1 Episode results for "Francis Marlow"
Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network: TED Radio Hour (June 8, 2019)
"The old guests yard tools of met their match right now. The Home Depot has Father's Day savings on the ego, fifty six volt cordless from rim blower combo. Kitty just two hundred forty nine bucks. It has the performance of gas without the hassle. It's too powerful tools powered by fifty six volt lithium ion battery platform and right now it's at a price. No one can match today's the day for doing with the ego, trimmer, and lower combo just to forty nine only at the Home Depot. More saving, more doing. While supplies last. Right now. You can get both sprints unlimited plan and the all new Samsung. Galaxy S ten included for just thirty five dollars per month per line for five lines. All you need is approved credit in eighteen month lease no trade in required. Visit sprint stores sprint dot com or call eight hundred sprint one fifty dollars a month after twenty to fifty credit applied within two bills earlier maintenance doing limited basic after six thirty twenty eight thirty two dollars per month per line for five lines with auto pay data deprioritization during conditions. Be maximum. Restrictions apply. Support for NPR and the following message come from the gateway a podcast from Saint Louis public radio. Offering daily dose of local news to keep you informed about issues that impact your life. Download the gateway anywhere you get your podcasts. Hey everyone before we start the show a bit of news. So some of you may know of another podcast host, it's called how I built this, and it's a show about the world's rate is living entrepreneurs anyway, last year after a year of doing live shows, we decided we wanted a deeper experience with our community. So we decided to launch a full day, how I built this summit, and it was so amazing. And fund that were doing it again this year. But this time we're doing it over two days, it's happening, October twenty second twenty third in San Francisco with support from American Express, in this year, we are doubling down on our main stage. Speakers you're going to be able to hear from and prob. Even meet some of the greatest living, founders and entrepreneurs in the world, including Sara Blakely of spanks Stewart Butterfield of slack. Kevin system and Mike Krieger of Instagram Tarek Farid of edible arrangements, David Neil amend of jet blue. Troy Carter who manage lady Gaga. Mercy Kilgore of bliss, Jen Rubio of away in many others, including special surprises, and on top of that, we'll have dozens of side sessions with experts and special guests on everything from the nuts and bolts of starting and scaling your business. Two ways of thinking in a more innovative and creative way the food is great. The coffee is great the party, a Superfund the how I built the summit is one of the best investments, you can make in your own professional and personal development and most importantly, you will meet people who will become lifelong friends and contacts. So please join us in San Francisco, October, twenty second. Twenty third at yearbook Boina center for the arts to find out more and to get your tickets. Go to summit dot. NPR dot org. This. Is Ted radio hour? Each week round breaking TED talks. Technology entertainment design, design, does that really would I've never known delivered Ted conferences around the world of the human imagination. We've had to believe in impossible thing, the true nature of reality beckons from just beyond those talks those ideas doubted for radio. From NPR. Guy rise. And this is Greta tune Burke. My name is to invite. I'm sixteen years old. I come from Sweden, and I want you to panic. Wants us to panic because our time on this planet is running out. Back in August. Two thousand eighteen Greta set outside the steps of the Swedish parliament during school hours holding a sign that read school strikes for the climate every Friday, we will sit outside the Swedish parliament's onto Sweden his mind with the Paris agreement. We everyone to do the same wherever you see. And Greta is call for action prompted other students to walk out of their classrooms and demand change in the name of global warming. Some people don't realize what's happening in some people just, they don't care and they kind of just shoving it away. Ignoring it. Seven people died because of inaction by by our government. You know. Recognize on the change in. And then only a few months after Greta had started her protest young people all over the world decided to join her a group of students around the world is planning to skip class tomorrow to protest against climate chatrooms of school students have Steinke protests around the country and around the globe. Students today went on strike for the climate school start for climate has arrived in America. Too small to make a difference. That is the fact is, she has become a bonafide climate change rockstar with constant media, requests. She's reprimanded. World leaders started a movement of hundreds of thousands of students is even been nominated for the Nobel peace prize. It's the here with you today. Together, we are making a difference. We are in the midst of the six months extension and the extinction rate is up to ten thousand times foster, though, what is considered normal with up to two hundred species becoming extinct every single day. The road should. The. Defer station of our great forests toxic air pollution. Louis offensive. The acidification of our oceans, these Trent's being accelerated by way of life that we get punished financially fortunate part of the world see as alright similar to carry on. There is no greater threat to our species than the climate crisis in two thousand eighteen we emitted more carbon into the air than any single year in all of human history. The consequences are real and they're happening right now. So today on the show, we're gonna explore ideas around the climate crisis and what we can do to stop the worst of it because the thing is we are running out of time. So can we save our planet from total disaster? Or is it already too late? Well for granted tune Berg unless we do something drastic and do it right now. That answer is yes. Here's more from Greta on the Ted stage. If I live to be one hundred I would be live in the two thousand one hundred and three. When you think about the future day you don't think beyond the two thousand fifty. By, then I will in the best case not even have lived off of my life. What happens next? The two thousand seven to eight I will celebrate my seventy fifth birthday. If I have children grandchildren may be they will spend the day with me. Maybe they will ask me about you, the people who were around back in two thousand eighteen. Maybe they we lost while you didn't do anything. Of this tables time to act. What we do don't do right now will affect my entire life and the lives of my children, and grandchildren. What we do don't do right now meet in my generation undo in the future. So when school started in August this year I decided that this was enough. I set myself down on the ground outside the Swedish parliament I- school strike for the climate. Some people say that I should be in school. Instead. Some people say that I should study to become a climate scientist so that I can solve the climate crisis. But the climate crisis has already been sold. We already have all the facts in solutions. We have to do is to wake up and change. And why should I be studying for future? That soon will be no more when no one is doing anything whatsoever to save that future. And what is the point of learning facts in the school system when the most important facts, given by the finest science of that, same school system, clearly means nothing to our politicians and our society? Some people say that Sweden is just a small country that doesn't match what we do. I think that if a few children can get headlines all over the world just by not come to school for few weeks. Imagine what we could do together. If you wanted to. Now, we're almost at the end of my talk. And this is where people, you should stop talking about hope solar panels wind power, circular economy, and so on. But I'm not going to do that. We've had thirty years of Pepa talking and selling positive ideas, and I'm sorry, but it doesn't work. Because if you would have the emissions would have gone down by now. They haven't. And yes, we do need hope, of course, we do. But the one thing we need more than hope is action. Once we start to act hope is everywhere. So instead of looking for hope look for action. Then and only then hope we've come. Today. We use one hundred million barrels of oil, every single day. The new politics to change that the on rules to keep the oil in the ground. So we come save the world by playing by the rules because the rules have to be changed. Everything needs to change. And it has to start today. Thank you. That's credit. Tune berg. She's a sixteen year old climate activist in Sweden. You can see Greg as full talk at Ted dot com. On the show today. Ideas about the climate crisis. You've probably heard that the amount of carbon in our atmosphere is already at an unprecedented level four hundred parts per million and rising. So four hundred parts per million means that for every million particles of air, four hundred of them are carbon dioxide, this is chemical engineer, Jennifer Wilcox, and that's actually a really dilute system. If we look at the exhaust of a point source, like coal fired power plant, it's three hundred terms like, dilute systems, and exhaustive, a point source they're a little hard to wrap your head around four hundred parts per million is a really important number because that's the point scientists call the carbon threshold where the climate cycle is thrown off balance. And it's a number that a lot of people are talking about now is a four hundred pots for one hundred three parts per million or one hundred and three point three parts per million last year. Hundred fifteen parts per million on Friday. It looks like from the model I was watching a congressional hearing a couple of weeks ago. We now know that definitively at no point during the past eight hundred thousand years has atmospheric CO two been as high as it is today. And former secretary of State, John Kerry was testifying about climate change, and mentioned this number four hundred parts per million. Yeah. What's the consensus on parts per million of CO two in the atmosphere about four hundred and six today? Okay. Four and a member of congress. You know, questions his credentials somebody with a pseudo science degree is here, pushing pseudoscience are you serious? I mean this really is happening here. You know what? So, you know, you say that there for parts per million in the atmosphere today. Will you know there have been times in, in this tree, the earth where there were eight hundred parts per million, and, you know, secretary Kerry responded by saying, but never never have humans on planet, earth, human beings. I mean, there was a different world folks within have cell billion. And that's that's, that's the big difference. That's right. So just I just want to sort of put that into context. So when we talk about four hundred parts per million today, it seems like a small number right? When you think of a million molecules just four hundred of those molecules are carbon dioxide, that's right. But the other thing you should keep in mind, too. It's not just carbon dioxide, you know, there's other molecules like methane and water, vapor, that also can impact the greenhouse effect. So right now, we're at a point where in the natural systems are not able to uptake all of that CO two and, and there's now extremely strong evidence that there are correlations between these this four hundred or four hundred ten parts per million in the atmosphere today, and the warming of the planet that were experiencing. So the options, we have now are no longer just plain old mitigation. In order to make an impact. We also have to do the removal piece. Okay. So just to be clear, you're, you're talking about removing carbon from the atmosphere as much as we can take to help get that number down to, to safer levels. Yeah. And then the other option is to stop emitting carbon at all. Absolutely. But I would argue they're not either or options. I think that now we're at a stage where the pressures on and we have to, you know, do both. When we come back in just a moment. Jennifer Wilcox explains how we can pull CO two out of the air. On the show today. Ideas about addressing the climate crisis. Stay with us. I'm guy Roz, and you're listening to the Ted radio hour from NPR. Hey, everyone just a quick, thanks to two of our sponsors who helped make this podcast possible. I to Salesforce, today's customers one innovative personal experiences from companies in Salesforce, customer relationship. Management solution can help. Now you can deliver the personalized experiences customers want by uniting your marketing sales. Commerce service and IT on an integrated CRM platform. Learn how Salesforce brings customers and companies together at Salesforce dot com slash NPR. Thanks also to we transferred we transfer surveyed, over ten thousand of their users nearly one hundred fifty countries and found out that people get their biggest most creative ideas when these step away from the screen. That's why everything we transferred designs makes the most of your time. There are simple and beautiful ways to bring ideas to life and get you back to yours. Find out more at leave. By we transferred dot com. Term is better to invest in the stock market or in real estate properties, m I considered underemployed because I'm paid for less than forty hours or is full time more of a feeling I'm card. Of course, Shia co host of planet. Money's the indicator where we answer these great questions from you. Our listeners every day in less than ten minutes. It's the ten radio hour from NPR guy Roz and on the show today. Ideas about the climate crisis, and we were just hearing from chemical engineer Jennifer Wilcox about removing carbon from the atmosphere. And white just curbing emissions is not enough. Have to stop emitting. CO two. But even if we stop emitting CO two, we still have to remove it from the atmosphere to prevent catastrophic warming. That's exactly right. Okay. So how do you how do we even start me? First of all, don't trees do that. It couldn't we just plant a lot of Plummer trees enforce around the world. And wouldn't that solve the problem knows planting trees is great? We need to absolutely do that. A four station or planning trees on land that didn't otherwise have trees reforestation Regan restoration of forests all of that is good. And we're going to need to do that to some extent, but eve. Even that is not going to be enough because trees cannot possibly pull enough carbon out of the atmosphere, that we need to pull out. Exactly not on the scale that we need to in. So these are the different options, we have. But in my view, the portfolio of solutions today involve both avoiding CO two and the removal of CO two from the atmosphere. So when you talk about removing CO two from the atmosphere. I mean, are you talking about, like, like a giant air purifier like the kind you might have in your in your home? But, like a an industrial strength one. Yeah. So I'll give you an example. If you think about how your water purification happens in Britta filter, say, you know, you have a charcoal filter that processes your water in that filtration process captures all of the contaminants in your water so that your water comes out, you know, cleaner. So in a similar way we design large contactors these. Units, the have a high surface area, and those contactors are filled with materials in those materials have chemicals, inside them that actually react with CO two selectively, and then those contractors would essentially, hold onto that CO two in till you are at a stage in that process where you can actually use the CO two as a feedstock for chemical process. Or maybe you inject it back into the earth because we know that a lot most of the carbon that exist on planet earth is actually sequestered, in soil in permafrost in the Arctic in the oceans. That's exactly right. But the chemical process is, is really not that different from how you're a water filtration system would work to peer FAI water. But in this case, where Pierre firing air in the contaminant is yo-, too. When can we start to deploy? I mean, let let's say we had all the money that we needed. Now, could we deploy this technology now? Absolutely. So the technology is absolutely ready. These things are happening today. The question is, how can we increase the scale at which they're happening? Here's more from Jennifer. Wilcox on the Ted stage. There's a company today, a commercial scale company that can do this as low as six hundred dollars a tonne. There are several other companies that are developing technologies that can do this, even cheaper than that one is called carbon engineering their base dot Canada. They use liquid based approach for separation. They have a clever approach that allows them to co capture the CO two from the air amd the CO two that they generate from burning the natural gas. And so by doing this, they offset excess pollution in reduce costs. So the companies that are developing these technologies are actually interested in taking this year to making something useful out of a marketable product it could be liquid fuels plastics, or even synthetic gravel in don't get me wrong. These carbon markets are great, but these are not large enough to solve our climate crisis. We also need to be willing. To invest as global society, we could have all of the clever thinking technology in the world, but it's not gonna be enough in order for this technology to have a significant impact on climate. We really need regulation. We need subsidies taxes on carbon what will be required is that for carbon neutral carbon negative, paths to be affordable for the majority of society in order to impact climate. Jennifer, what do you think that there's a disconnect between what, you know, and what many scientists know and what the public doesn't seem to really worry about all that much? That's a good question. I think that part of this is because CO two, it's a pollutant but, you know, we know that when you emit sue in the atmosphere, you, you don't get to see the sunset very well, it affects our day. And so, I think with this, you can't see CO two. It's, it's if it smelled, maybe it would be in. We would be more, you know, or if, if it was in our face every day, interrupting our view, that would be one thing, but it's difficult because it doesn't have any of these negative characteristics. But yet, we know now with pretty high certainty that these increased levels of CO, two directly correlate to the warming of our planet. But I think. Because it's just it's not as dire as some of these other pollutants in the short term in our day to day lives that we tend to just look the other way. Do you think the goal of reaching net zero emissions is realistic, and in even attainable? I think it's technically, you know, in technologically, it's absolutely realistic, and it is doable. But I think if our governments failed to act on helping to subsidize and support these efforts, it's not gonna be feasible. That's Jennifer Wilcox. She's a professor at Worcester polytechnic institute, you can see Jennifer's full talk at Ted dot com. On the show today. Ideas about the climate crisis. This period is now the warmest in the history of modern civilization things like increased droughts, increased heat waves. And some cases, increased flooding dean of Arctic sea is, and basically Shire's sheets and Artika, you also have ocean acidification, which is already damaged the crisis is so urgent that it raises a question can humans come together to solve it? Yeah. It's a very difficult problem. But we've actually come together before to solve another global environmental crisis the hole in the ozone layer. That's right. And this example could serve as a model for climate change. It happened in one thousand nine hundred eight and it was called the Montreal protocol the Montreal protocol is, essentially the first in only example of a successful international. Final agreement to protect the environment. This is Sean Davis. I mean, this treaty is the first universally ratified treaty ever that has one hundred ninety three countries that have signed it the former secretary general of the UN, Koufi, non said that it's perhaps, the single most successful international agreement to date. So I think that, that knowledge of how you can use scientific information to inform policy. Like we've been here before Schanzer, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. So I really focus on the stratosphere, which is layer of the atmosphere above where we live in the troposphere, and that's really where the ozone layer occurs, and the ozone layer is the earth, sunscreen that protects us from deadly ultraviolet radiation from the sun like this. Yeah, we need this thing. That's right. And in fact, I believe there's evidence that life did not come out of the ocean until there was an ozone layer overhead, it's not an exaggeration to say that the threat to the ozone layer is a threat to human safety, that Davis on the Ted stage. But before we get to the Montreal protocol, and how it saved the ozone layer. We have to go back to the nineteen seventies win some questionable choices were made first of all. Hairstyles, second of all, objectively terrible quantities of hairspray and third. CFC's chlorofluorocarbons manmade chemicals that were used as propellant in aerosol, spray cans and see it turns out the problem because they were destroying the ozone layer, and actually ironically, it was human safety, that motivated, the invention of CFC's in the first place, you see in the early days of refrigeration, refrigerators use toxic and flammable chemicals like propane and ammonia. For good reason, the refrigeration industry wanted to safe alternative, and they found that in nineteen twenty eight when a scientist, named Thomas midgely synthesize. The first commercially viable CFC's at the time CFC's were a really remarkable invention. They allowed what we now know is modern day refrigeration in hair conditioning and other things. Okay. So CFC's were created in the nineteen twenties, and for while they seemed pretty useful. But then what happened? Well, so really these were sort of wonder chemicals because unlike all these other chemicals that have been used before they were completely nontoxic and nonflammable. So you could literally inhale some of this stuff and it wouldn't hurt you at all. Well, you could blow out a candle it wouldn't cause a huge explosion. These were really fascinating chemicals that people could use, and they lead to this sort of explosion of uses in refrigeration, modern day, air conditioning, blowing a foam. They had all kinds of uses as industrial solvents, electron IX manufacturing. But ironically, the thing that made them most useful, also made the most dangerous. It wasn't actually until. Over forty years later in the nineteen seventies when scientists realized that CFC's would breakdown high in the atmosphere and damage the ozone layer, and this finding really set off a lot of public concern led, ultimately, to the banning of CFC usage in aerosol, spray cans in the US and a few other countries in nineteen seventy eight. Now, the story doesn't in there because CFC's were used in much more than just spray cans in nineteen eighty five scientists discovered the anti Arctic ozone hole. And this was a truly alarming discovery. Scientists did not expect this at all before the Arctic ozone hole. Scientists expected maybe a five or ten percent reduction in ozone over a century. But what they found over the course of less than a decade was that more than a third of the ozone had simply vanished over an area larger than the size of the US, and all we now know that CFC's are the root cause of this ozone. Whole at the time the science was far from settled yet despite this uncertainty. The crisis helped spur nations to act. So there's a green everybody agrees. The problem and, and the US government signs this treaty with countries around the world. I guess. Right. The Montreal protocol the basically says, we're done CFC's done, and we're gonna fix this. Is that more or less would happen? Well, not quite okay. The Montreal protocol was was actually sort of a baby step. It turns out so the very first iteration of the Montreal protocol was actually only to decrease the production of CFC's by about fifty percent before the year two thousand. You know, the initial protocol was a perfect, but it really allowed setup the framework by which we could really hit the brakes on ozone depletion. And that's really what happened. So in the decade plus since Montreal was signed. It's actually been amended and strengthened eight times. And so you go from this thing that's really a baby step two now, complete phase out of CFC's and not only complete phase out of CFC's in replacement of those, but replacements of the replacements, and we're now seeing that this has been really successful in. I think that's the most optimistic thing to me about the Montreal protocol. And the ozone story is that it did seem insurmountable and looking back on it. Now you can see. Well, yeah. What we did that we phased out ozone-depleting substances. We've saved the ozone layer. And not to say it wasn't easy. But it wasn't as hard as people. I think it's worth asking the question as we face our current environmental crisis. Global warming. What lessons can we learn from Montreal are there any, I think there are I we don't need absolute certainty to act. When Montreal signed, we were less certain VIN of the risks from CFC's than we are now of the risks from greenhouse gas, emissions second. It takes a village to raise a healthy environment. The Montreal protocol wasn't just put together by industry and governments or environmental advocacy groups and scientists it was put together by all of them. And if we're going to solve warming, it's going to take actions at all levels from the individual to the international and everything in between. Third lesson. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Well, Montreal has become the brake pedal for stopping ozone depletion and it's beginning. It was more just like a tap on the brakes. It was actually the later amendments to the protocol that really marked the decision to hit the brakes on those onto pollution. So to those who despair that the Paris climate accord, didn't go far enough, or that you're limited actions on their own won't solve global warming. I say, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Okay. So I hear what you're saying about the parallels with the Paris accord. Right. But at the same time, the US was on board with the Montreal protocol, right? Like I, I don't remember anyone saying the hole in the ozone layer was a hoax, like everybody agreed. It was a big problem, and we had to solve it. That's right. That's one of the surprising things in sort of looking back on. This issue is. Really, we did at chief, a sort of bipartisan consensus in the US that this was a problem, and that's actually evidence of that is that the Montreal protocol was unanimously ratified by the US Senate in nineteen eighty eight. Yeah. I mean, I don't even know if I can imagine anything getting unanimous, ratification that, you know, motherhood and apple pyre good anymore. Yeah. But have to think that Carmen just seems just by an order of magnitude more complex, right? I mean I mean CFC's are seas but, but, like carbon emissions power, the global economy. That's right. Right. I mean fossil fuels are still king. And so I mean can you really apply the principles Montreal too? You know, a treaty that basically does the same with carbon emissions, you know, that's right. There are really important differences between the ozone problem in the carbon problem. And so, in the ozone problem, you had a couple hundred chemicals couple hundred different industries involved, and, you know, no one really cares. What they're refrigerant is they just care that the frigerator works. So we just had to figure out what the replacements were, and then everything was going to be. Okay. Yeah. I think with carbon you have a situation where it's really one chemical but it's many different uses and it's fundamentally about how we produce the energy that we use to give ourselves a comfortable life. But even though the problems are quite different from one another. There is some knowledge there that can be gained. I think it helps us to contemplate the world. We've avoided. Indeed the world we've avoided by an acting the Montreal protocol is one of catastrophic changes to our environment into human wellbeing. So as we write the story for earth's climate future, for this century and beyond, we need to ask ourselves what will our actions be so that someone can stand on this stage in thirty or fifty or one hundred years to celebrate the world that they've avoiding. That's Sean Davis. He's a research scientist at Noah, you can see his full talk at Ted dot com. On the show today. Ideas about the climate crisis. Stay with us. I'm guy Roz, and you're listening to the Ted radio hour from NPR. Support for this podcast and the following message. Come from the Glen livid Sonal majoria, vice president of marketing is trying to change people's perception of scotch. But the idea that scotches the drink of the old boys club is hard to dismantle. It's not complicated. It's sophisticated but the category hasn't done a great job of being inviting and welcoming we need to continue to evolve with the consumer. To learn more about the Glenn leave. It's new place in the modern world. Visit the Glenn livid guardians dot com. Enjoy responsibly. Support also comes from the gateway a new podcast from Saint Louis public radio. If you listen to NPR podcasts to be informed on top stories in the nation and the world. Now, you can also get informed about what's going on in the Saint Louis region. With the gateway. Stay up to date on the region's top stories and here longer stories to help you understand issues and events. Download the gateway every weekday morning anywhere you get your. Casts and stay in tune with local news. Human behaviour doesn't always make a ton of sense. At least on the surface, I said, would you mind if I give the dogs a little piece of cracker with some hot sauce on it, and without and see what they choose hidden brain a spicy podcast about science psychology. And why people do what they do. It's the Ted radio hour from NPR. I'm guy Roz and on the show today ideas about how we can stop the worst effects of global warming and save our planet. And what the way we might be able to do that is, by changing our diets and eating a lot less meat. I read a book called diet for a small planet by Francis morla pay and Francis Marlow, pay basically, makes the argument that in order to eat meat we have to grow massive amounts of crops that we then funnel through animals. This is Bruce Friedrich. He's co founder of a nonprofit called the good food institute the most recent statistics from the world Resources Institute indicate that it takes about nine calories fed to a chicken to get one calorie backout in the form of chicken meat, and chickens are the most efficient animal. So you're talking about nine times as much land nine times as much water nine times as many pesticides, herbicides on the crops. And then you have to ship all of those crops to feed you to operate the feed mill you have to ship the feed to the factory farm, you have to operate the factory farm, you have to ship the animals to the slaughterhouse, you have to operate the slaughterhouse. Once you crunch all of those numbers. And all of that inefficiency what we find is that meat production. According to the United Nations causes about fourteen point five percent of all human caused climate change globally. That's more than transportation. So the animal agriculture industry causes more climate change than all of the cars and the trains, and the planes than all forms of transportation combined. Here's more from Bruce Friedrich on the Ted stage. I'm gonna get one thing out of the way. I am not here to tell anybody what to eat besides convincing the world to eat less meat. Hasn't worked for fifty years environmentalists, global health experts and animal activists have been begging the public to eat less meat and yet per capita consumption is highest it's been in recorded history. The average North American last year eight more than two hundred pounds of meat and I didn't eat any. Which means somebody out there. Eight four hundred pounds of me. On our current trajectory, we're going to need to be producing seventy to one hundred percent more by twenty fifty this requires a global solution. What we need to do is we need to produce the meat that people love, but we need to produce it in a whole new way. I've got a couple of ideas idea number one. Let's grow meat from plants instead of growing plants feeding them to animals, and all of that inefficiency. Let's grow those plants. Let's bio mimic, meet with them. Let's make plant based meat idea number two for actual animal meat. Let's grow it directly from cells. Instead of growing live animals. Let's grow the cells directly, take six weeks to grow chicken to slaughter weight, grow the cells directly. You can get that same growth in six days. All right. Let's talk through this, because we know there are lots of people working on this, and we've heard of lab, grown meat, and there's different kinds of plant based meat alternatives that are trying to mimic the texture of meat and so on. And it's nearly there on a consumer level. But I mean how would it work? Like, how do you actually turn like create real meat or, or meet? That is indistinguishable from animal meat from plants. Well, one of the central brainstorms here is that people eat meat despite how it's produced. They do not eat meat because of how it's produced. So the guy who is the chair of the Ag economics department, at Purdue, a guy named Jason Lusk did a survey and found that more than forty five percent of Americans want to ban slaughter houses, and of course ninety eight percent of Americans are eating meat. So that's a pretty big disconnect. And the main point there is that people are uncomfortable with factory farm. So if people can make choices that are better for the environment. They will. So that's sort of point one and then point to is everything in meet exists in plants meat is made up of lipids and amino and minerals and water. That's. Yes, it so it's not going to be, you know, it's difficult. It's going to take resources it's hard. But until Ethan Brown came along with beyond meat and Pat Brown came along with impossible foods. The idea of plant based meat was not, let's hire tissue, engineers and plant biologists and meet scientists, like the central brainstorm of impossible foods and beyond to meet is, we can give people, the taste the texture and everything else that they like about me, but we can do it with plants. We just need to hire the right scientists. In recent years, some companies have been producing meat from plants that consumers cannot distinguish from actual intimate. And there are now dozens of companies growing actual animal meat directly from selves, this plant based in cell based meat gives consumers everything that they love about me, the taste texture and so on. But with no need for antibiotics and with a fraction of the adverse impact on the climate, and because these two technologies are so much more efficient at production scale these products will be cheaper. So one of the really exciting things about beyond me and impossible foods is they have sort of thrown down the gauntlet of our target market for these plant based meets is not that you're -tarian 's, it is everybody and you eat the beyond burger you eat the beyond chicken, which fooled both Mark Pitman from the New York Times, and Bill Gates, a very big meter like these products as well as the impossible burger, which fooled the taste testers at Burger King. Like these are phenomenal plant base meats and their plant based meat for really everybody, then the other product, which is distinct product the clean meat, so Labra meet us a misnomer, every processed food starts in food lab. Budweiser starts in food laughter every package cereal starts in food lab. But we don't say lab-grown Cheerios we refer to clean meet as a nod to clean energy. So meet grown directly from cells is. Is meet. That is better for the environment in the same way that clean energy is energy, that's better for the environment. And this is again instead of growing an entire animal. Let's grow the cells directly. Yeah. I mean I mean, here's the thing, right? Like the theme of this episode is time that the effects of climate change are here. What you're talking about. It needs to happen now. But how do we get this to happen faster? How do we expedite this process? Well, we need, we need something like Manhattan project level moon landing level, resources, put into reinventing, meet, we are at house on fire or climate change is concerned. So we are probably on a trajectory right now where the market will get us to plant based meat and sell based meat over time. But we don't really have that much time. So governments that care about these issues should be prioritizing it, making it happen as quickly as possible happen. That's Bruce Friedrich. He's co founder and executive director of the good food institute. You can see his full talk at Ted dot com. My sense, is that when most people hear about climate change, faith think, you know, it'll be fine. I just I don't live near the coast, or I'll just move inland. Thursday. That's how a lot of people just see it. This is the issue. We see in surveys that if all people is little warming problem or big challenge for the world. They say almost everybody. Yes. And then if you all is this going to post you a personal risk, or really harm you or your family, and most people say, no is Paris been still kness? I teach at the new business school in green economics. Also climate psychologist researching in how people respond to the climate science and climate news pass Ben has been trying to figure out why it's so hard to communicate the urgency of climate change to most people. Most people have recognized taking end global warming is happening. The problem is making it relevant to our everyday actions, so that it feels in the air personal and urgent. So it's not. Really an issue of understanding on the cognitive level. It's more an emotional and behavioral level that we need to address through his research Paris has identified several psychological inner defenses that really influence how people think act about climate change. Here's more from Paris been stoke nece on the Ted stage. When people hear news about the climate coming straight up first defense comes up rapidly distance when we hear about the climate, we hear about something far away in space, think Arctic ice bears for a win time, think two thousand one hundred. Since it feels so far away from me. It seems outside my circle of influence. There's nothing I can do. Next defenses doom climate, change, is usually framed as a looming disaster that makes us fearful, but after the first fear is gone, my brain soon wants to avoid this topic altogether thirty fences dissonance if what we know that fossil fuel use contributes to global warming conflicts with what we do dry. Fly eat beef, then socal cognitive dissonance sets in to get rid of this, discomfort, our brain starts coming up with justifications, so I can say for instance changing my diet doesn't amount to anything. If I'm the only one to do it. So these justification make us all feel better. But at the expense of this missing what we know, my personal kogo, dissonance comes up when I recognized that I've been flying from Oslo to New York and back to slow in order to speak about the climate. So that won't that makes me want to move onto denial. Denial doesn't really come from lack of intelligence or knowledge. No denial is a state of mind in which I may be aware of some troubling knowledge, but a live and act as if I don't know, and often this is reinforced by others. My family or community agreeing not to race. This tricky topic. Finally identity alarmed climate activists demand that government takes action either regulation or carbon taxes. Well, if I hold conservative values, for instance, I probably prefer big proper cars and small government over tiny, tiny cars, and huge government. And if climate science comes, and then says government should expand further than probably will just that science less in this way, cultural identity. Starts to override the facts, and my identity Trump's truth and day. So they're all these inner defenses that you identified that the block, most of us from seeing the urgency of climate change. And then obviously they stop us from doing anything. So how do you counter those defenses like what's the solution? We are social animal. So when I hear about something that's very abstract like PPM levels, the Arctic far away from me it doesn't feel near what fields near is what my friends are doing what my kids are doing what my colleagues job is doing. And if they are up to something with climate, then fields near and personal for me to do it as well. There's this quite famous studied by vogue chill Dini professor of psychology he all four thousand household to conserve power at home. I one thousand we're all to conserve power, because that's sustainable. It's good for the planet. The second thousand households where all conserve power because they should think about the children, the grandchildren the future, the third thousand or told how much they could save money by cutting their power consumption the fourth thousand where told how much they use compared to the neighbors on each time to studies conducted, we find that the largest drop in power us and loan. Most sustained changes in the fourth group, those who are compared with the neighbors. So we can flip this dense to social. We can make climate few near personal urgent by spreading social norms that are positive to solutions. If I believe my friends, and neighbors, we do something, then I will too. Next, we can flip doom to supportive, rather than backfiring, frames, such disaster and cost, we can re frame climate as being about new tech. Oh, but Unity's about safety about new jobs. Then we can flip dissonance to similar actions. This is often called nudging, the idea is better choice. Architecture, we can make the climate friendly behaviors default and comedian this goes down as more behaviors on nuts, then flip denial. But tailoring signals that visualize our progress. We can provide motivating feedback on how well we're doing with. I'm problem solving. Finally, we can flip identity with Betty stories, our brain love stories, so we'd need better stories where we all want to go, I would need more stories of the heroes and hearings of all stripes, that are making real change happen. So para spin during this entire episode right? We've, we've been hearing about how urgent the climate crisis is like this is a house on fire. So wonder I mean, do you think that these flips as you call them can work at scale and actually build a critical mass for change? Absolutely to. My hope is that we will see like ripples in boarder building of critical, mass, just like the resistance was slavery or women's voting's rights, or civil rights movement in the sixties, and the resistance of the Vietnam war. And there's this whole huge most invisible network of people doing something building momentum and you see, no progress, no progress, no progress with year on year on year on year. But still this building a social movement around it. And then suddenly at some point tipping point comes, and then it goes from a committed minority to majority, and I'm sure this is going to happen. Big. What I'm not sure about. It's timing. Is it this summer? Or is it two hundred twenty two thousand twenty five? Certainly looking forward to it. And that's why I feel so heartened about school strikes, for instance, to get tuned. They seem to be adding to this invisible network building momentum towards the critical mass. That's Perez, spin stoke nece. He's a psychologist and on the communist at the Norwegian business school in Oslo. You can see his full talk at Ted dot com. Hey, thanks for listening to our show about the climate crisis this week, if you want to find out more about who was on it, go to Ted NPR dot org, and to see hundreds more, TED talks checkout dot com or the Ted up our production staff at NPR includes Jeff Rodgers Santa's Michigan. Poor Janie west Neva grant, Casey Herman, Rachel, Faulkner, DiBa, Malta, Shaam, James, Dila hoochie, and chase e Howard with help from Daniel Shchukin, and Katie. Montel Yonne, our intern is a manual Johnson our partners at Ted are Chris Anderson, Colin Helms, and Phelan and Janet leave, I'm guy Roz, and you've been listening to ideas. We're spreading right here on the Ted radio hour from NPR. Truly embracing your complexities means rejecting anything that can harm you are, like smoking cigarettes, which can damage nearly every part of your body tap, the bannered Seymour, this free like freedom to be tobacco-free truly embracing your complexities means rejecting anything that can harm you are, like smoking cigarettes, which can damage nearly every part of your body tap, the banner to see more this free like freedom to be tobacco free.