TEDSalon 2007 Hot Science
David Keith: A critical look at geoengineering against climate change
Filmed:
Readability: 3.9
1,350,891 views
Environmental scientist David Keith proposes a cheap, effective, shocking means to address climate change: What if we injected a huge cloud of ash into the atmosphere to deflect sunlight and heat?
David Keith - Environmental scientist
David Keith studies our climate, and the many ideas we've come up with to fix it. A wildly original thinker, he challenges us to look at climate solutions that may seem daring, sometimes even shocking. Full bio
David Keith studies our climate, and the many ideas we've come up with to fix it. A wildly original thinker, he challenges us to look at climate solutions that may seem daring, sometimes even shocking. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:25
You've all seen lots of articles on climate change,
0
0
3000
00:28
and here's yet another New York Times article,
1
3000
2000
00:30
just like every other darn one you've seen.
2
5000
2000
00:32
It says all the same stuff as all the other ones you've seen.
3
7000
2000
00:34
It even has the same amount of headline as all the other ones you've seen.
4
9000
3000
00:37
What's unusual about this one, maybe, is that it's from 1953.
5
12000
4000
00:41
And the reason I'm saying this
6
16000
2000
00:43
is that you may have the idea this problem is relatively recent.
7
18000
2000
00:45
That people have just sort of figured out about it, and now
8
20000
3000
00:48
with Kyoto and the Governator and people beginning to actually do something,
9
23000
3000
00:51
we may be on the road to a solution.
10
26000
3000
00:54
The fact is -- uh-uh.
11
29000
3000
00:57
We've known about this problem for 50 years, depending on how you count it.
12
32000
5000
01:02
We have talked about it endlessly over the last decade or so.
13
37000
2000
01:04
And we've accomplished close to zip.
14
39000
3000
01:07
This is the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere.
15
42000
3000
01:10
You've seen this in various forms,
16
45000
2000
01:12
but maybe you haven't seen this one.
17
47000
2000
01:14
What this shows is that the rate of growth of our emissions is accelerating.
18
49000
3000
01:17
And that it's accelerating even faster
19
52000
2000
01:19
than what we thought was the worst case just a few years back.
20
54000
4000
01:23
So that red line there was something that a lot of skeptics said
21
58000
3000
01:26
the environmentalists only put in the projections
22
61000
2000
01:28
to make the projections look as bad as possible,
23
63000
3000
01:31
that emissions would never grow as fast as that red line.
24
66000
3000
01:34
But in fact, they're growing faster.
25
69000
2000
01:36
Here's some data from actually just 10 days ago,
26
71000
3000
01:39
which shows this year's minimum of the Arctic Sea ice, and it's the lowest by far.
27
74000
5000
01:44
And the rate at which the Arctic Sea ice is going away is a lot quicker than models.
28
79000
5000
01:49
So despite all sorts of experts like me flying around the planet and
29
84000
3000
01:52
burning jet fuel, and politicians signing treaties --
30
87000
3000
01:55
in fact, you could argue the net effect of all this has been negative,
31
90000
3000
01:58
because it's just consumed a lot of jet fuel. (Laughter)
32
93000
3000
02:01
No, no! In terms of what we really need to do to put the brakes on
33
96000
5000
02:06
this very high inertial thing -- our big economy -- we've really hardly started.
34
101000
4000
02:10
Really, we're doing this, basically. Really, not very much.
35
105000
7000
02:17
I don't want to depress you too much.
36
112000
2000
02:19
The problem is absolutely soluble, and even soluble in a way that's reasonably cheap.
37
114000
5000
02:24
Cheap meaning sort of the cost of the military, not the cost of medical care.
38
119000
5000
02:29
Cheap meaning a few percent of GDP.
39
124000
4000
02:33
No, this is really important to have this sense of scale.
40
128000
2000
02:35
So the problem is soluble, and the way we should go about solving it is, say,
41
130000
4000
02:39
dealing with electricity production,
42
134000
2000
02:41
which causes something like 43-or-so percent and rising of CO2 emissions.
43
136000
4000
02:45
And we could do that by perfectly sensible things like conservation,
44
140000
3000
02:48
and wind power, nuclear power and coal to CO2 capture,
45
143000
4000
02:52
which are all things that are ready for giant scale deployment, and work.
46
147000
5000
02:57
All we lack is the action to actually spend the money to put those into place.
47
152000
5000
03:02
Instead, we spend our time talking.
48
157000
2000
03:04
But nevertheless, that's not what I'm going to talk to you about tonight.
49
159000
3000
03:07
What I'm going to talk to you about tonight is stuff we might do if we did nothing.
50
162000
4000
03:11
And it's this stuff in the middle here, which is what you do
51
166000
4000
03:15
if you don't stop the emissions quickly enough.
52
170000
3000
03:18
And you need to deal -- somehow break the link between human actions
53
173000
3000
03:21
that change climate, and the climate change itself. And that's particularly important
54
176000
4000
03:25
because, of course, while we can adapt to climate change --
55
180000
3000
03:28
and it's important to be honest here, there will be some benefits to climate change.
56
183000
3000
03:31
Oh, yes, I think it's bad. I've spent my whole life working to stop it.
57
186000
3000
03:34
But one of the reasons it's politically hard is there are winners and losers -- not all losers.
58
189000
4000
03:38
But, of course, the natural world, polar bears.
59
193000
3000
03:41
I spent time skiing across the sea ice for weeks at a time in the high Arctic.
60
196000
3000
03:44
They will completely lose.
61
199000
2000
03:46
And there's no adaption.
62
201000
2000
03:48
So this problem is absolutely soluble.
63
203000
1000
03:49
This geo-engineering idea, in it's simplest form, is basically the following.
64
204000
3000
03:52
You could put signed particles, say sulfuric acid particles -- sulfates --
65
207000
5000
03:57
into the upper atmosphere, the stratosphere,
66
212000
2000
03:59
where they'd reflect away sunlight and cool the planet.
67
214000
2000
04:01
And I know for certain that that will work.
68
216000
3000
04:04
Not that there aren't side effects, but I know for certain it will work.
69
219000
3000
04:07
And the reason is, it's been done.
70
222000
2000
04:09
And it was done not by us, not by me, but by nature.
71
224000
3000
04:12
Here's Mount Pinatubo in the early '90s. That put a whole bunch of sulfur
72
227000
3000
04:15
in the stratosphere with a sort of atomic bomb-like cloud.
73
230000
4000
04:19
The result of that was pretty dramatic.
74
234000
3000
04:22
After that, and some previous volcanoes we have, you see
75
237000
3000
04:25
a quite dramatic cooling of the atmosphere.
76
240000
2000
04:27
So this lower bar is the upper atmosphere, the stratosphere,
77
242000
3000
04:30
and it heats up after these volcanoes.
78
245000
2000
04:32
But you'll notice that in the upper bar, which is the lower atmosphere
79
247000
2000
04:34
and the surface, it cools down because we shielded the atmosphere a little bit.
80
249000
4000
04:38
There's no big mystery about it.
81
253000
2000
04:40
There's lots of mystery in the details, and there's some bad side effects,
82
255000
3000
04:43
like it partially destroys the ozone layer -- and I'll get to that in a minute.
83
258000
3000
04:46
But it clearly cools down.
84
261000
2000
04:48
And one other thing: it's fast.
85
263000
3000
04:51
It's really important to say. So much of the other things that we ought to do,
86
266000
3000
04:54
like slowing emissions, are intrinsically slow, because it takes time
87
269000
5000
04:59
to build all the hardware we need to reduce emissions.
88
274000
3000
05:02
And not only that, when you cut emissions, you don't cut concentrations,
89
277000
3000
05:05
because concentrations, the amount of CO2 in the air,
90
280000
2000
05:07
is the sum of emissions over time.
91
282000
2000
05:09
So you can't step on the brakes very quickly.
92
284000
2000
05:11
But if you do this, it's quick.
93
286000
2000
05:13
And there are times you might like to do something quick.
94
288000
3000
05:16
Another thing you might wonder about is, does it work?
95
291000
3000
05:19
Can you shade some sunlight and effectively compensate for the added CO2,
96
294000
4000
05:23
and produce a climate sort of back to what it was originally?
97
298000
3000
05:26
And the answer seems to be yes.
98
301000
2000
05:28
So here are the graphs you've seen lots of times before.
99
303000
3000
05:31
That's what the world looks like, under one particular climate model's view,
100
306000
3000
05:34
with twice the amount of CO2 in the air.
101
309000
2000
05:36
The lower graph is with twice the amount of CO2 and 1.8 percent less sunlight,
102
311000
4000
05:40
and you're back to the original climate.
103
315000
2000
05:42
And this graph from Ken Caldeira. It's important to say came, because
104
317000
3000
05:45
Ken -- at a meeting that I believe Marty Hoffart was also at in the mid-'90s --
105
320000
3000
05:48
Ken and I stood up at the back of the meeting and said,
106
323000
3000
05:51
"Geo-engineering won't work."
107
326000
2000
05:53
And to the person who was promoting it said,
108
328000
2000
05:55
"The atmosphere's much more complicated."
109
330000
2000
05:57
Gave a bunch of physical reasons why it wouldn't do a very good compensation.
110
332000
3000
06:00
Ken went and ran his models, and found that it did.
111
335000
3000
06:03
This topic is also old.
112
338000
2000
06:05
That report that landed on President Johnson's desk when I was two years old --
113
340000
3000
06:08
1965.
114
343000
2000
06:10
That report, in fact, which had all the modern climate science --
115
345000
2000
06:12
the only thing they talked about doing was geo-engineering.
116
347000
3000
06:15
It didn't even talk about cutting emissions,
117
350000
2000
06:17
which is an incredible shift in our thinking about this problem.
118
352000
3000
06:20
I'm not saying we shouldn't cut emissions.
119
355000
2000
06:22
We should, but it made exactly this point.
120
357000
3000
06:25
So, in a sense, there's not much new.
121
360000
2000
06:27
The one new thing is this essay.
122
362000
2000
06:29
So I should say, I guess, that since the time of that original President Johnson report,
123
364000
4000
06:33
and the various reports of the U.S. National Academy --
124
368000
3000
06:36
1977, 1982, 1990 -- people always talked about this idea.
125
371000
3000
06:39
Not as something that was foolproof, but as an idea to think about.
126
374000
3000
06:42
But when climate became, politically, a hot topic -- if I may make the pun --
127
377000
4000
06:46
in the last 15 years, this became so un-PC, we couldn't talk about it.
128
381000
6000
06:52
It just sunk below the surface. We weren't allowed to speak about it.
129
387000
4000
06:56
But in the last year, Paul Crutzen published this essay
130
391000
3000
06:59
saying roughly what's all been said before: that maybe, given our very slow rate
131
394000
3000
07:02
of progress in solving this problem and the uncertain impacts,
132
397000
3000
07:05
we should think about things like this.
133
400000
2000
07:07
He said roughly what's been said before.
134
402000
2000
07:09
The big deal was he happened to have won the Nobel prize for ozone chemistry.
135
404000
3000
07:12
And so people took him seriously when he said we should think about this,
136
407000
2000
07:14
even though there will be some ozone impacts.
137
409000
2000
07:16
And in fact, he had some ideas to make them go away.
138
411000
2000
07:18
There was all sorts of press coverage, all over the world,
139
413000
2000
07:20
going right down to "Dr. Strangelove Saves the Earth," from the Economist.
140
415000
4000
07:24
And that got me thinking. I've worked on this topic on and off,
141
419000
3000
07:27
but not so much technically. And I was actually lying in bed thinking one night.
142
422000
3000
07:30
And I thought about this child's toy -- hence, the title of my talk --
143
425000
4000
07:34
and I wondered if you could use the same physics that makes that thing spin 'round
144
429000
3000
07:37
in the child's radiometer, to levitate particles into the upper atmosphere
145
432000
4000
07:41
and make them stay there.
146
436000
2000
07:43
One of the problems with sulfates is they fall out quickly.
147
438000
2000
07:45
The other problem is they're right in the ozone layer,
148
440000
2000
07:47
and I'd prefer them above the ozone layer.
149
442000
2000
07:49
And it turns out, I woke up the next morning, and I started to calculate this.
150
444000
2000
07:51
It was very hard to calculate from first principles. I was stumped.
151
446000
3000
07:54
But then I found out that there were all sorts of papers already published
152
449000
3000
07:57
that addressed this topic because it happens already in the natural atmosphere.
153
452000
3000
08:00
So it seems there are already fine particles
154
455000
2000
08:02
that are levitated up to what we call the mesosphere, about 100 kilometers up,
155
457000
4000
08:06
that already have this effect.
156
461000
2000
08:08
I'll tell you very quickly how the effect works.
157
463000
2000
08:10
There are a lot of fun complexities
158
465000
2000
08:12
that I'd love to spend the whole evening on, but I won't.
159
467000
2000
08:14
But let's say you have sunlight hitting some particle and it's unevenly heated.
160
469000
3000
08:17
So the side facing the sun is warmer; the side away, cooler.
161
472000
2000
08:19
Gas molecules that bounce off the warm side
162
474000
3000
08:22
bounce away with some extra velocity because it's warm.
163
477000
4000
08:26
And so you see a net force away from the sun.
164
481000
2000
08:28
That's called the photophoretic force.
165
483000
2000
08:30
There are a bunch of other versions of it that I and some collaborators
166
485000
4000
08:34
have thought about how to exploit.
167
489000
2000
08:36
And of course, we may be wrong --
168
491000
2000
08:38
this hasn't all been peer reviewed, we're in the middle of thinking about it --
169
493000
2000
08:40
but so far, it seems good.
170
495000
2000
08:42
But it looks like we could achieve long atmospheric lifetimes --
171
497000
3000
08:45
much longer than before -- because they're levitated.
172
500000
3000
08:48
We can move things out of the stratosphere into the mesosphere,
173
503000
2000
08:50
in principle solving the ozone problem.
174
505000
3000
08:53
I'm sure there will be other problems that arise.
175
508000
2000
08:55
Finally, we could make the particles migrate to over the poles,
176
510000
3000
08:58
so we could arrange the climate engineering so it really focused on the poles.
177
513000
4000
09:02
Which would have minimal bad impacts in the middle of the planet,
178
517000
3000
09:05
where we live, and do the maximum job of what we might need to do,
179
520000
4000
09:09
which is cooling the poles in case of planetary emergency, if you like.
180
524000
4000
09:13
This is a new idea that's crept up that may be, essentially,
181
528000
2000
09:15
a cleverer idea than putting sulfates in.
182
530000
2000
09:17
Whether this idea is right or some other idea is right,
183
532000
4000
09:21
I think it's almost certain we will
184
536000
2000
09:23
eventually think of cleverer things to do than just putting sulfur in.
185
538000
3000
09:26
That if engineers and scientists really turned their minds to this,
186
541000
3000
09:29
it's amazing how we can affect the planet.
187
544000
3000
09:32
The one thing about this is it gives us extraordinary leverage.
188
547000
4000
09:36
This improved science and engineering will, whether we like it or not,
189
551000
3000
09:39
give us more and more leverage to affect the planet,
190
554000
3000
09:42
to control the planet,
191
557000
2000
09:44
to give us weather and climate control -- not because we plan it,
192
559000
4000
09:48
not because we want it, just because science delivers it to us bit by bit,
193
563000
3000
09:51
with better knowledge of the way the system works
194
566000
2000
09:53
and better engineering tools to effect it.
195
568000
2000
09:57
Now, suppose that space aliens arrived.
196
572000
4000
10:01
Maybe they're going to land at the U.N. headquarters down the road here,
197
576000
2000
10:03
or maybe they'll pick a smarter spot --
198
578000
2000
10:05
but suppose they arrive and they give you a box.
199
580000
3000
10:08
And the box has two knobs.
200
583000
4000
10:12
One knob is the knob for controlling global temperature.
201
587000
2000
10:14
Maybe another knob is a knob for controlling CO2 concentrations.
202
589000
2000
10:16
You might imagine that we would fight wars over that box.
203
591000
4000
10:20
Because we have no way to agree about where to set the knobs.
204
595000
3000
10:23
We have no global governance.
205
598000
2000
10:25
And different people will have different places they want it set.
206
600000
2000
10:27
Now, I don't think that's going to happen. It's not very likely.
207
602000
4000
10:31
But we're building that box.
208
606000
4000
10:35
The scientists and engineers of the world
209
610000
2000
10:37
are building it piece by piece, in their labs.
210
612000
2000
10:39
Even when they're doing it for other reasons.
211
614000
2000
10:41
Even when they're thinking they're just working on protecting the environment.
212
616000
3000
10:44
They have no interest in crazy ideas like engineering the whole planet.
213
619000
2000
10:46
They develop science that makes it easier and easier to do.
214
621000
4000
10:50
And so I guess my view on this is not that I want to do it -- I do not --
215
625000
3000
10:53
but that we should move this out of the shadows and talk about it seriously.
216
628000
5000
10:58
Because sooner or later, we'll be confronted with decisions about this,
217
633000
3000
11:01
and it's better if we think hard about it,
218
636000
3000
11:04
even if we want to think hard about reasons why we should never do it.
219
639000
4000
11:08
I'll give you two different ways to think about this problem that are the beginning
220
643000
6000
11:14
of my thinking about how to think about it.
221
649000
2000
11:16
But what we need is not just a few oddballs like me thinking about this.
222
651000
3000
11:19
We need a broader debate.
223
654000
2000
11:21
A debate that involves musicians, scientists, philosophers, writers,
224
656000
4000
11:25
who get engaged with this question about climate engineering
225
660000
3000
11:28
and think seriously about what its implications are.
226
663000
3000
11:31
So here's one way to think about it,
227
666000
2000
11:33
which is that we just do this instead of cutting emissions because it's cheaper.
228
668000
4000
11:37
I guess the thing I haven't said about this is, it is absurdly cheap.
229
672000
3000
11:40
It's conceivable that, say, using the sulfates method or this method I've come up with,
230
675000
4000
11:44
you could create an ice age at a cost of .001 percent of GDP.
231
679000
6000
11:50
It's very cheap. We have a lot of leverage.
232
685000
3000
11:53
It's not a good idea, but it's just important. (Laughter)
233
688000
2000
11:55
I'll tell you how big the lever is: the lever is that big.
234
690000
3000
11:59
And that calculation isn't much in dispute.
235
694000
3000
12:02
You might argue about the sanity of it, but the leverage is real. (Laughter)
236
697000
6000
12:10
So because of this, we could deal with the problem
237
705000
2000
12:12
simply by stopping reducing emissions,
238
707000
5000
12:17
and just as the concentrations go up, we can increase
239
712000
2000
12:19
the amount of geo-engineering.
240
714000
2000
12:21
I don't think anybody takes that seriously.
241
716000
3000
12:24
Because under this scenario, we walk further and further away
242
719000
2000
12:26
from the current climate.
243
721000
2000
12:28
We have all sorts of other problems, like ocean acidification
244
723000
2000
12:30
that come from CO2 in the atmosphere, anyway.
245
725000
3000
12:33
Nobody but maybe one or two very odd folks really suggest this.
246
728000
3000
12:36
But here's a case which is harder to reject.
247
731000
2000
12:38
Let's say that we don't do geo-engineering, we do what we ought to do,
248
733000
4000
12:42
which is get serious about cutting emissions.
249
737000
2000
12:44
But we don't really know how quickly we have to cut them.
250
739000
3000
12:47
There's a lot of uncertainty about exactly how much climate change is too much.
251
742000
3000
12:50
So let's say that we work hard, and we actually don't just tap the brakes,
252
745000
3000
12:53
but we step hard on the brakes and really reduce emissions
253
748000
3000
12:56
and eventually reduce concentrations.
254
751000
2000
12:58
And maybe someday -- like 2075, October 23 --
255
753000
5000
13:03
we finally reach that glorious day where concentrations have peaked
256
758000
3000
13:06
and are rolling down the other side.
257
761000
2000
13:08
And we have global celebrations, and we've actually started to -- you know,
258
763000
3000
13:11
we've seen the worst of it.
259
766000
3000
13:14
But maybe on that day we also find that the Greenland ice sheet
260
769000
4000
13:18
is really melting unacceptably fast, fast enough to put meters of sea level on
261
773000
6000
13:24
the oceans in the next 100 years,
262
779000
2000
13:26
and remove some of the biggest cities from the map.
263
781000
2000
13:28
That's an absolutely possible scenario.
264
783000
2000
13:30
We might decide at that point that even though geo-engineering was uncertain
265
785000
3000
13:33
and morally unhappy, that it's a lot better than not geo-engineering.
266
788000
5000
13:38
And that's a very different way to look at the problem.
267
793000
2000
13:40
It's using this as risk control, not instead of action.
268
795000
3000
13:43
It's saying that you do some geo-engineering for a little while
269
798000
3000
13:46
to take the worst of the heat off, not that you'd use it as a substitute for action.
270
801000
5000
13:51
But there is a problem with that view.
271
806000
2000
13:53
And the problem is the following:
272
808000
2000
13:55
knowledge that geo-engineering is possible makes
273
810000
2000
13:57
the climate impacts look less fearsome,
274
812000
3000
14:00
and that makes a weaker commitment to cutting emissions today.
275
815000
3000
14:03
This is what economists call a moral hazard.
276
818000
2000
14:05
And that's one of the fundamental reasons that this problem is so hard to talk about,
277
820000
4000
14:09
and, in general, I think it's the underlying reason
278
824000
2000
14:11
that it's been politically unacceptable to talk about this.
279
826000
1000
14:12
But you don't make good policy by hiding things in a drawer.
280
827000
4000
14:16
I'll leave you with three questions, and then one final quote.
281
831000
3000
14:19
Should we do serious research on this topic?
282
834000
3000
14:22
Should we have a national research program that looks at this?
283
837000
3000
14:25
Not just at how you would do it better,
284
840000
2000
14:27
but also what all the risks and downsides of it are.
285
842000
2000
14:29
Right now, you have a few enthusiasts talking about it, some in a positive side,
286
844000
4000
14:33
some in a negative side -- but that's a dangerous state to be in
287
848000
3000
14:36
because there's very little depth of knowledge on this topic.
288
851000
3000
14:39
A very small amount of money would get us some.
289
854000
2000
14:41
Many of us -- maybe now me -- think we should do that.
290
856000
3000
14:44
But I have a lot of reservations.
291
859000
2000
14:46
My reservations are principally about the moral hazard problem,
292
861000
3000
14:49
and I don't really know how we can best avoid the moral hazard.
293
864000
4000
14:53
I think there is a serious problem: as you talk about this,
294
868000
2000
14:55
people begin to think they don't need to work so hard to cut emissions.
295
870000
4000
14:59
Another thing is, maybe we need a treaty.
296
874000
3000
15:02
A treaty that decides who gets to do this.
297
877000
3000
15:05
Right now we may think of a big, rich country like the U.S. doing this.
298
880000
2000
15:07
But it might well be that, in fact, if China wakes up in 2030 and realizes
299
882000
4000
15:11
that the climate impacts are just unacceptable,
300
886000
2000
15:13
they may not be very interested in our moral conversations about how to do this,
301
888000
4000
15:17
and they may just decide they'd really rather have a geo-engineered world
302
892000
4000
15:21
than a non-geo-engineered world.
303
896000
3000
15:24
And we'll have no international mechanism to figure out who makes the decision.
304
899000
4000
15:28
So here's one last thought, which was said much, much better
305
903000
2000
15:30
25 years ago in the U.S. National Academy report than I can say today.
306
905000
4000
15:34
And I think it really summarizes where we are here.
307
909000
3000
15:37
That the CO2 problem, the climate problem that we've heard about,
308
912000
3000
15:40
is driving lots of things -- innovations in the energy technologies
309
915000
2000
15:42
that will reduce emissions --
310
917000
2000
15:44
but also, I think, inevitably, it will drive us towards thinking about climate
311
919000
5000
15:49
and weather control, whether we like it or not.
312
924000
3000
15:52
And it's time to begin thinking about it,
313
927000
2000
15:54
even if the reason we're thinking about it is to construct arguments
314
929000
3000
15:57
for why we shouldn't do it.
315
932000
2000
15:59
Thank you very much.
316
934000
1000
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
David Keith - Environmental scientistDavid Keith studies our climate, and the many ideas we've come up with to fix it. A wildly original thinker, he challenges us to look at climate solutions that may seem daring, sometimes even shocking.
Why you should listen
Environmental scientist David Keith works at the intersection of climate science, way-new energy, and public power. His research has taken him into some far-out realms of geoengineering -- dramatic, cheap, sometimes shocking solutions to a warming atmosphere, such as blowing a Mt. Pinatubo-size cloud of sulfur into the sky to bring the global temperature down.
His other areas of study include the capture and storage of CO2 , the economics and climatic impacts of large-scale wind power , and the use of hydrogen as a transportation fuel. Another interest: How we make decisions when we don't have reliable scholarly data.
He teaches at the University of Calgary, and was named Environmental Scientist of the Year by Canadian Geographic in 2006.
David Keith | Speaker | TED.com