All language subtitles for Ten.Billion.2015.1080p.WEBRip.x265-RARBG2_English

[FAINT RHYTHMIC BEEPING]

[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]

STEPHEN EMMOTT:
If we discovered tomorrow

that there was an asteroid

on collision course
with Earth...

If we were able to calculate
that it was going to hit Earth

on the third of June, 2080...

MAN: [OVER RADIO]
Third of June, 2080...

EMMOTT: And we knew
that its impact

was going to wipe out
70% of all life on Earth...

MAN: [OVER RADIO]
...wipe out... all life.

EMMOTT:
Governments worldwide

would marshal
the entire planet

into unprecedented action.

EMMOTT: We are now in almost
precisely that situation.

Except that there isn't a date
and there isn't an asteroid.

The problem is us.

[INTERRUPTED RADIO SIGNAL]

[SOFT MUSIC PLAYING]

EMMOTT: The single most
important project

in my lab is to understand
the future of life on Earth.

We already know enough
to know that we're in trouble.

I think it's important
that someone

from in the science community
come out and say so.

LUCAS JOPPA:
We really are just interested

in trying to figure out
what are the impacts

of humans on the planet,

and can we make

valuable predictions
about what's going to happen

a day from now,
a year from now,

but probably more importantly,
10, 20, 30 years from now.

What does... What does that
predicted future mean

for the fate
of the human species?

MATTHEW SMITH: There is
an enormous problem looming.

But it... The problems

for the vast majority
of people now

are still too far off

to make you feel compelled

to do something
about it tomorrow,

and that is the real problem.

It's kind of such
an obvious thing that people
don't think about it.

Um, that, you know, all
the things that we throw away,

all the things that we buy
and replace and, you know,

that there is another

seven billion people
doing this,

and that's what
you don't think about.

So I think it's more
"ignorance is bliss."

DREW PURVES: We're just not

heading in the right direction
at the moment.

All the problems are heading
in the wrong direction

and we're showing
almost no sign

of actually
tackling these problems.

PURVES: There are a lot
of people that feel that way,

but a lot of them
won't say it publicly.

Stephen is in many ways braver

in terms of being willing
to express

perhaps pessimistic views
very honestly
and in a very clear way.

EMMOTT: I've simply
done my best

to paint as accurate a picture
as possible

of what's actually happening.

But...

I'm shocked at the number
of people

who just do not want to hear
the truth.

[INDISTINCT CHATTER]

EMMOTT:
If the film acts as a catalyst
for a much broader debate...

Brilliant.

If not, I've failed.

Earth is home
to millions of species.

Yet just one dominates it.

Us.

Our cleverness,

our inventiveness
and our activities

have modified almost
every part of our planet.

[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]

EMMOTT: In fact, we're having
a profound impact on it.

[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]

EMMOTT: Indeed,
our cleverness,

our inventiveness
and our activities

are now the drivers

of every global problem
we face.

And every one
of these problems

is increasing as we

continue to grow
towards ten billion.

[RUMBLING]

I do just want to point out
that I'm a scientist,

not an actor, as is
about to become

-all too painfully obvious.
-[AUDIENCE CHUCKLING]

I'm here because I believe
that we can rightly call

the situation we're in
an "emergency."

An unprecedented
planetary emergency.

And this is what
I'm going to talk about.

We humans emerged as a species
about 200,000 years ago.

And in geological time

that's really,
incredibly recent.

Just over 10,000 years ago,
there were one million of us.

Just over 200 years ago,
there were one billion of us.

Fifty years ago, there were
three billion of us.

There are now
over seven billion of us.

By 2050, your children,
or your children's children

will be living on a planet

with at least
nine billion other people.

And some time
later this century,

there will be
ten billion of us.

Possibly more.

[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]

We got to where we are now

through a number
of landmark events

that have fundamentally shaped
the state of our planet.

Their legacy will continue
to shape our future.

So it's worth looking
at our growth

through the lens
of these developments.

One of the principal reasons

we were able to grow

was the invention
of agriculture

over 10,000 years ago.

What has become known as
the "Agricultural Revolution"

started with the domestication
of animals

and the cultivation
of plants for crops.

And has developed into today's
intensive industrialization

of the entire
food production system.

It enabled us to go
from hunter-gatherers

to highly organized
producers of food.

And allowed our population
to grow.

And this was also the start

of a fundamental
transformation

of land use by humans.

It's 1930, there are now
two billion of us.

And the impact
of another revolution,

the Industrial Revolution,
was being felt.

The world was
being transformed

by manufacturing,
technological innovation,

new industrial processes,

and transport.

But there's another story
here, too.

The start
of our lethal addiction

to oil, coal and gas

as our principal source
of energy.

Thirty years later,

we've grown to three billion.

It's 1960,

and we're in the middle
of the Green Revolution.

There were more of us,
far more of us,

and we needed more food,
far more food.

And the Green Revolution
provided this extra food.

And it did so,

through the use
of chemical herbicides,

chemical pesticides,
and chemical fertilizers.

And an unprecedented
expansion of land use

for agriculture.

But it was a revolution
that came at a cost

in terms of loss of habitat,
pollution and overfishing.

And it set in motion
the start of the degradation

of entire ecosystems.

[CHAINSAW BUZZES]

By 1980, 20 years later,

there were four billion of us.

Green Revolution
had produced more food,

much more food
and that made food cheaper.

This meant we have more
money to spend.

By the 1980s,

we'd well and truly
started to spend

all that money on "stuff."

Televisions, video-recorders,
Walkmans,

hairdryers, cars and clothes,

as well as holidays.

[SCREAMS]

And at the center of this
astonishing spending spree,

was an equally astonishing
growth of transport.

In 1960,

there were 100 million cars
on the world's roads.

By 1980,
there were 300 million.

In 1960, we flew

100 billion
passenger kilometers.

By 1980,

we flew a thousand billion
passenger kilometers.

And global shipping grew

at a similarly
astonishing rate.

All of the stuff
we were buying,

plus all of the food
we were consuming,

plus all of the raw
resources and materials

required to make everything

were increasingly
being shipped

all around the world.

Just 10 years later, in 1990,

we'd grown to five billion.

By this point,
the consequences of our growth

were starting to show.

Not least of these
was on water.

Our demand for water,
not just the water we drank

but the water we needed
for food production

and to make all of the stuff
we were consuming,

was starting to go through
the roof.

And something was starting
to happen to water.

We saw journalists

reporting from Ethiopia
in 1984

about a famine of so-called
biblical proportions

caused by widespread drought.

Ethiopia is turning

into the worst human disaster
for a decade.

A disaster begun by nature
but compounded by man.

EMMOTT: That, it seemed,
was over there in Africa.

Except that it wasn't
just over there.

Unusual droughts,

as well as unusual flooding,

were increasing in Asia,

Australia, the US
and in Europe.

Water, a vital resource

we thought of as abundant
and free,

was now something

that had the potential
to be scarce.

By 2000,

we'd grown to six billion.

And by this point,

it had become abundantly clear

to just about everyone
in the scientific community

that the climate was changing

and that we had a serious
problem on our hands.

[RADIO OPERATOR
SPEAKING INDISTINCTLY]

Now, obviously climate
is not the same as weather,

but climate is one of Earth's
fundamental
life support systems,

one that determines
whether or not

we're able to live
on this planet.

It's generated
by four components,

the atmosphere,
the air that we breathe,

hydrosphere, planet's water,

cryosphere,

ice sheets and glaciers,

and the biosphere,

the planet's
plants and animals.

And by now, our activities

had started to modify

every single one
of these components.

Our increasing CO2 emissions

had started to modify
our atmosphere.

And our increasing water use

had started to modify
our hydrosphere.

Rising atmospheric
and sea temperatures

had started to modify
the cryosphere,

most notably,
an unexpected loss

of Greenland and Arctic ice.

And our increasing use of land

for agriculture, cities,

roads, mining,

as well as
all pollution we were creating

had started to modify
our biosphere.

Or to put it another way,

we had started to change
our climate.

There are now

over seven billion of us.

And as we continue to grow,

we continue to increase
our need

for more water, more food,

more land, and more energy.

As a result,

our activities
are now fundamentally

interacting with and altering
the complex system
we live on...

Earth.

We're spending
8 billion euros

at CERN

to discover evidence
of a particle

called the Higgs boson,

to explain mass
and provide a thumbs up

for what's called
the Standard Model
of particle physics.

And CERN's physicists

are keen to tell us

that it's the biggest,
most important experiment,
on Earth.

It isn't.

The biggest,
most important experiment
on Earth,

is the one
we're all conducting
right now on Earth itself.

Just want to take us on a tour
of what's happening right now.

It turns out that doing so

is important to understanding
where we're heading.

Right now, nearly 40%

of all the ice-free land
on Earth

is being used
for food production.

That leaves deserts,

towns and cities,

land used for the mining
and extraction of Earth's

finite resources,

protected areas
such as national parks,

and the world's
remaining forests.

And let's
put that into context.

Demand for food

is said to double by 2050,

increasing demand
for more land.

So no wonder that there's
a remarkable land grab

underway right now.

In the past 13 years,

there have been thousands
of land deals

involving governments
and corporations

buying up lots of land

in places
such as sub-Saharan Africa,

Asia and South America.

Around 50 million
hectares of land

are being traded.

That's an area
approaching half the size

of Western Europe,

bought and sold,

in just the past 13 years.

But that's
not the most important story.

Land use, land degradation,

loss of habitat,
and pollution run-off

are now causing
significant species loss.

The International Union

for the Conservation
of Nature,

IUCN,

the world's leading authority
on biodiversity,

estimates almost 31%

of all amphibians,

21% of all mammals,

and 13% of all birds

are threatened
with extinction.

We're now, almost certainly,

starting to lose species
at a rate at least
a thousand times greater

than we would expect
from ordinary background
natural processes.

Indeed, we may well
have embarked

on the greatest
mass extinction

of life on Earth

since the event
that wiped out dinosaurs

65 million years ago.

Now, when we think
about loss of species,

some of us thinks
about images of polar bears

on thin bits of ice
looking as though,

"This is it."

But losing polar bears

is just the tip
of the iceberg.

No pun, quite intended.

[SCATTERED LAUGHTER]

What we need to be
a lot more concerned about

is the loss
of biodiversity itself.

'Cause it turns out
that biological diversity

is not just a nice thing
to have.

It's the very diversity

of life on Earth itself,

the diversity
that we are eroding,

which provides the things
that we rely on
for free,

like our water, our food,

and our climate.

The loss of biodiversity
on a current scale,

is inevitably going to mean

degradation of these vital
ecosystem services,
as they're called.

Services
that we all depend upon.

The loss
of these ecosystem services

poses a very real threat
to our survival.

You might not be surprised
to learn

that food demand
is increasing.

What might be surprising

is that food demand
is increasing

faster than even
population growth.

Why?

First,

is as more of us get richer,
or are lifted out of poverty,

we consume more calories,

we simply eat more food.

Second, is that more of us
are not only consuming more,

we're consuming differently,

and in particular,
we're consuming more meat.

More importantly though,

the entire
global food production system

is dependent
on a stable climate.

And right now,

the climate
is anything but stable.

And is set to become
more and more unstable

every decade this century.

Think about this.

Food production accounts
for nearly

30% of all greenhouse gases

produced by human activity.

That's more than manufacturing
or transport.

Producing more food itself

is going
to accelerate climate change.

But what's certainly true,

is that we really do
need a food revolution.

Because without one,

billions of us
are going to starve.

Our most recent
food revolution

started in the 1950s.

It's known
as the Green Revolution.

But it has come at a cost.

The first Green Revolution

focused on increasing
crop yield.

But to increase yield,
we had to introduce

chemical fertilizers

and breed shorter crops.

In breeding shorter crops,

we then had to compensate

by deploying
chemical herbicides

to kill the weeds

that would have otherwise
have outcompeted the crops

for light.

We also bred out crops'

natural defenses to pests,

because plants'
natural defenses to pests

slowed their rate of growth.

But we then had to
compensate for this

by introducing
chemical pesticides.

We became reliant
upon an agricultural system

that was ludicrously
profligate with water.

The Green Revolution
turns out not to be a story

about clever people
who worked out

how to get more food
from our fields.

The truth is
the Green Revolution

is a story
about how clever people

thought it was
a good idea to buy

every extra unit of food

through energy and chemicals.

We do need a food revolution.

But it's one that will require

a radically
new kind of science.

A science that enables us
to no less

redesign the world's crops

for the world
that we will be living in.

Right now,
something like
a billion people

are living in conditions
of water shortage.

Yet our consumption of water

just continues to increase.

A staggering 70%

of all available fresh water
on Earth

is being used for agriculture.

And I want to focus
on just one important aspect

of increasing water use.

Hidden water.

Hidden water is water used

to produce things we consume,
but typically

do not think
of as containing water.

So just chickens, beef,

cotton, cars, chocolates,

and even mobile phones.

For example, it takes around
3,000 liters of water

to produce a burger.

Over 100 billion burgers

are likely to be consumed
this year globally.

That's 300 trillion
liters of water

to produce burgers
in one year.

It takes around 9,000
liters of water
to produce a chicken.

We'll probably
consume 80 billion chickens

this year.

That's an astonishing
700 trillion liters of water

on chickens in just one year.

And it takes approximately
2,700 liters of water

to produce a single bar
of chocolate.

This should
surely be something

to think about while you're
curled up on your sofa

eating one in your pajamas.

But I've got bad news
about pajamas.

[AUDIENCE LAUGHING]

Because your cotton pajamas

takes something
like 9,000 liters of water
to produce.

And irony of ironies,
it takes something like

four liters of water

to produce a one-liter plastic
bottle of water.

In short,

we're consuming water
like food

at a rate which is completely
unsustainable.

The term "peak oil"

is an increasingly
familiar one.

It refers to the point at
which maximum possible
oil extraction is reached,

beyond which it starts
to decline.

And a generally accepted claim

is that we've reached
peak oil,

and that we're heading
for some global energy crisis

in the next few decades
as we start to run out.

But it's almost certainly
not true.

There are
enormous reserves of oil,
coal and gas left.

And every year
we're discovering significant

new reserves
from Brazil to the Arctic.

And on top of that,

there's the so-called
energy game-changing
revolution

that is fracking.

So I'm not worried

about us
running out of fossil fuels,

I'm worried that we're going
to continue to use them.

'Cause doing so
is simply going to accelerate

our climate problem
even further.

But of course,

that's precisely
what we're doing.

REX TILLERSON:
It's very nice to
see you again.

And it is a historic day
for Exxon Mobil and Russia.

EMMOTT:
Take, for example, Exxon,

a US oil giant.

In 2012,
Exxon signed a deal
with Russia

to invest up to $500 billion.

$500 billion

in oil and gas exploration

and production in the Arctic.

Why?

Because climate change
is now making oil and gas

exploration production
in the Arctic

economically viable

because the Arctic
is no longer covered

in thick ice all year round.

It's worth reminding ourselves
that our stuff

does not actually
come from Tesco, Amazon,
Wal-Mart, or Best Buy.

Our stuff comes from China,

Morocco, Brazil,
Spain, South Korea,

whether it is asparagus,
pajamas,

or consumer electronics.

[SHIP HORN BLOWING]

EMMOTT: Something like
500 million containers

of our stuff.

Stuff that we love to consume.

Plus billions of tons
of raw materials,

metals, phosphates, grain,
oil, coal and gas,

will be handled
and transported

all around the world
this year.

There are now
over a billion motor vehicles

on our roads,

and more than
two billion motor vehicles

have been produced since 1900.

Now, car companies
keep telling us

that we can buy a car
for as little as £8,000.

But that's not what
a car really costs.

The iron ore forming
the basis of the car's body
has to be mined,

probably somewhere
like Australia.

It's then transported
on a very large,
very polluting ship

to somewhere like Brazil,
Indonesia, France

and made into steel.

That steel is then transported
on a very large,

very polluting ship
to a car factory

in, say, Germany.

The tires
have to be manufactured

and the rubber
will have been produced

in Malaysia, Thailand
or Indonesia.

That rubber
then has to be shipped

to a country
that manufactures tires,

then those tires
shipped to a car factory.

The plastic for the dashboard

starts out
as oil in the ground.

That oil has to extracted,

exported

to be made into plastic.

Then that plastic
gets transported
to a car factory

to be turned into a dashboard.

The lead in the battery
has to be mined,

and then shipped
to be made into batteries,

then those batteries
are then shipped

to car factories in Germany,
US or elsewhere.

And all of this
is before a single car
is even assembled.

Let alone,
before the car itself

is then transported
so that you can buy it.

And all that
is before you've put

a single liter of petrol
in your car to make

your own little contribution
to climate change.

What's the real cost
of the car?

An absolute fortune.

But you don't have to pay it.

Not yet.

That is the cost
of environmental degradation,

pollution from mining,
industrial processes
and transportation.

The resulting degradation
of ecosystems

and climate change.

What economists
like to formally call
"externalities."

But this cost,
the real cost of a car

will have to be paid for.

Maybe by you,

more likely by your children.

[DRAMATIC MUSIC PLAYING]

EMMOTT: Finally, let's look

at the state of the climate
right now.

In the last 30 years,

the volume
of summer Arctic sea ice

has shrunk by 70%.

Greenland and Antarctica
are losing between

300 and 600 billion tons
of ice per year into the sea.

And to make matters worse,

probably much worse,

melting Arctic ice

caused by our activities

is now causing the release

of significant quantities
of methane.

At the end of 2011,

scientists from
the International Arctic
Research Center

discovered for the first time

vast fields containing
over 100 plumes of methane,

some over
a kilometer in diameter.

Methane is
many times more potent
a greenhouse gas

-than carbon dioxide.
-[GURGLING]

And if, as seems likely,

melting sea ice is now causing
the release of this methane,

it will go on for decades,
possibly centuries,

and we'll be
completely unable to stop it.

It has every potential
to accelerate climate change
even faster.

This could be
very big trouble

on a very big scale.

Almost all of the data that
are emerging from the Arctic

are worse.

Far worse
than even the most pessimistic

scientific predictions
of even just 10 years ago.

And think about this.

Right now, every leaf
on every tree on Earth

is experiencing
a level of carbon dioxide

that has not been
witnessed on this planet

for millions of years.

And how the planet's plants
will respond to this

we simply
don't fully understand.

But it's very important.

Because the planet's plants

are a fundamental component

of what's called
the "global carbon cycle."

The global carbon cycle
processes around 200 gigatons

of carbon every year.

And it does
all seven billion of us

an enormous favor
by slowing down climate change

because the planet's plants,
soils and oceans

absorb around 50%
of our CO2 emissions.

But this favor might be
about to come to an end

because we are
fundamentally modifying

every single component

of the global carbon cycle
right now

through deforestation,
urbanization, agriculture

and changes to the chemical
and ecological composition
of the planet's oceans.

[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]

EMMOTT: Moreover, the CO2
that the oceans are absorbing

is now having a serious impact

in terms
of ocean acidification
and deoxygenation.

The science

now points
to the inescapable fact

that we are in trouble.

Serious trouble.

And right now we're heading
into completely
uncharted territory

as we continue to grow

towards ten billion.

But one thing
that is entirely predictable

is that things
are going to get worse.

[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]

EMMOTT: What kind of
challenges do we face

over the coming decades
as a consequence

of our growing population
and our activities?

We are already using

nearly 40% of land on Earth
for food.

The demand for food
is set to double by 2050.

This means
the pressure to clear

many of the world's
remaining forests

for human use
looks set to intensify.

Why?

Because this is
the only land available

for cheaply
expanding agriculture

at the scale that we need.

By 2050,

it's quite possible that some
one billion hectares of land
could be cleared

to meet rising food demand.

This is an area larger than
the United States of America.

[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]

[FIRE BLAZING]

EMMOTT: Meanwhile, by 2050,
70% of us are going
to be living in cities.

Just worth mentioning.
Of the 19 Brazilian cities

that have doubled
in population and size

in the last 10 years,

10 are in the Amazon.

It is becoming apparent

that there is no known way
of feeding a population
of ten billion people

with our
current agricultural system

and our
current rates of consumption.

Because global
agricultural productivity

actually looks set to decline,

possibly sharply,

over the coming decades.

There are
three reasons for this.

The first is climate change.

As global average temperature
continues to increase,

food productivity is actually
predicted to decline.

Some of the world's
most important crops

such as wheat
could be worst affected.

And increasing frequency
and severity

of extreme weather events
associated with climate change

will increase
the frequency and severity

with which we lose crops
around the world.

The second reason
is soil degradation
and desertification.

Both of which are increasing

as a result
of water run-off, pollution,

intensified agricultural
practices and overgrazing.

And the third reason
is water stress

from more frequent
and severe droughts

and the rising
consumption of water
by billions more people.

If we want to get
just a glimpse

of what we can expect

of the decades to come,

we need only look
at the impact of heat waves

in Australia in 2008,

Russia in 2010

and the United States in 2012,

which destroyed up to 40%
of grain and corn harvests

and killed tens of thousands
of livestock.

[FLIES BUZZING]

In the heat wave of 2010,
the Russian government

was forced to place an embargo
on grain exports,

and this caused chaos
in the commodities markets...

-[CROWD CHATTERING]
-...and a massive
food price spike.

This consequently led
to food riots

across Asia and Africa...

-[GUNFIRE]
-...and unrest that eventually
led to the violence

that we now call
the Arab Spring.

[CHANTING IN ARABIC]

[DRAMATIC MUSIC PLAYING]

[GUNSHOT]

Indeed, anyone who thinks

that the emerging state

of global affairs

does not have
potential for civil
and international conflict

is deluding themselves.

[SIREN BLARING IN DISTANCE]

[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]

EMMOTT: It's no coincidence

that almost
every scientific conference...

-[HELICOPTER WHIRRS]
-...I go to
about climate change

now has
a new kind of attendee.

The military.

[SPRINKLERS WHIRRING]

EMMOTT: By the end
of this century,
large parts of this planet

will not have anything like
enough usable water.

Billions of people

are likely to be living
in conditions

of extreme water shortage

as a result
of increasing climate change,

increasing food demand

and increasing population.

Our use of ground water,
which is
essential for irrigation,

is accelerating rapidly,

far faster than ground water
is or can be replenished.

And fresh water supplies
stored in the planet's
glaciers and snow cover

are projected to decline
alarmingly this century,

severely affecting
up to one-sixth
of the entire human population

in countries such as China,
Pakistan and India.

Our water problem
is unavoidably

going to have
very adverse consequences

for agriculture, human health

and ecosystems.

You might not be surprised
to learn that air traffic,

global car production
and shipping

are all expected to continue
to grow this century.

Well, for starters,
we look set to produce

another four billion cars

in just the next 50 years.

Global shipping
and air traffic

are projected to expand to
transport more of our stuff

to more of us
around the planet.

That's going to cause
yet more problems

in terms of CO2 emissions,

more black carbon
and more pollution.

Our emerging energy problem
is also simple.

We are going to need to triple

energy production
by the end of this century

to meet expected demand.

To meet that demand,

we would need to build,
roughly speaking,

1,800 of the world's
largest dams

or 23,000 nuclear
power stations,

14 million wind turbines,

or 36 billion solar panels.

Or we could just keep going

with predominantly
oil, coal and gas,

and build something like
36,000 new power stations
that we will need.

Our existing
fossil fuel reserves

are worth
trillions of dollars.

Are governments and
the world's major
energy companies,

some of the most influential
corporations on Earth,

really going to decide
to leave all of that money

in the ground
as demand for energy
continues to grow and grow?

I really doubt it.

[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]

EMMOTT: And so on to
our emerging climate problem.

This problem is on
an entirely different scale.

Because the problem is
that we may well be heading

towards a number
of tipping points

in the global climate system.

All complex systems
are characterized
by one important feature.

A very small change can lead
to a very large effect

that can tip the system
into an entirely different

and entirely
unpredictable state.

The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change,

the IPCC,

has said
that we need to aim to limit

global average
temperature rises

to two degrees or less.

-The rationale
for this target...
-[THUNDER RUMBLES]

...is that a rise
of above two degrees

risks catastrophic
climate change

that would almost certainly
lead to irreversible
planetary tipping points

caused by events such as
the melting of the Arctic
and Antarctic ice,

the release of methane

from the Arctic
and Siberian permafrost

or dieback of the Amazon.

But the fact is
loss of ice from
the Arctic and Antarctic

and the release of methane

is already happening now,

well below
the two degree threshold.

And as for
the dieback in the Amazon,

we're not even waiting for
climate change to do this.

We're doing it right now
through deforestation.

-[CHAINSAW WHIRRS]
-[TREE CREAKS]

EMMOTT: And recent research
shows that we actually

look to be heading
for a larger rise

in global average temperature
than two degrees.

A far larger rise.

It looks as though
we're heading

for a global
average temperature rise
of four degrees.

And we can't even rule out
a rise of six degrees.

[DRAMATIC MUSIC PLAYING]

EMMOTT:
A four-to-six-degree rise

in global average temperature

will be
absolutely catastrophic.

It will lead
to runaway climate change

capable of tipping the planet

into an entirely
different state,

rapidly.

[THUNDER RUMBLING]

[INDISTINCT RADIO CHATTER]

EMMOTT: In the decades
along the way

we will witness
unprecedented extremes

of fires, floods, heat waves,

loss of crops, water stress

and sea level rises.

There almost certainly
won't be a country

called Bangladesh
by the end of this century.

It will be under water.

And the Amazon could be turned
into savannah

or even desert.

And the entire
agricultural system

will be faced
with an unprecedented threat.

More fortunate countries,

such as the UK, United States,
most of Europe,

may even look
something approaching
like militarized countries,

at least in terms
of border controls,

to prevent millions of people
from entering

who are on the move

because their own country
is either no longer habitable

or has insufficient
food of water

or is experiencing conflict

over increasingly
scarce resources.

This people
will be climate migrants,

a term I think we're going to
have to get used to.

[INDISTINCT CHATTER]

[CROWD CLAMORING]

EMMOTT: Even more worryingly,

there is now
compelling evidence

that the entire
global ecosystem

is not only
capable of suffering
a catastrophic tipping point,

but is already approaching
such a transition.

[WIND WHISTLING]

[HEAVY WINDS SWIRLING]

[STORM CHASER
SPEAKING INDISTINCTLY]

-[METAL PIECES CLANKING]
-[WIND HOWLING]

[CLANKING]

[WIND HOWLING]

EMMOTT: We are the drivers
of every global problem
we face.

Climate change,
ecosystem degradation,

mass extinctions,

alteration of the planet's
global carbon cycle,

increasing demand for food,
water, energy,
and other resources.

Highly interconnected
problems,

each one contributing
to the other.

And as the human population
continues to increase,

every one of these problems
is set to grow.

Yet, we are failing
to do much, if anything,
about them.

What, then,
are our options?

The first, is technologize
our way out of it.

And this is the domain
of what's known
as the rational optimist.

And the rational optimist
argument says that

past predictions of doom

such as those
of Malthus and Ehrlich

have turned out to be wrong,

not least because
our cleverness
and our inventiveness

have enabled us to solve
the population problem

on every occasion.

And a great example they show
is the Green Revolution.

Now, setting aside the fact
that we've technologized
our way into these problems

in the first place,

let's look at the current
ideas for technologizing
our way out of them.

First is green energy.

Wind, wave, solar, hydro,
bio fuels,

sometimes called renewables.

The fact is that green energy
technologies

are currently highly unlikely
to be a viable
planetary solution

on the scale required
or in the time required.

Even if existing
green technologies
were a global solution,

we would need to be
embarking on a planetary wide

green energy program
right now.

And we're not.

Even if we had embarked
on such a program,

it would be decades
before we could power
the planet with green energy.

And in the meantime,
almost all of our energy

will continue to come
from fossil fuels,

from oil, coal and gas,

continuing to contribute
to our climate problem

every year.

I never thought
I'd say this,

but in the short term,

nuclear power would seem to be
the only existing technology

for solving
the energy problem.

But for nuclear power
to be a solution,

we would need to be embarking

on a global nuclear power
program right now...

And we're not.

Governments the world over
are retreating
from nuclear power,

because it's expensive,
because neither government
nor industry

wants to pick up the cost
of decommissioning,

and because voters
do not like it.

Next...

We could potentially solve
some of our water problem

through the building
of desalination plants

which convert sea water
into usable water.

But again, such programs
are not even on the horizon.

Next, geo-engineering.

This is essentially the notion
that planetary scale
engineering efforts

might be needed
simply to mitigate
the worst consequences

of the problems
that we're going to face.

For example,
putting massive umbrellas

into orbit around our planet

to reflect the sun's energy
back out into space.

And I'll leave it to you
to make of that as you wish.

The problem is
all of the current
geo-engineering ideas

are completely unproven.

All of them are
extremely expensive.

And all of them
are likely to come

with significant
knock-on effects,

the long-term consequences
of which are completely
unpredictable.

So, as far as I'm concerned,

on current evidence,

technologizing
our way out of this
does not look likely.

So let's look
at our second option...

Behavior change.

We're going to need
to change our behavior
radically and globally

on every level.

But to accomplish this

will almost certainly require
radical government action.

But here,
politicians are currently
part of the problem.

Because the decisions
needed to be taken

to implement the kind of
behavior change needed

will inevitably
make politicians
remarkably unpopular.

And politicians
do like to be popular.

So what politicians
have opted for instead
is failed diplomacy.

For example,

the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change,

whose job it's been
for 20 years

to ensure the stabilization
of greenhouse gases

in the Earth's atmosphere...

Failed.

The UN Convention
to Combat Desertification,

whose job it's been
for 20 years

to stop land degrading
and becoming desert...

Failed.

The Convention
on Biological Diversity,

whose job it's been
for 20 years

to reduce the rate
of biodiversity loss...

Failed.

These are just three examples
of failed global initiatives.

In Rio+20,
COP18 in Doha,
and COP19 in Warsaw,

all produced
even weaker rhetoric
than previous pledges,

conventions and commitments.

The world is expecting us to
reach some kind of agreement

concerning climate change,

and not just continuing
discussing procedure,
procedure, procedure.

It looks like 20 years
of words and inaction

is said to continue
with another 20 years

of words and inaction.

And all the while,
we're heading into deeper
and deeper trouble.

And the way
governments justify
this degree of inaction

is by exploiting
public opinion
and scientific uncertainty.

It used to be the case of,

"We need to wait
for science to prove that
climate change is happening."

And that is now beyond doubt.

So now, it's that
we need to wait for scientists
to be able to tell us

what the impact will be,
and what the costs are.

And then, we will need
to wait for public opinion
to get behind action.

But climate models
are never going to be free
from uncertainties.

And as for public opinion,

politicians seem remarkably
free to ignore it
when it suits them.

What about us?
How can we change
our behavior?

I confess, I did once find it
quite amusing

to read in the weekend papers
about some celebrity saying,

"I've given up my 4x4
and now I've bought a hybrid.

"Aren't I doing my bit
for the environment?"

They're not doing their bit
for the environment.

But in many respects,
it's not their fault.

The fact is that they and we
are not being well informed.

We're simply not getting
the information that we need.

When we are advised
to do something,

it's a token gesture
that missed
the fundamental fact

that the scale and the nature
of the problems we face

are immense, unprecedented,

and possibly unsolvable.

The behavior changes
that are required
are so fundamental

that no one wants
to make them.

What are they?

Well, consume less,
but a lot less.

Less food, less energy,
less stuff.

Fewer cars, electric cars,

cotton T-shirts, laptops,
TVs, far fewer.

And the interesting thing is
we know this.

Yet every decade,
global consumption
just continues to increase.

And it is worth
pointing out here

that "we" simply refers
to the people who live
in the west and the north

of the planet, predominantly.

There are currently almost
three billion people who need
to urgently consume more.

More water, more food,
more energy.

By the end of this century,

there will be billions more
who'll need to consume

more water, food
and energy.

So what about
population growth itself?

Even saying,
"Don't have children,"
is utterly ridiculous.

That said,
the worst thing that we could
continue to do globally

is continue to have children
at our current rate.

'Cause if we do so,
according to UN predictions,

by the end of this century,
there will not be
ten billion of us.

There will be
28 billion of us.

Only an idiot would deny
that there's a carrying
capacity to Earth.

And the question is...

Is it seven billion,

ten billion,

or 28 billion?

I think we've already
gone past it, well past it.

We could potentially
change the situation
we are in.

Probably not by
technologizing
our way out of it,

but by radically changing
our behavior.

But there is no sign
that this is happening,

or that it's about to happen.

So I think it's going to be
business as usual for us.

[FRENETIC MUSIC PLAYING]

EMMOTT: As a scientist,
what I think
about the current situation...

Well, science is essentially
organized skepticism.

I spend my life trying
to prove my work wrong

or look for
alternative explanations.

I hope I'm wrong.

But the science points to
my not being wrong.

As I said at the beginning,
we can rightly call
the situation we're all in

an emergency.

An unprecedented
planetary emergency.

And why we're not doing more,
given the scale
and the urgency

of the problem,

I simply cannot understand.

We urgently need to do,
and I mean do,

something radical
to avert a global catastrophe.

But I don't think we will.

I think we're fucked.

If we discovered tomorrow
that there was an asteroid

on collision course
with Earth,

we were able to calculate
that it was going to hit Earth

on the 3rd of June, 2080,

and we knew that its impact
was going to wipe out

70% of all life on Earth,

governments worldwide
would marshal
the entire planet

into unprecedented action.

Every scientist, engineer,
university and business

would be enlisted
to find a way of stopping it.

We are now in almost precisely
that situation,

except that there isn't a date
and there isn't an asteroid.

The problem is us.

[INDISTINCT CHATTER]

[CHILD SHRIEKS]

[CROWD CHEERING]

[PEOPLE SHOUTING]

[BLASTING SOUNDS]

[CLOSING TITLE MUSIC]