Food & Climate?

Food & Climate?


WILL ROSENZWEIG: Here we go. Good evening! Good evening everyone and
welcome to Edible Education 101. This is our eighth class
meeting of the 2018 course. Pleasure to have you all
with us again tonight. To start the class, we
have a special announcement from Nuriya about the Global
Social Venture Competition. NURIYA: Thank you. [INAUDIBLE] I have a one day
conference which is called the Future
of Social Ventures. And in the morning, we’re
going to have two workshops. One is on design thinking
led by Open Ideal, and another one on
impact investing led by [? Omnivar. ?] We also
have two keynote speakers. And we will learn
their journeys. It’s Leila [? Jenna. ?] She
is this founder of [? Sama ?] Source, and Carlos [? Reyana, ?]
the founder of [? Salauno. ?] In the afternoon we’ll also hear
the pitch from the top six US teams that will try to get a
spot to compete for the final of Global Social
Competition in Milan, Italy. So if you have any
other information, just visit JSVC.org, and I’ll
leave some flyers in here. WILL ROSENZWEIG:
Thank you, Nuriya. It’s a really worthwhile event
that started 20 years ago here at Haas. And it’s spawned
and supported a lot of really notable social
ventures and entrepreneurs through the years. So if you can get involved,
it’s a great program. And if you’re on a team and you
win, you get to go to Milan. Not bad. We have a very special
guest with us tonight, Paul Hawken, who is
the executive director of the Drawdown.org
project, among other things. And I’m going to introduce
him in a few minutes. But it’s a great honor to
have you with us today, Paul. You remember last week we got
a full tour of Full Belly Farms and Sierra Orchards. How many people enjoyed those
walnuts, and are still– Yeah, that was very
generous of Craig to bring us all those walnuts. That got me thinking a
lot about this connection we have with the
farmers and the role that they are playing in really
sustaining our well being, and how much they depend
on us to sustain theirs. And it really brought to
light this food system. I’m going to just share a little
bit of this for you, Paul, really so you can kind of
see what the class is about. We’re trying to help
understand the food system. And this is kind
of a linear diagram of the system of supply. But we’ve also been looking
at the system of human health and the system of environmental
health in context too. And I’ve been trying for years
and years in my own career to model this, to sort of tell
this story of the integration and the interdependence of human
health and planetary health. And this was a graphic that I
came up with about 10 years ago that sort of took the drawing
from a Tibetan medical text with the chakras, and
superimposed it on the planet. This was the diagram
that I created to illustrate the thesis
for a venture capital firm, the first
one ever to invest in health and sustainable living
in a single venture capital firm. So I’m still struggling,
as you can tell, by the way the lectures are
kind of organized and the topics are organized and
even the research is organized. It’s still fairly siloed. And so in the
class, we’re really trying to bring about a
systems view of things. And I think if I
took away one thing over the last couple
of weeks, this is the importance of
the soil, and that soil needs support and
tending as well as the vegetables and the fruits. The soil needs as much
attention and care as the food we’re eating. I also saw just this week. I don’t know if you follow
chef Dan Barber on Instagram. But he had a really
cool post yesterday of what a chicory leaf
and root looks like, and a wonderful story about it. And then I also
found this week– I brought the pack
with me– but I found that honey nut
squash that he showed us. The seeds are
available in the store. So if you’re interested in
planting any of those seeds, see me before the
semester’s over, and maybe we can get
those going as well. Be kind of fun. They’re supposed to
be very vigorous. And they grow right up a vine. And they produce many fruits. This is a little hard to
see, but another thing that we read earlier
in the semester, Paul, was Donella Meadows
Dancing with Systems. And I was thinking about if you
look at the speakers we’ve had, they almost match up
beautifully with Donella’s list. Allison and Eric
Schlosser really helped us get the beat at
the beginning of the course and also to listen to
the wisdom of the system. I think Saru and Clare Brown
with Buddhist economics really brought us some
insight into exposing our mental models, staying
humble, being a learner, and really honoring and
protecting information. And David Katz and
others really talked about locating
responsibility in the system and making feedback
policies for feedback. And tonight, I think
we’re going to really go much deeper into
going for the good of the whole, the common. Really, the common
responsibility we have for the commons. We’re going to definitely
have to stretch and think about the time horizons that
we’re making decisions in. We’re going to have to expand
this boundary of caring. We’re going to have to
care for not only ourselves and our communities, our
friends, our relatives, but we’re going to have to care
for the community of planet Earth and humankind. And certainly, you’re
going to learn a lot more about complexity tonight. And of course, Donella’s
famous last words is to hold fast to goodness. So one of the things I
heard a lot about last week too was this
reciprocity on the farm, between the multi-generational
relationships that we’re developing. And one of the things that
I found really striking– we talked about reciprocity
earlier in the semester. But in Paul’s book
Drawdown, there’s a really nice essay
by Janine Benyus. And she talks about
that as human beings we’ve been focused
on competition. And she talks about grasses
and trees and forests competing for resources. But she says that
we under appreciate the cooperation and even
the role of the chaperone in stewarding complex
ecosystems toward vitality and sustainability. And it made me think about
where we as human beings are in a state of reciprocity
with our food system. And I’m hoping that Paul will
elaborate on that further. Before we go any
further, we’re going to do the attendance
really quickly. Because you did your
reading last week– and thank you to all
of you that gave us some good positive
and critical feedback on the midterm
evaluation last week. And good for you,
all of you that have already turned
in your paper that’s just due in 5 and 1/2 hours. Everybody got it in already? Good. Those of you that aren’t
here, are still working on it. So this week’s
question is simple. But we’re kind of
interested to get a poll. Are you registered to vote? Yes or no? Good. That’s pretty good. And the next
question is, will you vote in the November
election when we’ll be voting for our governor? That’s good. The New York Times
said this week that student turnout on
campuses is disappointingly low. And they actually identified
a whole bunch of districts where if just a modest amount
of the college age population would have voted, that the
outcomes in different districts would have been
entirely different. And we’re talking about like
3,000 votes, 5,000 votes. So you remember hearing a bit
about the farm bill last week, and the people that
shaped that farm bill? Your vote really counts. Also in the New
York Times today– did you see this one? This article, more
of the Bay Area could be underwater in 2100
than previously expected. So this is what’s
starting to come out now. The scientists have
been telling us. And we’ve been getting
kind of rosy forecasts. But check this map out
that comes along with it. This is basically San Francisco
International and Oakland International Airport
under water in 80 years. So under water. So think about what kind
of planning or remediation is going to have to take place. This is today. This is in the paper today. So without further
ado, I’m going to introduce to you someone
very important to me. I’ll just remind Paul. Paul was a very important mentor
to me very early in my career when I had this wild idea to
get this tea company started. He was very
generous, and he said I know somebody that
knows a lot about tea. And I think it was a
board member of yours, or an investor of
yours, David Bacon. And Paul said here’s his number. Go to London and meet him. And that trip sort
of changed my life. And I think the gift
of that generosity that you gave to me infused
me with the commitment to mentorship that I have. I feel like that you
didn’t have to do that. I think you even let me sleep in Your house for the week to
while I was getting this going. So he was very generous. And for those of
you that don’t know, Paul also wrote a book
that was incredibly important and valuable
to a whole generation of entrepreneurs called
Growing a Business. And for those of us that
liked to grow things, that was kind of
a seminal vision of how an entrepreneur could
be responsible to a greater constituency than making
just a profit in the world. And Paul’s gone on
to do many things. I noticed today on
LinkedIn, some people describe themselves as
visionaries in their titles, which I always wonder about. But Paul truly is a visionary. And he’s generally 10, 15, 20,
25 years ahead of his time. And he’s generally right. And he wrote a very
important book– co-wrote a book called
Natural Capitalism, which really opened
the whole conversation around triple bottom line
management, accounting, and just the way to
change the way we think about the resources
that are available to us. So it’s a great honor to
have Paul with us tonight. Paul Hawken, welcome to
Edible Education 101. [APPLAUSE] PAUL HAWKEN: That’s
a flash in the past. And I drove up to LeConte. I lived on LeConte when I
went to LeConte school here. I’m a Berkeley brat. My father taught here. And I grew up in the library. And then my family, Marion– there was no Google– Marion in the librarian was a
hero or heroine in our family. And when I go from
grammar school, I’d go right to the Bancroft
or [INAUDIBLE] books or one of the libraries,
go up into the stacks, and then hang out and pull
out books just randomly and read them. And so being here is
actually a real honor. Thank you, Bill. And thanks for all you do. And I’m here in front of
somebody I have always just adored, Mrs. Alice Waters. And if you haven’t seen
her, she’s right here. She is just an amazing
astonishing woman. And also with John
Love, with whom I’ve worked with for years,
[INAUDIBLE] alliance. And you’re his niece? Thank you for being here. This is coming off? Thank you. Try to keep it on. Drawdown, I want to talk about
climate in a different way than you’ve ever heard it. And Drawdown, just so you have
a sort of working definition, Drawdown, refers to that first
time on a year to year basis where greenhouse gases
peak and go down. And the reason it’s important
to me is I felt in the decades I’ve been watching the climate– I call it the Climate
Establishment– talk about climate,
the goals have always seemed very weak and
anemic, like mitigation. You hear that word all the time. We should mitigate. Does somebody want to tell
me what mitigate means? It means to reduce
the pain of something. Why would the hell
would we want to reduce the pain of global warming? So the language has been odd. I want to name the goal. And the goal should
be to reverse it. If we’re going the
wrong way, slowing down, you’re still going
the wrong way. And we’ve been
going the wrong way. So that’s [INAUDIBLE]
support about most people get information about the
climate in a very different way than you do. This is how they get it. They get in headlines. It can be on TV as well,
it can be in newspaper. It can be on the internet,
that are basically about fear, they’re about threat,
they’re about doom. There are about
basically going right after your adrenals and
your cortisol levels. And they’re designed that way. And on the internet, they’re
designed very cleverly, because next to that is
click bait about a woman who kills her husband
with a frog ornament and mummifies him for 18 years. And the headline drives
you to the click bait. They know what they’re doing. And the click bait is about
selling you something. And this is another
one, 20 things you never knew you could do with Coca-Cola. And they’re doing the
right thing of course, pouring it down the toilet. But the headlines are actually
based on good science. The science is correct. It’s a Peter Bates study. How long the slides are here. They’re very drawn out. If you then are affected
by these headlines, and if you Google the
top things I can do or we can do or as individuals
about global warming, this is the top two hits
you’ll get on Google, or the top 10, top 50 solutions. Whatever you do, this is
what you’re going to get, two science-based organizations. And so you look at this
list, and the left one is like Proverbs. Really? It should say love
your mother too. And then the right one– you have to first get your home
entertainment center in order and get a power strip in it. Unless you have an IQ lower
than room temperature, you look at this lesson going,
hey, this isn’t going to do it. And so what do you feel then? You feel disempowered. You feel like, I hope they–
whoever they is– get it right, because obviously,
I can do all this. And this is not going
to seal the deal at all. And so you have a disengagement. People go numb. And they say well,
not much I can do. So this actually has sound. This is Greenland in the summer. You can turn the sound
on louder if you want. It’s supposed to be
harsh because that’s exactly how it sounds. This is 2009. And this is the northern
part of Greenland, 250 miles from the
closest human artifact. I’m talking about a
candy bar wrapper. And scientists from 14 countries
got there for 90 days a year, because past that before
that, it’s too dangerous. You can’t get in and you’ll die. And they work in this ice cave. And what they do– and we don’t have to
watch this video– is this. They drill down two miles
to bedrock to the ice core in Greenland. Why? To study what happened in
the last 125,000 years. It’s called the North
Eemian ice research station. They studied the
Eemian Period that happened the 125,000 years ago. And when they take the metal
jacket off the ice cores, they can [INAUDIBLE] certain
kind of [INAUDIBLE] calipers, but they go over it. And they can tell exactly the
sulfate levels, the CO2 levels, the pollen levels
at any given year. And they benchmark that data
with ice cores in the Antarctic and also some in the sea. And they get a very good
sense of what happened. This is the last 400,000 years. And that dotted line is
to represent 300 PPM, 300 parts per million of
CO2 in atmosphere. Our genus homo has never– for 2 million years we’ve
been here– gene homo erectus, homo [? floresiensis, ?]
homo sapien– we’ve never lived on the planet
over 300 PPM for the last 2 million years until 1939. And that’s the first time
it went over 300 PPM. Today, the current level is
considered to be 408, 409, 410. What you see in that circle
is the Eemian Period that was being studied in Greenland. And what we do know
about that time is that the temperature on
Earth was one to two C higher than pre-industrial levels. We’re 1 C higher right now. So it is comparable to today. The oceans were 20
to 30 feet higher. There were a lion
and giraffes romping over Denmark and Germany. Hippopotami were breeding
in the Thames River delta. Kent and Sussex where wetlands. And crocodiles were going up
the British Columbia coast to breed in Alaska. So that’s 1 to 2 C, and
a very different regime. But this actually
is where we are. We’re at 490 PPM, not 408. And this is because when
you hear that number, it does not count or include
the other important greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide,
like methane, like HFCs. And when you include those,
we’re now at 490 PPM. The Paris agreement and
COP 21 talks about not going past 450 PPM in 2050. I don’t get it. This is science. This is from science,
490 PPM, not me. We’re way past 450. And the point
about this is we’re in terra nova, terra incognita. We don’t know where we are,
because there’s a huge buffer lag time between the
weather and climate, and how it changes, and the
rise in greenhouse gases. So again, I just want
to emphasize the idea that we should mitigate. When you look at this, do you
see mitigation here anywhere? I don’t see it. The only thing that
makes sense when you’re going down the
wrong road too fast is to stop and turn around. And that’s what
Drawdown is about. So I wanted to know, and then
it was a we, where do we stand? And I would ask
each of you, and I would love to hear actually
if we had the time, where you think we stand? Is it game over? Is it too late? Do we have the capability
of arresting and reversing global warming? People have opinions about this
for sure, but how do you feel? I mean just honestly,
how do you feel? Do you do what I do, by the
way, and most people do, at least did, which is, I
can’t think about right now. I’ve got a paper to turn in. I’ve got this. I’ve got this. I’ve got a mortgage. I’ve got children. That’s where most of us do. But when you stop and think
about it, where do we stand? And I wanted to
know where we stood. And I wanted to know for years. And I asked people
to do a study on what were the most substantive
solutions to reversing global warming. And everybody said we don’t– I went to NGOs and
institutions said we don’t know how to do that. Why don’t you do it? And I said, I don’t know
how to do it either. And that was in 2013. And Bill McKibben wrote a
piece called Global Warming Terrifying New Math. And it was in Rolling Stone. And that was based on
Mark Campanale’s work at Carbon Tracker in London. And Mark was a
financial analyst. And what he did is he took the
balance sheets of every coal, gas, and oil company in
the world that’s available and looked at their assets,
which is the coal, gas, and oil in the ground. And that’s when the term
came up of unburnable carbon. In other words, he said
how can these be assets? Because if we burn
them we’re Venus. So it wouldn’t even
be here to burn them. And what Bill McKibben did
in his piece is he burned it. And people came to me– this
is 2013– and said game over. And I remember it so well. And different people who
didn’t know each other used the same term. It’s game over. I worked hard. I’m an activist. I tried. I’m going to the Squamish
Valley in British Columbia, raise my kids, and
I’m out of here. And that’s when I decided to
create Project Drawdown, which is to map, measure,
and model the 100 most substantive solutions to
reversing global warming. And then these solutions
had to be scaling. I call them WW
Granger’s solutions. We know how to do them. They’re practical, at hand. There’s peer reviewed science. There’s economic data. No question about
it, they exist, not like shoulds or
coulds or if onlys. These are things
we’re doing right now. And we know how to do them. And they’re scaling. And if they continue
to scale, over 30 years could we achieve drawdown? And that was a question
that we set out to answer. The problem is we had no money. And I went to foundations. They said, well, show
us when you’re done. Show us the data,
maybe we’ll fund you. And so I turned to you. You say, what do you mean you? We turned to the best
environmental departments and the best institutions in
the world for these people. And we put out a call for
Drawdown research fellows. And we were overwhelmed
by applications that people who wanted
to work with us. And there are Rhodes scholars,
Fulbright scholars White House Fellows, Aga Khan award winners. Just the most
astonishing people. And 22 countries, 6
continents, and they are the core of
researchers of Drawdown. And basically, they
wrote a master’s thesis on each solution. We had them cross
reference each other. So if somebody did one, we
had a new fellow come in and do the same
solution and so forth. And then on top of
that, we added 120 outside advisors,
botanists, and biologists, and engineers, and architects,
and politicians, actors, writers, business
people, even Tom Brady, quarterback of the
Patriots is an advisor because his wife is an
advisor, Giselle Bundchen so he wanted to be one too. But it’s a very
diverse– we have IPCC lead authors like Chris
Pike and Dan Camen, and Karen O’Brien to
review the content. And to that, we added 40 outside
expert scientific advisors to really check our models. And modeling is not
easy to model things. And what we do and
all we did was math. None of the data you’re going
to see or that’s in the book is our math. None. And so when you look
at something like this, you see a rank. That rank is what would
happen over 30 years if this continued to scale in
terms of avoided admissions? And there’s only
thing two things you can do about
the atmosphere, stop putting greenhouse
gases up there, or and bring them back home. That’s it. No other possibility. And so that rank is based on
how many gigatons, billion metric tons, of CO2
or CO2 equivalent in the case of methane or other
gases, will be in this case, avoided. And you say avoided how? Well, that goes to
this figure that says cost is minus $155 billion. How could something
not cost at all? And what we did is we
had a reference case. And the reference case
is business as usual. In other words,
what we’re doing. We’re growing, the economies are
growing, there’s more people, they want more. So there’s a business
as usual reference case created by the World
Bank and the IPCC and the IEA. And so we measured against that. You have to measure something
against something, otherwise what are you measuring? And so that was our case. In this case, where
you have geothermal, where it’s applicable, in other
words, where it makes sense to put it in, we measured
against combined cycle gas or coal fired electrical plant. And the fact is that
geothermal is cheaper. So it’s a minus $155 billion. And then the net operating,
net savings is $1.2 trillion over 30 years, again,
compared to a coal fired plant or combined cycle gas. So what I want to
show you is just some of the solut–
to give you a sense of the diversity of solutions. Because what we often
hear is for example, with Al Gore and other
people is that what we need is solar and wind, and solar
and wind, and Elon Musk. And if we get
those things right, we have a hall pass
to the 22nd century. Don’t worry. They’re on it. And those are crucial
solutions, but those are also scientific howlers. Those three can be done
100% and we’d still go right over the cliff. Again, what I wanted to show you
just how many different kinds of things came up. And we started with
about 300 solutions and whittled them down
to these based on impact. So they’re all based on impact. There’s transport. I’m not going to
read them off to you. You can do that yourself. Energy, concentrated solar,
wave and tidal, et cetera. This is offshore wind turbines. And this was not Photoshopped. That’s the only thing I
want to tell you about this. So often you see wind
turbines, and you see these beautiful green hill. And there’s a wind
turbine on top. There’s children playing
in the foreground, and those wildflowers
and the sky is blue. You’re going oh man. That’s so cool. That’s the future. That is a really crappy
place to put a wind turbine. You put them here where
the weather is really bad. And this is the North Sea off
Norfolk, the Sherringham Shoal. And that’s a
triathlete going by, the Seamen 3 mega-watt
wind turbines. Buildings and cities,
again, just get a sense of the diversity of
solutions that are out there. Because we tend to just
think about clean energy and a few other thing. And land use, again, peatland
there, those stripes you see are what the land looks like
after they take the peat away. And on top you see that it’s
a forest or it was a forest. And peat harvesting is
for gardens mostly now. A huge, huge source of
carbon being released. You showed system dynamics. When we model, you cannot
model a solution by itself. And the data is bunk. It’s no good. But this is what we
call a bioseq model, a biosequestration model. In other words, when
we analyze a solution, we have to do it
in this context. That’s why I said the
models are complex and we needed a lot
of input to make sure the models were correct. It’s easier, as you know,
even in an Excel spreadsheet make a mistake. And these are some of
the food solutions. And this is improved
rice cultivation. Rice is a big
emitter of methane. Methane occurs when green matter
is in an anaerobic environment. Methane is 34 times
more powerful than CO2 in its global warming,
greenhouse warming potential. And there’s two ways to do it. Either way produces more
rice and is cheaper to do. So there’s no cost. And all’s it takes is
a farmer to walk across his or her paddy to the
next farm and teach them. There’s no cost to do this. It’s just education. This is an interesting one. This is woman smallholders. And again, we were
just as surprised maybe as you are right now. What’s this doing on a thing
about reversing global warming? Well, smallholders
are defined as farmers with less than five
acres, two hectares. And 75% of the food in the world
is produced by smallholders. And 25% of the food is produced
by big ag or corporate ag or Monsanto, Syngenta,
Dow Ag or whatever you want to call that ag. And I started an
organic food business when I was 20 years old. It was in Boston. And for a decade, I got from
professors at Harvard and MIT shamed, shame, you hippie,
selfish, narcissistic people who want your food without
pesticides without using industrial methods. If everybody did that,
the world would starve. We just got that again and
again about how selfish we were, and how industrial
ag was the only way we could feed the world. And anybody else has
said otherwise basically, had their head up somewhere. And yet, what does big ag do? It produces 25% of the food. But really what really
does it produce? It produces sowing
corn for pigs and cows. It produces McDonald’s burgers. It produces McDonald’s
french fries. It produces hydrogenated fats. It produces sugar. It produces white flour. Basically, it
produces big pharma. It doesn’t feed the world. It sickens the world. And it sickens the earth. And sickens the waterways
and destroys soil and makes it into dirt. That’s big ag. And over 40%, in some
continents 43%, and some 50% of smallholders are women. Women produce more food
in the world than big ag. Just do the math. That’s what we do. We do math. This isn’t our belief. This is math. And if women get
the same support that men get in terms of
[? seed ?] tools and training and tenure, my goodness, they
outproduce men by 20% to 30%. So that’s what we
scaled here, was really supporting women
smallholders in the world. And what happens in that reduced
CO2 is avoided deforestation. You don’t have to
cut down more trees because you can produce more
food on the land you have. This is a planet rich diet. It means really,
reducing protein intake in developed countries where
we over-consume protein, especially animal
protein, and increasing it in those nations or
places where people have insufficient amount to
about 50-55 grams per person. And then shifting a
significant amount of that protein to
seeds and pulses and grains and legumes
and plant base. Number four, rank. Who knew? We didn’t. Regenerative ag– this actually
isn’t a very good picture, but it’s the organic– it’s the Rodale
Institute in [INAUDIBLE].. And they coined the term. So kind of homage to them. But actually,
regenerative agriculture looks very different. Regenerative agriculture is so
much more important than just– it’s not just organic
farming on steroids. Regenerated agriculture is
looking at the soil, at farms as completely differently. And what happens in
regenerative agriculture is you don’t till the soil. You don’t kill the soil. You don’t till the soil. You leave a crop on at all
times, even in the winter. But especially in the spring. You sow into cover crops. Basically, soil– a
plant is a solar panel. A plant is a solar panel. It eats CO2 and powers that CO2
into sugar with protons, light. That’s what it does. So plants make sugar. What do they do with the sugar? They grow. But most of it goes
down below to the roots. And what happens down
there is that they exude, exudates some of the– I’m sure it’s been
covered already. But into the soil, what
do the exudates do? They feed bacteria there. What do bacteria do? They break down the minerals
into nutrients for the plant. So now you have a cycle where
the plants get more nutrients. They grow better. They’re more pest resistant. They’re more productive. But also as you put more
sugar basically into the root systems, you get more life. What does life do? Life creates the conditions
conducive to life. That’s what it does. And you get more water. In certain tracts of land you
can get a 100x times more water using regenerative agriculture
than what is presently there today. And what I want to
emphasize is it’s not just the quality of the food, it’s
in farm fertility using animals to cut the grass or to graze it. You’re not basically
using glyphosate. But what this can do is
literally grow water. I don’t mean literally, but
I mean it in a literal sense, by growing this way,
we can bring water back into the earth. When there’s more
hydration of the earth, the temperature goes down. And what global warming does
is put more water in the sky. But it puts it in there in a
very strange hydrologic cycle, which means there’s no
water for a long time and then there’s too much water. And that was predicted
50 years ago. So this is not news. And we saw it in
Southern California. Four years of drought, fire. One day of amazing
rains and mudslides. Boom. That is classic
pattern recognition of what global warming does. But we can bring
that water back down and put it in the soil,
making crops more resilient and literally transforming our
landscapes all over the world. It’s such an important solution. This is reduce food waste. It’s the number three solution. We waste 133 billion pounds–
you probably have gone over that in this class– a year in the United States. Over 40%, some people say 45%,
mostly at the supermarket, at restaurants, and at
home, and refrigerators where food goes to
die in this culture. And this does not count
the methane emissions from landfilled
food, which would make it much higher than that. It’s the number three solution. I just want to give again,
some other food solutions. There’s a billion
hectares of degraded land. This is degraded
land that is empty. This cup, this glass, it
can hold a lot of carbon, degraded land, because
it’s been taken out. So degraded land is a huge
opportunity on many levels. Our clean cook stoves,
nutrient management is of course, nitric oxide
running down the Mississippi, killing the Gulf. The dead zones all
over the world. Silver pastures– we don’t
know how old that technique is, at least 2,500 years old. More tree intercropping, which
is a form of agro forestry. Composting, of course. Managed amp holistic– There’s so many terms
for basically grazing ruminants they way they would
in a herd in a grassland, which is to stay close
together and keep moving and not revisit
the same grassland for six months or a year. And tropical stable
trees, again, these are solutions we
don’t hear about. They’re really important. And then we also
included 20 what we call coming attractions. And these two relate to food
that I want to show tonight. Marine permaculture was
invented by a plasma physicist. And what it is is PET
frames and PET plastic doesn’t break down
in salt water. I’m not sure why. But frames under the
water, 25 meters under, and with tubes that go
down to the thermocline, where the cold,
nutrient-laden waters are. And I don’t know if you
remember two or three years ago, we had a big pinniped population
die off in California. Why? Well, because we’re getting
these thermal blankets. 93% of the warming
that’s occurred so far is going into the
oceans, not, to the land. And you’re getting
these thermal blankets. And it’s suppressing the
natural circulation patterns. And normally there’s
this huge upwelling of the fairlawns, which is why
we have so many white sharks there and so forth. And when that upwelling
didn’t happen, then you had a die-off of the
sea lions and the seals et cetera. And so what this does
is have tubes down to the thermocline
that are actuated by the rise and fall of the
Bay or the sea or the ocean, wherever these are placed. And this is what you
get in three or four weeks from nothing
in a marine desert. You get phytoplankton,
zooplankton, you get algae, you get kelp, you get
feeder fish, forage fish. In other words, it
gives us trophic cascade because life will
regenerate if you create the conditions for it. It automatically does it. It’s the default mode of
nature is to regenerate. And so a lot of these solutions
regenerative agriculture, for example, are about
getting out of the way and guiding it for
sure two needs we have, but not trying to
outmaneuver it. And this one, the cow
walks onto a beach– as you may know
ruminants– there’s 3.3 billion cows and
sheep basically being raised for meat in the world. Just a little under
half the population is in animals for us. They correspond to 11% of
greenhouse gas emissions in terms of methane,
enteric emissions. There is a farmer, a dairy
farmer in Prince Edward Island who noticed that his cows– this is not Prince Edward
Island, as you can tell. I think he wishes it
was, but it’s not. He noticed that the cow that
ate kelp produced more milk. And the question was why. And he went through his county
agent who didn’t know either. And went to a scientist. And said it must be
because they’re not producing as much
methane, because it’s such an inefficient,
metabolic, and useless process, by the way, for a ruminant
methane production. And so they separated the herd. And put bags over all of them
five times a day to measure the methane emissions for those
who ate kelp and those who didn’t. And sure enough, there
was less methane emissions in the cows eating kelp. But it was a science project. Like, so what? Do are you going to do
with that information? There’s not that much
kelp in the world. And they had to eat
a lot of it too. But that scientist heard of
a scientist in Queensland. And together, they began to work
on something that would work. And they found
the seaborne algae called asparagopsis taxiformis
which have fed in a 2% to 3% supplement to ruminants,
reduces methane emissions by 70% to 90%. And so it’s being
studied now at Stanford. The race is on to commercialize
asparagopsis taxiformis for carbon credits, hopefully. This is what surprised us. The biggest sector was food. It wasn’t electrical generation. It was food. And if you look at the sectors
from the IPCC, the two biggest sectors are agriculture,
food, and transport. Here you see food
being number one, and you see transport on the
right being really small. Well, what happened? When we modeled electric
vehicles, economists feared– I mean we modeled them. So why isn’t that bigger? Because we use the
reference case, which is it is assumed that the number of
vehicles will double by 2050. So a lot of the efficiency
is being basically wiped out by doubling. I don’t think that’s true. By the way, I think it’s going
to go the other way around. I think we’re going to
use less and less cars. And I think more and
more people think that. But that’s what we modeled. But food is number
one for two reasons. One is, it’s either
first or second largest emitter of greenhouse gases,
methane, nitrous oxide, CO2. But if we change our
agricultural practices, then it can sequester carbon. Now it’s a twofer. And very few of these
things are twofers. Go both ways. Food goes both ways. This, you have
probably seen before. And basically, it’s an
[INAUDIBLE] because it’s 2006, but the dynamics are the same. And it shows carbon emissions. And the darker the orange or
the red or the vermilion it is, the more concentrated
the emissions are of CO2. And you can see the counter
on the left hand corner. And you’d think by April,
they would go down. But what happens is they
go up in April and May. And the reason is
because farmers are plowing, releasing
so much CO2 into the air by breaking the soil. But finally, in June, actually
the grass to the crops and the trees, they’re growing. And they’re now sequestering
CO2 and they’re emitting oxygen. So as you see it get
bluer and bluer, that represents oxygen. When we
titled our NGO in the book Drawdown, people said
well, that’s so ambitious. I thought to want to
have civilization go on, I don’t think that’s ambitious. But in other words, people
said that’s so ambitious. And every year, we draw
down six to seven PPM. That’s the point. Drawdown happens every year. That’s why when you look at the
Mauna Loa data, it’s saw tooth. It’s not a straight line. It’s like saw tooth. So it goes up and
then it goes down. It goes up. It goes down. Goes up. It’s going up more than it’s
going down for sure, by 2 and 1/2 roughly PPM per year. So achieving drawdown isn’t
so far out as it may seem. And the heroes in
this classroom, and frankly, in our study,
is these guys, stoma cells and the guardians
cells, stomata. And when you have a handful
of leaves like this, you have 100 million
stomata in your hand. And what do they do? They eat CO2 for breakfast,
lunch, and dinner. That’s what they do. And they’re untenable,
the number of them. But what’s so
interesting about stomata though is that they’ve
been recently studied and computer modeled. And what they discovered
is they can hear, hear the dawn chorus when the
birds wake up in the morning. They have memory. I love that. Yeah, me too. You go to ag school? I grew up on a farm. So I agree with you. He’s like, looking,
no, not possible. They have memory, in terms
of the weather going back several days. They can detect the temperature. They can detect how much
moisture is in the plant. They can detect
how much moisture is in the roots of the plant. And they can detect the
moisture in the soil surrounding the roots. So they can do all that. If stomata stay closed all
day long, the plant dies. If it stays open all day
long, the plant dies. If it stays closed,
they don’t eat. They starve. It’s open, they lose
all their moisture. So these stomata–
and just go outside after this talk and
look at other plants, and they’re all alive. That’s because of this. So the decision making, if
you want to call it that, is extraordinary. The intelligence of
stomata is just remarkable. And the appreciation
that you spoke of, of what’s going on
out there in nature, is just becoming more
and more fascinating than we ever thought
or ever knew. I just want to finish
with this one slide. And it’s about language. 99% of the world is disengaged
about global warming. It is. And why? And I don’t think it’s
the fault of the 99%. I think it’s the fault of the
climate movement, frankly. The science is extraordinary. 2 and 1/2 billion data points
in the last assessment, behind the first assessment. And it’s the best
problem statement the world has ever seen. It’s gnarly one, but it’s a
credible problem statement. From my point of view, problems
are solutions in disguise. Every problem is a solution,
points to a solution. In the case of
global warming, it points to a plethora
of solutions. But the language we’re
using around it, look at it. It’s so negative, first of all. So negative. Second of all, we’re
using war metaphors. Fight, combat, battle. What in the heck are
we thinking about? I mean, climate is a blessing. And then we’re fighting
climate change. Think about that one. Climate is supposed to change. That’s exactly what it
does and always will. And you can fight
it all day long and it doesn’t care what you
think or which verb you use. It’s what it’s supposed to do. But there’s a deeper
problem with that. There’s this language, which is,
not only is it war and sports metaphors and slashing
admissions with your carving machete I guess. I don’t know what they’re
talking about here. Curbing climate
change is what you do. You curb dogs in Manhattan. Come on. You curb climate. It’s like, these
words are so odd. But importantly what
they are is they’re objectifying and
separating ourselves from the whole of life. The atmosphere was created
by living organisms. That’s a created atmosphere. And so the idea that
somehow we know better and that we can fight
it and we can win is the same thinking that
has objectified nature, that objectifies people of
other races or religions, that has objectified women. That’s the same mindset. This idea that there is
something other out there, and therefore because
it’s other, you can say, do, act, whatever
you want to do, because it’s not
within your sphere. It’s not you. And you see that so much
in this culture right now. It’s just painful. And you see resistance to it,
which is just pleasurable. But really it’s just fantastic. But what I’m saying we’re doing
the same thing about climate. We’re acting as
if it’s a problem and we’re going to
beat it and solve it. And look at the
solutions, the solutions and negative emissions. I’m sorry. I’m an English major. That doesn’t mean a damn thing. If you’ve seen a negative
emission tell me. I want to look at it with you. A negative tree,
what’s a negative dog? It’s just there’s no such thing. Decarbonization, as if
that was a solution. Decarbonization is the
name of the problems. It’s what we did. We took carbon in the
soil, in the forests, in deposits of coal, gas,
and oil and put it up there. That’s what we did. Recarbonization is the
solution, not decarbonization. And finally 2C. Most Americans
can’t even tell you what it means in Fahrenheit. But we hear this again, 2C,
2C, 2 degrees Celsius, 2050. We can’t go past it. It’s a science based target. You hear it all the time. First of all, it is
not science based. It was pulled out of thin air
by Richard Nordhaus in 1975, an economist at Yale. And he says I pulled
it out of thin air. And Joachim Schellnhuber, a
climate scientist in Germany, did in 1994,
unaware of Nordhaus, and said I pull it
out of thin air. And both agree they just pulled
it because it was simple. People can understand it. Don’t go over 2C more
than preindustrial levels. But what I’m saying
here is go to anybody. Go on the street. Go up to anybody. Walk up and say what does
2C mean to you in 2050? Huh? Well, 2 degrees Celsius. You know what I’m talking about. Huh? Well, you’re worried
about that in 2050. Huh? It doesn’t mean anything
to anybody in the world. Talk to a woman in Botswana
with her children, saying hi. What do you think about 2C? What are you talking about? But it could be Boston. It could be Belgium. It means nothing. And what happened is we’re
using future existential threat, because that’s what
they’re talking about. Beyond 2C, something really
bad is going to happen. What? We’re not sure, but it’s
going to be really bad. Don’t go there. That’s the implication of it. But really, that’s a
future existential threat. And our brains are
not wired that way. The people who were worried
about future existential threat aren’t in the gene pool anymore. They’re gone. The people– your ancestors got
the current existential threats really well. They took food security,
warmth, et cetera, they did that really well. That’s why you’re here today. Literally, a brain
can’t do that. It just doesn’t work that way. And yet, that’s what we’re
using to motivate people. And really, what we’re
talking about here, in order to get this going,
is to really– we have to be a movement that
addresses current human needs. We’re the only species
without full employment. Think about that one. There’s 10 million species,
all busy during the day and they sleep at
night, or vise a versa. But they’re busy, seem happy. And we have discovered a way
to marginalize our species and make people feel
like they have no value. And then in this
country, we create the prison industrial complex. Put them in jail. Make money out of them. Or arrest them for putting
on graffiti to express their rage at being disvalued. How do we do that? And we do it because we
have a generative model of economic development. We steal the future. We’re stealing it and
selling it at the present and calling it GDP. And the answer–
the way forward– and you look at
these solutions– look on the website. You don’t have to buy the book. Just look on the website. And basically, we’re talking
about regenerative solution, which is we can heal the future
and sell that in the present, and call that GDP. And if we’re going
to solve this, we have to make everybody
feel like they’re valuable. There’s so much work. Never has there been so
much good work to do. And never have so many people
have been marginalized. Never has there
been so many needs, human needs as there is right
now, because so many people. Never have so many people
felt like they don’t count. Trump is elected by people
who think they don’t count. That’s really
comes down to that. And so if we’re going to solve
this, and I think we are, by the way, I really do. You can turn to the
back of the book and see how that
ending is, by the way. Or you can read the whole thing
first, whatever you want to do. But I think we are
going to solve it. And I think we can. But the core of it though is
to create jobs that give people a sense of purpose of respect. That’s what people want. Our needs are all the same. We want to be respected by
our family, by our children, by our community. We want to do things
that help others. We want to do things that
make us secure and safe in our homes, in our community. We’re all the same. And that’s not the world
we live in right now. And those things
are very related. That’s Drawdown. And food– I just want
to emphasize is huge. It’s much bigger than I
think anybody understood, certainly ourselves. When we started it, we would
have made a top 10 list. And I think managed grazing
would have been there. That’s it on the top 10 list. We were all wrong. And what I’m really
proud of my team is that the methodology
we use is basically forefend it against bias. We had biases. We all have biases. And they were excluded. And so I don’t have
a top 10 list here. Somehow I excruded that slide. I apologize. But the number one solution
was refrigerant management. You’re going, what? And when we saw that,
we were so disappointed. No. It can’t be. We must have made a mistake. And it’s so unsexy. And I can just see
the press release now. No. And it was the
number one solution. But the number six solution
though was educating girls. And that was a surprise
to everyone too. So I’ll stop now. Thank you. And then there’s a Q&A. [APPLAUSE] WILL ROSENZWEIG: We want
to invite all of you to be in conversation
with Paul tonight. So if you have a
question, it would be really great to come to
the microphone, even line up down here or up there. Last week, unfortunately,
I’ve missed a couple of people because I didn’t see them. So if you have a question– we can make this more
of a conversation. Some of you in
your feedback said we want to have more
time for questions. So we can get started. One thing maybe just
to start, while you’re thinking about your
questions, I was struck that– well, let me go back. So Edible Education I think it’s
seven year here at Berkeley. And Alice and Michael
Pollan started it in the journalism school. And I remember you
were part of that. And then it moved to the
College of Natural Resources. Now it’s being hosted
by the business school. And a lot of the
students are really interested in
entrepreneurial solutions. And how they’re going to
participate in sort of driving, shaping and driving innovation. And I was struck that it took
an entrepreneur to sort of see the gap between– all the science is there. We have the data. We have the math. But that translation
piece is kind of missing. You’re saying we’ve
got the wrong language. We’re not communicating
this in a way that it is calling
people to action or giving them a roadmap. So maybe talk a little bit about
how the entrepreneurial mindset informed this project. PAUL HAWKEN: Well, I’ve always
said as an entrepreneur, if you have an idea and
everybody thinks it’s a good idea, it’s too late. So that’s the weird
thing about being an entrepreneur is that
most good ideas seem a little off to most people
when they first arise in you. And then you have to
have either a sixth sense or be able to see around the
corner, or faith in something. Because there’s a good chance
that they’re right as well. You’re going to fail. And so finding that
sense of reality, and for me, it’s always
been about looking at the way the world
is, operates, buys, consumers things,
whatever it is, and seeing where it’s
going, trying to see where is it going. And then say, well, if I create
a service or product that is there, it’ll intersect
with how the world is morphing and changing. So to me, that’s
how in my companies, that’s how I’ve
done it, basically. And it’s a guess, but it’s
a guess based on reality, or at least the perception
or interpretation of reality at that moment. You’re not trying to
make the world the way you think it ought to be. You’re trying to create
what ought to be done given where the world is going. So it’s slightly different. And then it’s not delusional. And you can see entrepreneurs
who are very delusional. They don’t get very far
because they don’t get funding. But you hear about it. WILL ROSENZWEIG: A lot of people
get funded today, actually. PAUL HAWKEN: Well there’s a
lot of money floating around. WILL ROSENZWEIG: But
when I saw the book, and we actually
have a course here at Berkeley and in
the graduate program called Food Venture
Lab, which is sort of a social
entrepreneurship course around food innovation,
and a couple of the students saw this book last semester. And they were like, wow,
this is like the roadmap for social innovation in
food or any of these sectors that you focus on. PAUL HAWKEN: Because
when you model something, you have to model the thing. You can’t model, for example,
climate smart agriculture. It’s a term used by
climate scientists. No such thing. It’s just a generality. You can’t model agro forestry. You can model tree
intercropping, silver pasture, multi-strat agro
forestry, because there’s science about that. There’s data. There’s examples. But you can’t
model generalities. So one of the things
that happened, which was a lovely
surprise, but is that the land use solutions,
both on the food side and on the land
use kept growing. Because we had to be specific. We need specific data. So there’s 21 land
use solutions. And the IPCC, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if you
look at their summary reports, they refer to ag and forests. There’s ag and then
there’s forest. Ag is a problem. It’s an emitter. And forest, don’t cut trees. Really, the bias there
has been towards– WILL ROSENZWEIG:
And again, different disciplines, different
bureaucracies managing them. PAUL HAWKEN: Yeah. None of these guys grew
up on a farm, apparently. I don’t know. But the bias was very
evident for years. And it’s changing now. But the land use
was marginalized. Just don’t ruin it anymore. Don’t cut trees and
stuff like that. But instead of using
the land as a way to regenerate, not just
the atmosphere, but again, water, villages, towns, cities,
places, rivers, biodiversity. It goes on and on. It regenerates. It doesn’t stop,
in terms of what it does or doesn’t regenerate. WILL ROSENZWEIG: So one of the
other things I was hoping you could touch on, just for the
benefit of the students– because this class attracts
people from all across the campus in
different programs– So it seems like
some of the things are let’s focus on
these technologies and scale up their adoption. But there’s got to be a lot of
public policy and education. And it just seems like there’s
multifaceted opportunities across sort of participating
in the implementation of this playbook. PAUL HAWKEN: Well, of course. We feel that good
policy is based on great data and bad
policy based on ideology. So the better the data,
the better the chances are a municipal a
county or a state, provincial level or even federal
that the policy will be good policy. WILL ROSENZWEIG: Is this getting
into policy makers hands? PAUL HAWKEN: Not at all. Oh, yes. It’s getting into the hands. We don’t touch policy. We don’t touch that. Yeah, no, all over. So far this year, we’ll
be in 72 countries. The book in 11 languages,
actually 15 languages. And it’s now going to 22
different universities where the model will be there. And then there are ideas
that the model is localized, regionalized to about physical,
social, political boundary where it actually
means something. Global models are fascinating,
but they’re not applicable. You can’t apply that to
California or Alameda County. It just doesn’t work. The data is too generalized. So that includes Monash
and ANU and Cambra, and Imperial College,
[INAUDIBLE],, Hyderabad, this campus, UC Davis,
University of Washington, MIT, Northwestern, Penn
State, Georgia Tech, oh, I forget all of the names. So that was the idea,
was this the model be open source, transparent,
and basically then be migrated where it can become better. We are a coalition. We are a coalition. That’s our ecos. And we’re not here to
tell people what to do. We don’t even say we know. What we did is actually
get data from the world, and on the economic side, from
IAEA, the International Energy Agency, from the World
Bank, from the IPCC, from FAO and on all
the greenhouse gases, often peer reviewed science. And we always chose a low median
if there was a divergence. So always very
conservative numbers. And then what we did is hold
a mirror up to the world, and said this is
what you’re doing and this is what you know. We’re not saying we know. Drawdown.org, we know. We’re not saying that at all. We’re saying take a look. This is you. And that’s very
different than sort of having a white charismatic
male vertebrate come on and say follow me. And that’s the problem, by
the way, not the solution. And is so what we’re
seeing is that I said that a farm, in terms
of agriculture or anything you see in nature is a
self-organizing system. And so one of the things
that came out of this, is coming out of this,
is there must be I don’t know how many hundreds
organizations in the world– one of them is called
Right On Toronto– that are starting
up around the world and that are based on Drawdown. But we don’t manage them. We don’t tell them
what they can do. The name’s not trademarked. We’re not in charge. We didn’t start them. We just help in
whatever way we can. Support them with
data and connect them to Drawdown Bendigo
and Drawdown– there’s so many other
cities and places now. Drawdown [INAUDIBLE],,
Drawdown Nova Scotia. If fact, Drawdown Nova Scotia
was connected and created right on Toronto. And there’s Drawdown Marin. And so we think that the
proper role of Drawdown in the expanding universe
of universities and NGOs and so forth, is to create
the conditions for humanity to self organize around
reversing global warming, as opposed to being in the know. I don’t even
anybody’s in the know. WILL ROSENZWEIG: Being the
whole self organizing paradigm for your organization
itself is a catalyst. PAUL HAWKEN: Yeah. It’s like Janine, that essay
at the end called Reciprocity. And she’s talking about
the mutualism is much more prevalent than
competition in forests, in nature and
grasslands, and so forth. And we got it all wrong. We projected onto it sort of
dog eat dog or tree at tree idea that somehow all the
plants are in competition for water and air and light. And that’s just
not true, actually. They’re a community, and
very intricate communities. And back to stomata, plants
have 21 different senses. We have five. Plants have 16 senses
that we don’t have. And read about them. They’re like, what? And what are those other senses? It’s just amazing
what we’re discovering is that life is so
exquisitely miraculously beautiful and interconnectedly
kind as opposed to what we’ve projected onto it, which is– well, we know what that
is, those metaphors. And so organizationally, we
look at those situation– we think there has been a
failure in communication. But given this is the
greatest crisis civilization has ever faced. And I dare say may ever. And we feel that the answer
is how we talk to each other, how we see each other. And if we don’t make a
tent big enough everybody, it’s the wrong tent. And there’s not one
word in this that makes people wrong
or shame’s people or blames people or
points fingers at people. Why do that? We’ve haven’t got time for that. We’ve have we have time to do
things that are constructive that help to create and
generate, that are generous, they’re compassionate,
they’re connect. And the way you heal
any system, whether it’s an immune system or social
system or an ecosystem, is to connect more
of it to itself. That’s how you heal a system. That’s how it heals itself. And so that’s our role. Of us is to connect more of us
to each other, to ourselves, and as opposed to, again,
being right and having some hierarchical
organization that says that pretends it knows. We don’t do that, actually. WILL ROSENZWEIG: It’s very
inspiring now, and especially at this time to create
a model like that. And well, we have some people
that had some questions here. Why don’t we hear from
the audience, the class? STUDENT: Hi Paul. I just want to say thank you
for the work you’re doing. In somewhat dark times, this has
been a beacon of inspiration, and a way to at least feel like
you can be part of the solution and not have a
nihilistic bent on life. My question relates to college
institutions themselves. And I think my surprise how
far corporate money especially, chemical money has changed
what is researched. And oftentimes,
while we’re trying to start businesses
that are related toward regenerative solutions,
the data point isn’t there. And in such an empirically
driven society, how do we get
institutions like Berkeley to do more research
on these topics, and less on how do I reduce
pesticide usage by 20%? PAUL HAWKEN: That’s
a good question. As I said, I grew up here. And I’ve watched the
corporate influence on Berkeley become more
and more pronounced. Interestingly in ag
itself, the problem is there’s no money
in regenerative ag for big companies. The farms we talk
about, not the one you saw, but the ones we
talk about in Drawdown are of in farm fertility. They don’t have any inputs now. And their profits are up,
the productivity is up. And you’re seeing a whole– from Saskatchewan
right on down to Texas, you’re seeing these rooms
like this only flat. And there’s just old men with
cowboy boots and cowboy hats or baseball caps,
sitting like this looking at these
PowerPoint presentations about no till no
kill because they’ve hit the wall financially. And they go, that’s it. I’m out of here. And the biggest obstacle
interestingly to them is crop insurance. Because crop insurance in the
US will pay 80% of your crop if you use chemicals
and fertilizers. But if you don’t, you
don’t get crop insurance. And so making that
transition, because basically the farmers in this
country are on crack. And to get off crack basically,
it doesn’t take a day. It takes it takes
a couple of years. And so in terms of the
universities, UC Davis, we see it. I was with Penn
State this morning, the whole morning meeting
with heads of schools there. And they’re taking on drawdown
in a very, very big way. And what they said in
commenting about that, it’s not so much a problem
there, but is to make sure that everything’s
interdisciplinary. They really focus on
interdisciplinary, not just the student
herself or himself in terms of their degree,
but actually the schools themselves. Architecture is in engineering. And then architecture is in
design in two architecture schools. And that they talk
to each other too. So what they’re doing is trying
to cross-fertilize themselves instead of that Victorian legacy
of siloed disciplines, which is vestigial now. But I do think that
there still is idea that somehow if big government
gets it, then we’re OK. And I just think wow. I’m not going to
live my life thinking I’m waiting for the time for
big government to get it. That’s like, how foolish? That would be like
waiting for fairies. It’s just not going to happen. But the solutions you see in
Drawdown are really middle out. It’s not like, bottom up. Bottom up implies there’s a top. I don’t think there’s a top. There’s dysfunction
in some places. Really, where the function
is, is in the middle. And that’s where the
solutions really are originating and scaling from. If a government gets it like
Denmark or Germany or Sweden, it’s like hallelujah. And it does
accelerate everything. But we shouldn’t
function in such a way that we wait for
larger institutions, whether universities or the
federal government to get it, because I don’t
think that’s going to happen in the time span
that we need to act within. STUDENT: [INAUDIBLE] I feel
so much more enlightened after hearing you speak. And it definitely got me,
and I’m sure many people in this room very passionate. Something I really
appreciate about Drawdown, and this kind of leads on
from the last question, is how
solution-orientated it is. I think that’s really important. And the approach of, like you
said, holding a mirror up, my concern is if you
hold up a mirror to the– at least this is
the perception I have– you hold up a
mirror to the food industry and they know it. This isn’t necessarily
new information and they keep doing it. You hold this mirror up to
policy makers, and same thing. They just keep going. Even, like you
mentioned earlier, the reason why
Trump got elected, you can attribute that
partially to people who feel like their voice didn’t matter. You hold up the mirror to them,
and they’re not going to care. But I’m worried that if we keep
on this track of holding up the mirror, as important as
this extraordinary research is, we do need solutions. Because while this isn’t a
battle on climate change, every one of us in this room,
every one of us on this planet, all of us are a part of the food
industry, of the food system. And we need solutions. And there’s something
we need to do. So I would love your
thoughts on that. PAUL HAWKEN: Well, the last
sentence, we need solutions and it’s something
we need to do. And where we’re saying
is we have the solutions and we’re doing them. That’s the mirror. If somebody doesn’t want
to look at the mirror, well, that’s their blindness. But the mirror is
there to be looked at. If you don’t look at it, you’re
not going to see what’s in it. And that’s what we really wanted
to emphasize rather than– I think there’s a thing
where we’re not doing enough. That’s kind of another way of
paraphrasing what you said. Or it’s a theme. We’re not doing enough. And I would say this, which
is fossil fuels had a 200 year start. And it’s kind of like going onto
basketball game or whatever. And it’s the first
quarter, and you’ve spotted the other team 90 points. And that’s where we are. And so at the end of the first
quarter, it can be 100 to 15, but it’s actually you’re
out-playing your opponent. And I actually think we’re
out-playing our opponent. It’s just that the momentum and
the inertia of the fossil fuel industry, of industrial ag, of
so many things that are really insults to people
in place, which have this tremendous
amount of inertia. And we shouldn’t
keep staring at that and thinking that somehow
we’re not doing enough. Because that is a terrible
way to live, first of all. It’s a terrible way– it’s hard on your
mind and your heart. And who wants to live that way? And I think that what
we’re seeing in the world– and I said it’s self organizing. And maybe John can speak to it. We’re seeing people say got it. Got it. Got the problem. And now we’re going to go
and celebrate the solutions, work on it, and figure
out how to do this. I just came back from Australia. And there’s a couple of
hundred companies that are going to be drawdown companies. And I asked them. I just said commit and admit. Commit to doing it. Admit you don’t know how. That’s it. But we know where North star– We know where we’re going. And this is where
we’re going to do. We’ll figure it out. We’re all making this
up as we go along. So it’s not like we should know. We don’t know. But what we know now,
because of the research– and a lot more to
come, by the way. This is a living
research project. It’s not just a second edition. There was a whole book on
regeneration generation coming out, which
is about process and systemic and economic
complexity, about jobs. The subtitle of regeneration is
How to Create a Billion Jobs. And we’re serious about it,
using economic complexity theory from Ricardo and
Housen at MIT and Harvard. And about implementing
these solutions. So what we’re seeing
is this huge uptake. And I feel like there
is a hunger in the world to know what to do. And again, when you hear solar
wind and Teslas, you go again, it kind of leaves you out when
actually the very first thing you can do tonight, don’t
throw a scrap of food away ever again. Ever. Ever. There’s a solution. It’s a huge solution. And I know my wife,
who is Spanish speaking Italian and
Argentinean, that’s the solution that made
the biggest impact on me. I always felt guilty when
I scraped something off. Shoot, compost or not. Just felt bad, because
I know as a farmer, and as somebody who’s a
gardener, how much work it takes to produce food. Just like, it didn’t feel
honoring, much less the waste. And now I eat everything. And there was one
night, there was rice and there was a little bit
of, well, mold on the rice. And it was little thing,
beautiful little blue kind of things coming off of it. And my wife said oh,
how could you do that? You’re animalito,
she’s [INAUDIBLE].. I said if I don’t
do this I’ll keep repeating this pattern of taking
too much, cooking too much, buying too much. And the only way I can
learn to stop doing that is to eat my habit. That’s the only way
it will change it. And sometimes in the morning you
go, I don’t want to eat this. I eat it because not only
it had been out all night, but it was dinner. And I don’t want
dinner for breakfast. So there are things
you can do right now in terms of those solutions. People ask me what should I do? People raise their hands,
well, what should I do? We’ve got this list. What should I do? I said I have no idea what you
should do because we just met. [LAUGHTER] And if I told you
what to do, you should run, because
that would be so wrong. But you know what to do. And you can use this. You can use it as thing. And go through and look at it. And then you open up a
page, and all of a sudden, you light up, like, wow. How interesting. I used to– I know– I want to know. This is something, educating
girls, women small– whatever it is, if
it lights you up, that’s probably
where you should go. That’s what you want to do. And so that’s what the
solutions are about, is this array of things that
are out there that we are doing. This is so important
to emphasize. We are doing it. And what we haven’t done on the
website is educate, activate. Educate means I know
more about this. Thanks for sharing,
but I want a lot more. So it could be
videos, documentaries. It can be magazine articles. It can be whatever,
peer reviewed papers. But also activate, because I
want to do some about this one. And it’s going to
[BRRUP] And we have that. We just haven’t got it
up on the website yet. WILL ROSENZWEIG: I remember
when Lisa Gansky did that with the sharing. She wrote that book The Mesh. And she started to
just catalog all of the entrepreneurial
solutions that were starting 10 years ago. Same kind of thing. And this just
looking at this book, if you have an
entrepreneurial orientation, this book is just a gold mine. PAUL HAWKEN: And wait until
you see what’s coming. We have D2 coming. D2 is Drawdown 2, and it’s 60
to 80 more coming attractions. And they’re just like, wow. We have about 200 or
300 in our database. And they’re just amazing. And what we want to also
reflect back to people is just how brilliant we are,
and ingenious and caring. And the things that are
being invented and discovered right now are just– it’s just amazing. It’s kind of like, if you
do feel bad or hopeless, then you can read this
and then read D2 as well. You’ll go humanity
is on the case. That’s what I want to say. We are on the case. And that’s not where we get
reflected back in our media for sure because
our media is based on those first two slides, which
is to scare the pee out of you. If it’s not about climate,
it will be about Trump. They’ve got anything you want. It’ll work. If it’s about The
Bachelor episode where he dumped his
girlfriend, it’ll be about the bachelor episode. No matter what it is, it’s
about making you go ah! So that media is not going to
reflect back to you who we are and what we’re doing and
who we are as human beings. WILL ROSENZWEIG:
What I like too, is you’re really calling for a
different kind of organization, even in modeling the sort
of self organizing system, you’re calling on a
different kind of leadership, different kind of governance,
different kind of cooperation, different kind of reciprocity
and generosity, care. The ethos of the is care. So you’re bringing
the gardeners ethos to the solution
making in Drawdown. So I think that’s just
a wonderful invitation. Is there another
question over here? Does somebody have a question? STUDENT: You answered
my question, really. But I was going to
ask when are you talking about communication–
because it seems to me, talking about a paradigm shift
and a shift of perception, and it seems like
the larger scale of that shift, the more
impact you’re going to have in terms of change. So I was wondering there
are so many different forms of communication and
what your strategy was, and how to get the word out
on such a more mass scale. PAUL HAWKEN: That’s a
really good question. Remember you saw that slide
of our research fellows? And one of the things
I want to say is– and this is true for
entrepreneurs too– which is too little money
is a blessing, not a curse. WILL ROSENZWEIG: It
makes you resourceful. PAUL HAWKEN: It makes
you resourceful. We never would have done that
if somebody had said, oh, here. And then we would have had
all these full time people and paying them a lot of
money in the Bay Area. And we would not have
gotten the results. We wouldn’t have
create a coalition. We wouldn’t be world wide. We wouldn’t have made
all these friends. We’re so grateful we
didn’t have money. So we still don’t. And not that we
don’t want money– so if your dad’s
a philanthropist. But what’s happened,
we got approached by Vulcan productions. And so what they’re
going to do is create in no particular
NGSS, Next Generation Science Standard Curricula. And then short form
videos of the solutions for both social media
and for students. We OK-ed a– 7 to 12 primer, just
a smaller version. But they’re going to produce 50
videos called 50 Change Makers People Who Are Making
Changes, 50 who knews. Like, who knew. Gosh, didn’t know that. They’re going to produce a 6
to 10 part on Netflix TV series on m which is not going
to be about solutions, it’s going to be about human
beings and the solutions innate into their narrative. Like, once the man who
stopped the desert. And one of them is called
Making Starlight On Earth. And one episode is probably
the [? Solardarity ?] people in Highland Park in Detroit, who
got all their lives taken away by the utility because
they couldn’t afford to pay the utility bills. And they took the
poles out as well, just to be really offensive. And so a low income area,
mostly African-American. And they started putting
up solar powered lights. And now they’re competing
with that utility to replace their light poles
in other cities and so forth. So the Netflix
series is not about– HVAC. I mean, come on, the solutions
[INAUDIBLE] are boring. It’s like, district heating. Oh, Netflix, I can’t wait. Binge watching, not
going to happen. So they’re really about stories
about just how amazing people are and what they go through. And then there’s a long
form documentary as well. So we don’t have
the money, they do. And we get to be EP
and work with that. So that’s another
form of communication. Like I said, it’s
in 15 languages, 72 countries this year. So people are publishing it. We didn’t sell it to them. They didn’t come
to our publisher. They just show up in Arabic,
Vietnamese, Korean, complex characters. It’s like OK, here. Take it. So that’s happening
spontaneously. I don’t think that
all the responsibility is on us to communicate. I think the responsibility is
to create the basis for people to communicate. WILL ROSENZWEIG:
Another question. STUDENT: Hi, Paul. My question is, in a world where
externalities are not paid for and the ecosystem
services provided by bio solutions and the value
of it are not well recognized, how would you go about
funding these solutions? PAUL HAWKEN: Again,
it’s a great question. But there’s a little
fill up at the end. How would you go about
funding these solutions? First of all, I’m not a funder. Second, of all you,
being the editorial you, so how would they be funded,
I think, is the question. And what we saw,
our nose was really pressed to the glass on the
models for 2 and 1/2 years. And we didn’t actually know
what the model would say until February last year–
we hit the button– because they’re a system. And so we looked
in this and that. But what we did
see in the interim and definitely at
the end, is that I think we’ve reached the point– I call it the crossover. And the crossover
is that when I first suggested doing this in 2001,
the cost of the solutions was far exceeded the
cost of the problems. In other words, it’s cheaper to
destroy the earth in real time in as much as it was
measured in dollars. No, that’s not true of course. But it was in how we were
using the metric of dollars or currency. And actually, I think we have
hit, and are hitting, and will hit very soon the crossover
point where actually the cost of the
solutions is cheaper than the cost of the problems. Onshore wind turbines
are now the cheapest form of new electricity generation in
the world for 90% of the world. It’s the cheapest way to do it. Not coal, not
combined cycle gas. When I talk about those
farmers in the Midwest, when you talk to them and
look at what they’re doing, the cheapest way for them
to farm is regenerative. It’s the most profitable
way too, by the way. And that wasn’t always
true, by the way, because people didn’t even know
how to farm regeneratively. They farm traditionally. And then they kept
changing more and more. When you look at internal
combustion engines, they’re predicting
McKinsey and [INAUDIBLE] that electric cars
will be cheaper than internal
combustion by 2024. What’s so interesting
about that prediction is that the IEA and
McKinsey didn’t say it, but it’s true for them too,
have been wrong every year for 19 years about solar
and wind and the growth and learning rate. Wrong– under–
underestimated, underestimated for 19 years in a row,
perfect consistently wrong. And so I think the
rate of innovation is actually much greater
than is being ascribed to it. And so therefore,
I think that that’s going to happen a lot sooner. And then one of our
coming attractions is a company in
[INAUDIBLE] Marguerita that basically can
improve the efficiency of every electric car
in the world by 30%. And when you hear
how they do it, it’s so simple,
based on a principle of electrical flow
from batteries to sync, source to sync. And they solved it accidentally. And when you think about
asparagopsis taxiformis, they are reducing
worldwide emissions. You’re starting to see
marine permaculture. It reduces– it
de-acidifies the ocean. It cools the water. It can reverse coral
bleaching, and can create billions and billions
of pounds of protein. So you start to
put these together, what you see is
that innovation is going to outpace the
inertia of externalities, which is very real. And the externalities
will still be there. They’re still being done by
Koch industries and Exxon and so forth. But they’re going to
be swept away, I think, by the change and the
cost of the solutions that internalize or don’t
externalize the cost. WILL ROSENZWEIG: Tim Flannery
in Australia– no, no. But I was at a conference
with him in Australia. And he sort of replayed
a scene from The Graduate where the guy whispers to
Dustin Hoffman, plastics. His word for this
decade is seaweed. So [INAUDIBLE] permaculture. STUDENT: Hi there. Well, thank you
both first of all. And I was actually in
a permaculture class with Kevin Byock, one of
your fellow researchers for this book. PAUL HAWKEN: Which one? STUDENT: Kevin. So that’s how I learned it. PAUL HAWKEN: He’s a
senior fellow, actually. STUDENT: Yeah. Very, very well informed. So that’s when I first
learned about Drawdown. I guess, going to
your earlier point, for entrepreneurs
and people who want to contribute to this movement,
to see where we’re going, where we’re heading
to, and what we got to do to meet
the demand of what we need in the coming decades– So let’s say with China
and India in particular, the population is already
at 1.2 billion here, and maybe 1.4 billion in the
other place very shortly. And also, soon to grow with the
one child policy having been removed. I guess my question is can you
speak a little bit about how to balance the juxtaposition. I feel like the Western worlds
are starting to realize, hey, we better do
something different, because we’ve produced a lot
of emissions over the luxuries that we’ve created. But yet that image has been so
admirable to the Eastern world, that now everyone, like, the 2
point something billion people are starting to
follow our footprint. And obviously, some
of those countries are also doing some government
policy changes to curb their emissions and whatnot. But I guess my question is what
are some of the collaborations that you’re doing? And what would you
recommend for people who might be able to bridge the
cultural gaps to participate and share the information
between these countries and whatnot? PAUL HAWKEN: Well
one thing I’d say is don’t go to sleep
about it every night, because you’re taking
on a big huge thing. And I don’t think
you deserve it. It’s not your problem. There’s a tendency for
on the progressive side to take on these huge problems
and carry it around like this. And I’d just say you can
lighten up a little there. And just for your own
sake, I appreciate the care in the question and
concern and the knowledge. I would say that
what’s happening, first of all, China
the last five year plan is based on Natural
Capitalism, the book I did with Amory Levins. That the plan four
plans ago is also based on Natural Capitalism. The five year plan
coming up is based on ecological civilization. That is what China’s going to
base its five year plan on. And I would say
that understanding the knowledge, the literacy
in China about climate and what to do is far greater
than the United States and that we tend
to get a cartoon version of the whole
world from America. You know what I mean. And very simplified. And I just think that it’s
going to complex and simple characters, for example. Again, we didn’t do that. It’s going to the highest
levels of the government. When Natural
Capitalism came out, it went to the highest levels
of the Chinese government. They governed
differently than we do, which means actually
they can turn on a dime. And China does that
very well, actually. And we can’t do that here. And I just say that the more
we do here and do it well, we have an influence on
the rest of the world. But I don’t think we can
influence the rest of world by us wanting it to change. We have no influence there. And again, people
have asked me too, and this holds true
on a personal level but on a national
level, people say what do you do about
deniers or what do you do about people who
don’t believe in you know global warming and so forth? And I said nothing at all. Why would I want to do anything? And I said, why would I want to
try to change somebody’s mind? When was the last
time you appreciated when somebody decided they
wanted to change your mind? We don’t like that. So it’s not about
changing people’s minds. It’s about creating
the conditions in which their own minds change. And it’s going to happen a lot
more easily out of something that’s celebratory and
joyous and solution based, and that doesn’t make
people feel like crap, and that the future is
dark and foreboding. And we can reverse it. And is it going to be a rough
ride for the next decade? For sure. No question. In terms of sea level rise,
weather, drought, hurricane. All that stuff can
be very difficult. But this is two ways of
looking at the world. And I would say
with respect to Asia that the area where I
think have the most concern is not China and India, it’s
actually Southeast Asia. The that’s area where
there is the greatest amount of occlusion. Maybe that’s the right word. Indonesia, or Cambodia,
Vietnam, and places like that. I feel like that’s Thailand
where the you don’t really see the uptake as you
see in China and India. WILL ROSENZWEIG: How about
one more question for tonight? STUDENT: This kind of builds off
of what you were just saying. But I guess, my question
is, you spoke a little bit about sort of the pitfalls
of language in this world. And I was wondering
if you could go down to sort of an individual level,
and public opinion level. You were just saying
basically, fear is one way to potentially
change– or not change minds, but motivate people
to do the right thing. Is there a way of talking about
what these 100 things add up to as far as lived individual human
experience that are actually qualitatively better than
what we’re doing now? Are there ways of
sort of framing it in a positive that way
as far as an individual– I’m thinking of– I’m from
Boston, the Bostonian who will vote the “right
way,” liberal every way, but doesn’t want it to
actually impact them. And so thinking about
that kind of mentality, are there ways of framing this
where these 100 things add up to a better day to
day for an individual? PAUL HAWKEN: Well they do. And I think if you read on
the website or the book, you read about them. That’s what you get. In that this is better. Or why aren’t we doing this? Or why aren’t I doing this? And that’s the
question it poses. We don’t pose the
question, but it poses that automatically, which
is like that Billy Crystal movie with I want
what she’s having. That line, which is
spontaneous, by the way. It wasn’t in the script. And it was Billy Crystal’s
mom who said that. But I feel like when
we are children, we’re sandboxed [INAUDIBLE]
we want to play. One where they’re hitting each
other with their Tonka toy trucks or with the one
where they’re having fun? We went through the one
where they’re having fun. And that’s what we did. That’s the kids you
want to hang out with. So it’s the same thing, again,
which is let’s go have fun. Let’s reverse it. But not like as a
duty, as obligation, as something full of
guilt. I’m Catholic, which is almost like being
Jewish when it comes to guilt. And I was raised being guilty. And it doesn’t work. It just does not work. It’s [INAUDIBLE]
feel threatened to. Because what that does,
and we know very well from Tony [INAUDIBLE]
with Ritz’s work at Yale is it just shuts people down. And so what I love
about the solutions– and there’s more
than, like I say, the book was limited by
the number of pages– what I love about them
is that they’re just fun. It sounds frivolous, but they
just make everything better for people. And there’s two
exceptions to that. And you can guess
which ones they are. But 98 of the 100 solutions are
what we call no regrets, which is if there wasn’t a
climate scientist alive, and we had no idea
or clue as to what was causing extreme
weather, there is just a plethora of
reasons to do them. We do them anyway,
because of what it will do for our children,
for water, for health, for jobs, for prosperity. Let’s do it. Again, we didn’t choose
them on that basis. We just chose the ones that
had the greatest impact. And that’s how they sorted out. And you can guess which
two when you look at it. I think the regrets solution. In other words, that’s a regret. We do it, but we’re
going to have regrets. But the rest of them
have no regrets. And I think that’s what we have
to move the conversation to, which is so that you don’t
have to understand the science. You don’t have to be literate. I’m going to go to an audience
of 6,000 people, supply chain people, I won’t
say which company, but you can guess if they
have 6,000 suppliers, which company that might be– and give a talk on this. And they said, look,
a lot of these people don’t believe in climate change. And I said bring it on. I love it. I love it. That’s my favorite audience. But what I’m going
to say when I go out there is how many of you
don’t believe in climate science or global warming? Just raise your hand
and don’t be shy. Come on. I’m not going to bite you. Just curious. And doesn’t matter if
anybody or a lot of people raise their hand. What I’m going to
say is you all should have raised your hand,
every single one of you, because science is
not a belief system. It’s evidentiary. And in God we trust,
all others bring data. We’re about data. You’re supply chain. When’s the last time you did
something on the supply chain management as the CIO
because somebody said I don’t believe we should do this? You would never do that. So [INAUDIBLE] about data
and about math, and so forth. So again, I feel like we
can change the conversation so somebody who says
I don’t believe it it, say forget about that. I don’t want your belief in it. I’m not interested in belief. And people say
also the book is– thank you for writing
such a hopeful book. And I said we did not
write a hopeful book. We did a reality project. That’s what’s hopeful about it. It’s based on reality as
opposed to aspirations, or if only, if we just get
this, we could have that, and all this sort of winging
kind of liberal fantasy. Screw that. This is what we know and what
we are doing and so forth. And I just feel like that
that allows us to communicate in a very different
way with communities, with people, that cuts across
divisive polemic lines that are being drawn more
and more and more. Everybody trying to draw
those lines and the Russians are helping us of
course with Facebook. Thank you very much. But it’s not so
much the words we use or don’t use so much as the
conversation we have itself, which is not about being right. And when you go to communities
that have been deracinated, which is what we’ve done
in the United States is deracinate so
many communities. And is really about possibility. Let’s talk about possibility. And as I said, we have to move
from a world of probability, which is really what the
conversation– what probably is going to go wrong and
happen if this continues? And you kind of
feel like, oh dang. But instead we have to move
to a conversation about what are the possibilities
inherent in this? And just expand and expand
and expand that conversation in a way that is
practical, hands on, that is grounded in
science and good economics, and then see what happens. WILL ROSENZWEIG: For me, it
evokes the great Greek Gardener Epicurus, and his value of
[INAUDIBLE],, human flourishing. It’s aspiration that
we can do things in a way that generates human
flourishing while we do it. Let’s have a great round of
applause for a great gardener, Paul Hawkins! Thank you for being
with us tonight. [APPLAUSE] Thank you. Next week, Professor
Leah Fernald is going to be here to
talk about global issues in public health and the
research scientists agenda. And one last announcement,
we’ve confirmed that Michael Pollan
is going to join us for our last class
on April 18th. PAUL HAWKEN: That’s cool.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *