or a subset of solutions that are going to get us there. The
top solutions will take us far along the pathway, but there's no such thing as a small
solution. We need all 80. But here's the great thing. We would want to implement
these solutions, whether or not global warming was even a problem, because they
have cascading benefits to human and planetary well-being. Renewable electricity
results in clean, abundant access to energy for all. Plant-rich diet, reduced food
waste results in a healthy global population with enough food and sustenance.
Family planning and educating girls? This is about human rights, about gender
equality. This is about economic improvement and the freedom of choice. It's about
justice. Regenerative agriculture, managed grazing, agroforestry, silvopasture,
restores soil health, benefits farmers and brings carbon back to the land. Protecting
our ecosystems also protects biodiversity and safeguards planetary health and the
oxygen that we breathe. Its tangible benefits to all species is incalculable. But one
last point, because I know it's probably on everybody's mind. How much is this going
to cost? Well, we estimate to implement all 80 solutions would cost about 29 trillion
dollars over 30 years. That's just about a trillion a year. Now, I know that sounds like
a lot, but we have to remember that global GDP is over 80 trillion every year. And the
estimated savings from implementing these solutions is 74 trillion dollars, over
double the costs. That's a net savings of 44 trillion dollars. So drawdown is possible.
We can do it if we want to. It's not going to cost that much, and the return on
investment, that investment is huge. Here's the welcome surprise. When we
implement these solutions, we shift the way we do business from a system that is
inherently exploitative and extractive to a new normal that is by nature restorative
and regenerative. We need to rethink our global goals, to move beyond sustainability
towards regeneration, and along the way, reverse global warming. Thank you.