13/04/2019

David Attenborough Gave The Natural World A Voice. Now He’s Talking About Climate Change Like Never Before.

Washington PostBrady Dennis

‘What we do in the next 20 years will determine the future for all life on Earth,’ the famed naturalist says
David Attenborough, narrator of the Netflix series “Our Planet,” spoke about the impacts of climate change on the natural world.
Sir David Attenborough has been documenting nature for more than six decades. His various television series — such as “Life on Earth,” “The Living Planet” and “Planet Earth” — have taken viewers to every corner of the globe, capturing the beauty and complexity of the natural world.
At 92, the renowned British naturalist is hardly finished.
In recent years, Attenborough increasingly has used his spellbinding whisper of a voice not only to describe the courtship rituals of birds of paradise or the mass migration of millions of Christmas Island red crabs, but also to repeatedly sound the alarm about climate change.
Last fall at a global climate conference in Poland, he told world leaders that “if we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilization and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.” Earlier this year at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, Attenborough again pushed for action, warning, “The Garden of Eden is no more."
“The only conditions modern humans have ever known are changing and changing fast,” he said at the time, adding, “It is tempting and understandable to ignore the evidence and carry on as usual or to be filled with doom and gloom. … We need to move beyond guilt or blame and get on with the practical tasks at hand."
Attenborough’s latest project, an eight-part Netflix series produced in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund, is full of sobering reminders about how climate change is threatening significant parts of the natural world, coupled with the hope that humans might find the collective willpower to avert the most catastrophic consequences.
“Our Planet” was filmed over four years and across every continent, taking viewers to the remote Arctic wilderness, the vast plains of Africa and the depths of the world’s oceans to explore how much of nature is changing — and, in many ways, vanishing — in the age of climate change. Its central message is one of urgency.
“What we do in the next 20 years will determine the future for all life on Earth,” Attenborough intones in the first episode of “Our Planet.”
Before a screening this week at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Attenborough spoke with The Post about the project, his reasons for optimism and what keeps him motivated. What follows has been edited for length and clarity:
Washington Post: You’ve been documenting the natural world for six decades now. And often with this very distinctive sense of wonder. And while a lot of your series have talked about the concerns with the state of the environment, only in more recent years have you been more outspoken about climate change and about the threat that it poses. What changed for you?
Sir David Attenborough: Well, not quite true. For example, 20 years ago, I was on Easter Island explaining [how] Easter Island was an example of a culture that destroyed its own environment and eventually killed itself, as it were. And I ended that series by saying that unless [we avoid that], we’re going to do it for the whole planet. The funny thing is people took no notice. They said, “Oh, yeah, you’re wrong about that.” Well, that was over 20 years ago. But now, of course, we are absolutely explicit about it because the scientists worldwide are absolutely unanimous about this. There’s no question that the world is warming. No question about that. The degree to which we are responsible is argued about by some, but most are absolutely agreed that humanity — we are the prime cause of this latest rise.
WP: In the parts that I’ve seen in this latest series, “Our Planet,” there’s this inescapable sense of loss — whether it’s the loss of habitat, or the loss of forests in Borneo or coral reefs in Australia. As a viewer you’re kind of left to ponder all that’s disappearing from the natural world. I assume that’s on purpose. And my question is: What do you and the producers want people to take away from this? What do you want people to come away thinking about?
Attenborough: A number of things. One is that we are totally dependent upon the natural world for every mouthful of food we eat and every lungful of air that we breathe. If we damage the natural world, we reduce that, so we damage ourselves. That’s the first. The second thing is that they should see — because the United Nations tell us that most people these days are urbanized, out of touch with the natural world, to some degree — that they should see the complexity, the beauty and the wonder of the natural world on which we depend. And finally, they should see that we have got to do something to look after it because the way things are going, we are running into serious trouble.
WP: You mentioned the United Nations. I was there in Poland last fall when you came and addressed the climate conference there and said, “If we don’t take action on climate change, the collapse of our civilization and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.” You called it one of the greatest threats in thousands of years. And you had a pretty simple message for the leaders there, which is, “You must lead.” So how’s the world doing? Who’s leading? Is there a lack of leadership?
Attenborough: Well, it’s a big problem. It’s not easy. It’s not easy to get all the nations in the world, of all kinds, [in agreement]. It’s hardly ever happened before. It happened when we saved whales. But that was just a section of humanity. Those maritime nations and people who fished — they could see the problem and they dealt with it. What we’re dealing with now is the entire globe, and that is a very big thing to do. People in Africa and Australia and China and Europe and South America and so on — we’ve all got to get together. And we all come from different backgrounds. So it’s not easy for people to understand why it’s damaging to cut down the Amazonian rain forest, for example. Lots of people will tell them no. But do the people who live there think so? Well, there are problems. And not just only in South America. In Australia at the moment, there are problems. And, of course, there are problems here in the United States.
WP: And since we are here in the United States, and especially in Washington, what do you make of the reversal of this country on climate action and what that means for the broader world?
Attenborough: Well, I mean, it’s a big blow. Can’t deny that. This country, the United States, consumes more and takes more from the natural world per capita than anybody in the entire globe. So to have people here denying it is a huge problem, and we have to do our best [despite that]. It doesn’t mean to say, “Well, in that case we’ll forget about it.” We can’t. It makes it more and more urgent that we keep going.
WP: This series certainly tries to highlight the problems facing the natural world and the dangers posed by climate change, and it carries this conservation message. Maybe less clear — to all of us — are what the solutions are. And I wonder what you see as some of the main solutions? And more important, how optimistic are you that we as a people can act?
Attenborough: I mean, the main problem, of course, is carbon. And a high proportion of our energy — the dominant source — has been from dealing with carbon, and we have to get out of that. We have the technology. There are problems — problems in storage, for example, storing electricity and power. It’s a difficult one to do. We haven’t done it properly ... Think if it cost almost nothing to take energy from the Sahara in the middle of Africa, for example, and feed it to, say, southern Europe for nothing? I mean [the sun] is up; we’ve got it all the time. Why aren’t we using it? And if you get the scientific brains of the world to turn themselves to that problem — if this country can send men to the moon, you know, I’m jolly sure that if it put its mind to it, it could solve that particular problem of electricity.
WP: On a personal note, do you have any intentions of winding down in any way? Is there always a next project? What gets you out of bed each day?
Attenborough: What’s getting me out of bed initially, of course, is that I can think of nothing nicer than spending my time looking at the natural world. But what gets me out of bed, too, is the knowledge that I have grandchildren — I don’t have great-grandchildren yet, but I hope I will have — I care about what’s going on with the next generation. And the great source of comfort I have is that younger people today are more activated than they have ever been. And if you want to take a section of the population and see where is the anxiety — it is them. It is their world. We have messed it up. My generation certainly have messed it up, and we’re giving it to them.
WP: When you see young people recently, just few weeks ago, marching basically all over the world — when you look at that, what do you see, as someone generations ahead of them?
Attenborough: I mean, strikes are a way of expressing a strong feeling that you have, but they don’t solve it. You don’t solve anything by striking. But you do change opinion, and you do change politicians’ opinions. And that’s why strikes are worthwhile.

Links

Climate Change: Yes, Your Individual Action Does Make A Difference

The Conversation

Song_about_summer / shutterstock
What can we do in the face of the climate emergency? Many say we should drive less, fly less, eat less meat. But others argue that personal actions like this are a pointless drop in the ocean when set against the huge systemic changes that are required to prevent devastating global warming.
It’s a debate that has been raging for decades. Clearly, in terms of global greenhouse gas emissions, a single person’s contribution is basically irrelevant (much like a single vote in an election). But my research, first in my masters and now as part of my PhD, has found that doing something bold like giving up flying can have a wider knock-on effect by influencing others and shifting what’s viewed as “normal”.
In a survey I conducted, half of the respondents who knew someone who has given up flying because of climate change said they fly less because of this example. That alone seemed pretty impressive to me. Furthermore, around three quarters said it had changed their attitudes towards flying and climate change in some way. These effects were increased if a high-profile person had given up flying, such as an academic or someone in the public eye. In this case, around two thirds said they fly less because of this person, and only 7% said it has not affected their attitudes.
I wondered if these impressionable people were already behaving like squeaky-clean environmentalists, but the figures suggested not. The survey respondents fly considerably more than average, meaning they have plenty of potential to fly less because of someone else’s example.
Flights can make up a big part of your carbon footprint. motive56 / shutterstock
To explore people’s reasoning, I interviewed some of those who had been influenced by a “non-flyer”. They explained that the bold and unusual position to give up flying had: conveyed the seriousness of climate change and flying’s contribution to it; crystallised the link between values and actions; and even reduced feelings of isolation that flying less was a valid and sensible response to climate change. They said that “commitment” and “expertise” were the most influential qualities of the person who had stopped flying.

Letting fly
It’s not all a bed of roses, of course. Flying represents freedom, fun and progress. It boosts the economy and can provide precious travel opportunities. So suggesting that everyone should fly less, which may seem the implicit message of someone who gives up flying because of climate change, can lead to arguments and confrontation. One person for example said that my gently worded survey was “fascist and misinformed”. You don’t get that when you ask about washing-up liquid.
My research also probed ideas of inconsistency and hypocrisy. In short, people hate it. If Barack Obama takes a private jet and has a 14-vehicle entourage to get to a climate change conference, or a celebrity weeps for the climate while rocking a huge carbon footprint, it doesn’t go down well. And if future laws are introduced to reduce flying because of climate change, it looks essential that politicians will have to visibly reduce their flying habits, too. Other research has shown that calls for emissions reductions from climate scientists are much more credible if they themselves walk the talk.

IMAGE
That people are influenced by others is hardly a shocking result. Psychology researchers have spent decades amassing evidence about the powerful effects of social influence, while cultural evolution theory suggests we may have evolved to follow the example of those in prestigious positions because it helped us survive. Pick up any book on leadership in an airport shopping mall and it will likely trumpet the importance of leading by example.
Which raises the question: if our political and business leaders are serious about climate change, shouldn’t they be very visibly reducing their own carbon footprints to set an example to the rest of us? This is now the focus of my research.

But why me?
Global emissions inequality. Oxfam
Weaving an invisible thread through all of the above is the thorny issue of fairness and inequality. The wealthiest 10% of the global population are responsible for 50% of emissions, and plenty of that will be due to flying. In the UK, around 15% of people take 70% of the flights, while half of the population don’t fly at all in any one year. As emissions from aviation become an ever increasing slice of the total (currently around 9% in the UK, 2% globally) this inequality will become harder for everyone to ignore.
In the mean time, the debate about personal vs. collective action will continue. My research supports the arguments that this is a false dichotomy: individual action is part of the collective. So, while you won’t save the world on your own, you might be part of the solution.

Links

We Have The Tools To Beat Climate Change. Now We Need To Legislate

World Economic Forum - Dietmar Siersdorfer

More efficient gas turbines could save money and emissions across the MENA region - but this requires political will. Image: REUTERS/Fahad Shadeed
While climate change is right on our doorstep and threatening to wreak havoc, the radical global action that could make a difference is still absent. Population growth and carbon emissions remain unabated. Cities are expanding at an alarming rate, adding 50 million people per year.
By 2050, almost 70% of the world’s population is expected to live in cities, up from 55% at present.
It seems like an insurmountable challenge. But with available technology, we can make decisions today that will positively impact our future and that of generations to come.
Knowing what we know about cities today - their impact on the environment, the huge amount of energy consumed by buildings and city infrastructure, and their carbon footprint - I believe we need to start there. And I am going to focus on energy.
Buildings consume more energy than industry or mobility. We eat, sleep, work, shop and spend most of our leisure time in buildings. Whether they’re skyscrapers or single-unit homes, buildings collectively have an undeniable impact on the environment around us.
Consider this: buildings consume more than 40% of all energy generated globally. But by using smart, energy-efficient building technologies, we can reduce buildings’ energy consumption by 30-40%.
Energy you don’t use is energy you don’t have to generate. If less energy is required in buildings, power plants don’t need to produce as much. This will also bring down emissions from power plants, as well as the amount of natural resources burned for electricity generation.
So how do we go about realising this? Legislation is key. We cannot afford to wait for individuals to do the right thing. Pockets of change are insufficient to address such an enormous challenge. Countries and cities can act boldly and implement legislation that encourages the conversion of existing buildings into energy-saving structures, while making sure that upcoming ones are built with smart technologies in the first place.
There is also a monetary business case for this. We have proved that building technology can pay for itself within two years and helps owners achieve savings after that. They also create better environments for the people living or working in them. Happier and more productive people build stronger economies, after all.
Most of the buildings in the biggest cities globally are the same ones we will inhabit 25 years from now. There’s a strong case for retrofitting them with technology that can achieve energy savings, such as sensors and building-management systems. We have implemented this with many of our customers globally and have seen impressive results in the world’s top sustainable buildings. It is possible and within reach - as long as we can create awareness and understanding that smart buildings must become a central pillar of national energy strategies.
But it’s not only about buildings. We can apply the same concept to power plants. While the share of renewables is increasing globally, fossil fuels are still expected to make up a large percentage of the energy mix while we transition to cleaner energy. Therefore, making fossil-fuel power plants more efficient is also key. By modernising power plants and replacing old turbines with new, highly energy-efficient models, we can make a big difference to fossil fuel consumption and the production of emissions.
We now have gas turbine technology that can generate electricity at efficiency levels of more than 63%. Yet many countries around the world still have ageing power plants operating at efficiencies of 40% or lower. Energy efficiency refers to using less fuel to achieve more power. At a gas power plant with 63% efficiency, 63% of the gas used in power production creates electricity, while the rest is converted to heat. This paints a clear picture of the savings we can achieve on various fronts.
As with buildings, there is a clear business case for energy efficiency. We can get more from the finite resources we have such as oil and gas, while reducing emissions and fuel costs endured by governments. Egypt is a great example, where the government now saves $1.3 billion in fuel costs annually thanks to energy-efficient power plants.
As with buildings, reductions in emissions from power plants is also attainable today. To achieve significant results, we need to implement this on a large scale by bringing in legislation to do away with low-efficiency, highly polluting power plants.
Making this world inhabitable and sustainable for the 9.8 billion people we expect to populate it by 2050 is a big feat, but one we can accomplish together.
By bringing together know-how from the private sector and public legislation to implement new technologies, the journey to combating climate change has already started. Will you join us?

Links

Do You Pass These Climate Change Tests?

BBCChristiana Figueres

Christiana Figueres, who helped secure the Paris Climate Change Agreement in 2015, spoke to Emma Barnett on BBC Radio 5 Live. She shared her top five things that she thinks we, as individuals, could do to help the environment.
Ms Figueres is the former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. She now uses her organisation Mission 2020 to pressure countries to do more to stop global warming.

1. What do you eat?
(Photo: Getty)
"Make sure that you are not eating high carbon - which means not eating red meat every single day - if you’re eating red meat for seven days a week, begin with six, five, four - just yesterday I had a fantastic plant-based hamburger.
"There are options on the market, make sure you’re not signalling to the market that you remain in the red meat camp.

2. How do you transport yourself?
(Photo: Getty Images)



"If you are driving a high-carbon vehicle and if you’re the only person in the vehicle - that’s totally irresponsible.
"Move to public transport, move to shared vehicles, move to bicycles, move to all of the other transport means that are much more responsible.

3. Is your home insulated?
(Photo: Getty Images)
"4.5 million homes in the UK are not properly insulated. Instead of warming our homes do we have to warm up the entire neighbourhood?
"Can we insulate homes so that we’re only using the energy that we really need as opposed to wasting energy, and paying through the nose for energy that is unnecessary.

4. Where are your finances?
(Photo: Getty Images)
"Those of use of a certain age that by now have some disposable capital should know, where are our savings invested?
"If they’re invested in high carbon, not only is that irresponsible to the planet, it’s also irresponsible for yourself because you’re going to lose the value of those assets.

5. How do you vote?
(Photo: Getty Images)
"For those of use who live in a democracy, how do we vote?
"Are we voting for those public leaders at local and national level who understand what’s going on and are willing and courageous enough to take the decisions and implement the measures which are necessary."

Links