The state of the climate -- and what we might do about it | Nicholas Stern
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2014
- Tomorrow, the UN begins its first Climate Summit, enlisting the world to work together on a problem that’s too big for any single country to solve alone. Economist Lord Nicholas Stern helped write a report that outlines where we are now - and what we could do next. It’s a big vision for cooperation, with a payoff that goes far beyond averting disaster. He asks: How can we use this crisis to spur better lives for all?
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector - Наука та технологія
Very excellent ted talk.very down to earth + gives hope to a underestimated issue
i bet that most of the people on here that are against climate change obviously live in a concrete jungle, and spend their day moving from their home to the car to the office and vice versa. i live on the coast of Australia which i feel very grateful for, and we can see first hand how a small amount of ignorance and lack of responsibility can make a big impact. change has to be made, and not because we have to reverse what has already been done, but to stop what will happen over the next few decades if no action is taken
i think people are waiting for immediate evidence or a shocking discovery, but this won't happen until the effects are irreversible
That was a powerful speech!
one of the best ted talks i've seen)
Strong message! definitely gonna share this with everyone i can!
Awesome Ted talk
We need more discussions on tv and radio. We need the public to know we have to act. with everyone aware, and together, we are very powerful.
The solutions would have to come out through business. Because its business that is better equipment to handle the money and organization to accomplish this goal, but the government has to get out of the way of business to an extent so that business can succeed at this new goal.
I really like the way he presented it. Simple, clear and persuasive. This is the way I want my presentation skill to be... :)
powerful.
was there any point in history where one could not say "We are at a remarkable moment in time. We face over the next two decades two fundamental transformations that will determine whether the next 100 years is the best of centuries or the worst of centuries."?
You talk about how great it was 20 years ago in Beijing. Great for a university professor who could afford to live comfortably close to work. What about the billions who lived in poverty 20 years ago? They are not allowed to reap the benefits of cheap energy in a freer market? Your country went through a dirty phase to get to the luxury that you now enjoy. But now you say the poor of today are not allowed to go through the rapid economic development with cheap energy. Hypocrisy!
It is not hard to convince the harshest climate sceptics that it is a good thing to be less dependant on carbon based energy sources and that we should stop with the deforesting and take the bus more often, but it is depressing that this message, even in front of this audience, is laced with scaremongering. Even I, who agrees with almost al of the proposed solutions (and thinks that nuclear power in the form of nuclear fusion should be included), have to fight the "this is bollocks" reaction.
I teared up in the end
15:33 lol...wow...what an odd/cool synchronicity. How weird.
Kudos to tha man.
We understand the nature of the challenge and have the means to solve , so the only real question is whether we think it's reasonable to make some minor sacrifices now in order to give our descendents a chance for a decent life. How much are you willing to give up to insure a decent future for your grandchildren and their children?
This guy is full of it.
Some people think that they have to go through the same process that today's developed country went through in order to have the level of development they have. And that is wrong. It is not a matter of developing country not having the right to develop; it is a matter of avoiding the mistakes of the past. There are of course many political and social issues, including corruption, that prevent many countries from developing in a better way or to develop at all. Lost of political will is needed to address these problems. Unfortunately, short term political gains seem to win more often than not.
In 1952 London was smog laden. His point is what?
Whenever the topic of climate change is addressed, 95% of the population needs to read the Wikipedia article on "Dunning-Kruger-Effect".
One more good thing about energy, there's a very good chance we'll have fusion within 20 years.
I think using China as an example in the beginning is inappropriate. First, in per capita, China is one of the lowest emitters in the world (if you don't take this into account, then you treat individuals unfairly); second, China is producing all these stuff for the rest of the world (i.e. the rest of us are responsible for the carbon footprint); third, it is arguable that the growth in China is enriching Westerners and Western corporations. Lord Stern, the way to cut greenhouse gas emission IS actually to live like a Chinese!
Talk talk talk. But no good ideas or actions ready.
His speech wasn't meant to give you an idea or action, it was only meant to inspire you enough so that you read about the topic and actually research the Stern Report.
The state of the climate - and what we didn't do about it.
Government solutions to the problem are simply arbitrary. We have no way of knowing if they are the most cost-effective solutions that balance the competing desires of individuals. Only free market solutions are evidence of cost-effectiveness because people vote with their dollars, not the force of government guns.
What if the most efficient action of the free market is to hurt as many people as possible because it it most profitable to do so? Should governments, whose job it is to protect the people, do nothing? For the longest time a lead compound was put into gasoline because it increased the gases octane level. Lead has been known for hundreds of years to be poisonous yet only government regulations stopped the pumping of millions of tons of lead into the air each year and that took decades to happen. There are countless examples. Simply put regulations are necessary, just as the free market is necessary. Uncontrolled growth of either is bad.
Pure free market forces would only be purely good if those in the market are well educated and have access to information to make the right decisions. Is that what we have today? Plus the incentive for research to be done on everything to insure its good and safe. Imagine if there was no regulation on pharmaceuticals or car safety (though regulation of either is still terrible, but whose fault is that? Us, for allowing business to control those regulations)
Free market economics is not the answer to everything my friends.
sinder9737 "well educated", ?.
If you lack basic knowledge on any given topic how can you possibly make a reasonable decision? Education is important. There will be no point at which we have perfect knowledge but that does not mean we should be taught to make blind decisions if we can help it. More social involvement of everyone involved. not just in government, would also be a really important factor in making the free market more beneficial to everyone.
The free market is really just a system to allow greed to motivate. In and of itself it is neither good or evil. Greed can motivate people to innovate and create great things. but it also results in trying to get away with unsafe working conditions and getting the most out of people for the least amount of effort, abuse of power and more. The system isn't based around consumers, its based around making the investors and builders rich, with occasional benefit to the consumers as a side effect.
competition isn't a bad thing, but having no rules is.
free market is flawed because its model assumes that consumers have a perfect knowledge and perfect ease of selection of all options.If a store stocks nothing but coke products your not going to walk out of the store and go across heavy traffic to another store to not buy coke products.consumers dont know much about a product besides the face value.they dont have x ray vision to see if a machine is shoddy made,and there are so many new companies and new brands comeing and going that no one can just stick to one brand that they believe is better,which usually is just unintelligent bias.
Crying Freemann What you say is true but ignores the need of government bureaucrats to feed their narcissism and bask in the glow of accolades from a grateful public for their sacrifice in public service. Politicians are people too, and they need to feel wanted and appreciated. Besides, if government does it, people (well, Progressive Pukes anyway) can believe in it, hope and change and all that. I mean, the government is nothing if it isn't trustworthy, unlike those greedy capitalists who do things for there own benefit. Ah, to live in a world going more authoritarian every day, more government we can believe in, more help, more...well, just more.
And the solution is what exactly?
This speech isn't to give you a solution, it is to lead you into reading The Stern Report and from there coming up with informed ideas.
Bringing your child and grandchild into the discussion is a wrong move in my opinion. You just produce another person that contributes to emission!
Yeah Harder said then done!
apply population control all over the world, each country with suitable scale. less demand, less consumption, less energy needed.
I would like to propose my suggestion to combat climate change; to reduce the world population heavily. Perhaps we could introduce measures similar to china's one child policy, a global one child policy which is particularly important in third world countries such as Rwanda where the birthrate is already unsustainably high.
We could also reduce the population now by executing criminals who have committed crimes which would normally be punishable by jail time. We could also make abortion compulsory for women who's children would be born with severe disabilities.
To saath Zeta's se saath Cheever Seth Styxas a race race FSV TV thy EV GB SCC etch EEC thug s EV then SCC RBC r DCC RBC EV run Guy DCC they EV RCN CD CNG CBGB CBN thi sach thug CBN thin DVD CBGB y shun CBN thi chubby Dr thy Chung CFB tw
Excessive population growth create problems, no doubt. But climate change is not one of them. You can move all Rwandans and other people of the Third World to another planet, and it won't reduce the global greenhouse gas emission much. Together, or per person, they have very small carbon footprint.
So you'd be totally fine with killing a massive part of the population just so you could and all the others left could live a better life, even though you don't need to cut the population; you just need to apply the research and technology created in this decade to establish a world that can sustain everyone with only Renewable Energy.
nuclear power!
Lets make the next 100 years the best of centuries... I say Aye.
Humans didn't evolve to see more than a year or so into the future (based on the seasons). The problem isn't going to be solved because humans haven't changed.
Deforestation affects only the current carbon cycle. Growing trees (as much as I love trees) isn't going to reduce the long-term CO2 because trees don't sequester the C, they give it back when they decompose.
if they decompose other trees are there to capture it.. its a cycle.. the normal cycle of live and death..
@@Danycuraj Exactly - that's why it's called the Current Carbon Cycle. The problem occurs when we introduce more C into the system from long-term sequestration.
'WE can do this, WE can do that... by having government swell in power to force businesses to behave a certain way?' Why not propose sensible ideas from a market perspective to solve the problem? Other TED talks have... But if you bring a baby on the stage then you can sell government interference with ease - 'if you don't think government should do something, you don't care about your children'.
Here is an idea. Quit having the government build roads.
well after detonating more than 2000 nuclear bombs (mini suns) in the past 70 years you would expect the climate to change
you can't be serious...
tavobenne I am, more than 2000 nuclear bombs have been tested worldwide
Theodore Krap But what does that have to do with climate change??? The thermal energy from something like that is a drop in the ocean compared to the thermal energy the earth receives from the sun. You literally have no idea what your talking about... Besides, the sun produces energy from nuclear fusion not nuclear fission.
tavobenne Fission - fusion, potato - potáto.
Theodore Krap if you had a true understanding of how any precise science operates you would have understood how inaccurate your statement is. you took a very complex issue and gave it a very simplistic (and baseless) answer in a quite smug delivery.
you appear to be interested in science and i respect that, but no matter how many videos on youtube you watch you should always put your knowledge in prospective. everyday Joes putting their "opinion" on these matters on the same shelf with experts who devoted their lives to the subject is the root of the problem.
the only people who are worst then the scientifically ignorant are those who understand it artificially (and are vocal about it).
UN agenda 21
Climate Gate :/
a bit generic but ok. this should be general knowledge already.
bull bull bull!!!
unnecessary!!!!!!!
TED your pissing me off man.
The world view of this guy disgusts me. I will add another question at the end. Will we look our grandchildren in the eye and tell them that on our watch our share of the world economy fell from 2/3 to 1/3? Time for acting on climate change is irrelevant, but it is high time for developed countries to stop supporting developing countries, and start to increase our GDP so the gap between us and them finally stops closing.