 I love the Years of Living Dangerously because they tackled one of the main myths about climate change head-on. One of the main myths is that climate change is a distant issue. It's distant in space, it's only about the polar bear, not about us, and it's distant in time, it's only about future generations, not about us. This is a myth that isn't just among people who don't think climate change is real. Even many people who do view it as, oh, it's just, you know, we'll deal with it in the future. The Years of Living Dangerously said no. We are dealing with it right now, whether you like it or not, and let us show you the faces of the people around the world who are dealing with it. So we're not talking like we were 50 years ago, 40 years ago, that this will be a problem. It is a problem. All the systems we have in place, agriculture, urban environment, everything we've set up has all been predicated on this very, very stable climate, which we're now starting to tinker with, you know, fiddle with the dials in an uncontrolled way. The science is looking at the impact of that on the climate, the impact on humans, the impact on sea level, the impact on precipitation. It's going to be the impact on food production, it's going to be the impact on where people live, right? They're pretty serious impacts. It's going to be impact on biodiversity, which in my opinion is even bigger than sea level, right, the decay of species. Unfortunately, it's not the people who are causing the problems that will be most affected. So, you know, America and Arthur, the highest emitters per capita, but it's the people in the developing regions that will be affected most. So Porog Kiribati is already having saltwater intrusion in inundation and sea level rise and they're not putting any greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. You can imagine that if you're on a low-lying Pacific Island, well, actually a small amount of sea level makes a massive difference to your livelihood. Combine that with, you know, a high tide or a storm surge and then, you know, we get regions of the world that are very vulnerable to these kind of combined events. We are very vulnerable as a species to relatively small changes in sea level. There are countries like Bangladesh, the Netherlands and all the atolls in the South Pacific, which would be absolutely devastated from a sea level rise of more than a meter. Millions and millions of people are set to be displaced with our low-end projections of sea level rise. If we start tracking at higher ends because of these rapid melting of the land ice over the Greenland and Antarctic regions, you could have, you know, even more rapid displacement of populations. The sea level rise around about a meter, it's suggested, would displace potentially up to 200 million people. It's very clear that if you push slowly on the climate, a lot of the things that we have built hit sudden thresholds. Either the city is hiding behind the levee and the water stays just below the levee during the storm or just above. And that little change can make a huge difference to whether your city is livable or not the next few weeks. I think in the tropics there's where you're going to see the first real impacts on people because the people are living right downstream below the glaciers and there are large numbers of people living downstream. So what's happening to those glaciers become extremely important. What glaciers do is that they act as sponges basically. So in the winter they hold that snow that falls and then they release that snow in the dry time of the year, which is typically the summer. So what glaciers do is they tend to even out the annual precipitation that falls and essentially allow areas to carry on to have agriculture, for example, in the summer when otherwise there'd be areas that are very, very dry. If you go to a country like Peru, 70% of the tropical glaciers on earth are in Peru and the Andes are Peru. Peru you have a country of 34 million people. Over 50% live in the desert on the west coast of Peru, depending on rivers that originate in the glaciers up in the Andes. 76% of their electricity comes from hydropower. The water coming from those glaciers. If you're working in Tibet there are 46,000 glaciers there and you take a river like the Indus River. It flows through China, through Pakistan and through India, all nuclear power countries, all depend on that river for its water supplies. So these are places of geopolitical hotspots in the future. I think perhaps the biggest impact is on agriculture because if you think of the prairies that stretch east from the Rockies, there's huge areas that are fed by the rivers that flow from the Rockies. So you can imagine if we're trying to feed a global population and there are crops like wheat, for example, which don't have a high tolerance to certain high thresholds, then we could be in serious trouble. Those that don't have access to things like air conditioning or good public health infrastructure, if you get a heatwave in those sorts of areas, people get sick or the elderly generally get really sick after a heatwave. If they don't have the public infrastructure to cope with that, more people will unfortunately be killed. So when you look at health and you look at morbidity and mortality rates, they increase substantially during heatwave events and in fact, in Europe in 2003, there was somewhere around about 30,000 to 50,000 excess deaths due to the heatwave. Some of my research is in East Africa. We are seeing climate change impacts in those places and they're scary. You see what happens to people when the distributions of malaria carrying mosquitoes expands. It kills them. It's not an academic issue for me. This is a deeply ethically based issue. Climate change in the really short term is expensive, but not hugely so. And as the climate change gets bigger, as we look farther into the future, the price goes up, the damages go up very crudely. Each degree of warming costs more than the previous degree. The first degree was almost in the noise of what we were used to. It's not very expensive, but we've used that one. And the second degree will cost a little more. It's moving outside of your experience, it's starting to stress things. And we've committed to that one very broadly. The third degree costs more than the second. And by the fourth and the fifth, now sea level rise is going to get huge. We have real problems with crops which may be bumping up against biochemical limits and the ability to feed ourselves gets a little bit worrisome. And so by the time you start running to the third and the fourth, the fifth degree, the costs of damages and dangers go way up. But we're arguing now about the third degree because we've basically, we've warmed almost all of the first one and we really have committed to the second one. There are consequences in terms of human life for this. There are consequences in terms of extinction rates for this. There are consequences in terms of ecosystem services. Every single day that goes by that we don't begin to address these problems, the problem gets worse, more expensive, more immediate. And in some parts of the world has a toll in terms of people dying. And for me, this is just like fundamental. We don't have time to muck about with this. This is not an ivory tower argument. This is one where the consequences are real. We have to really try and wake people up to realize that this is happening, it's very, very serious, but we can solve it. And we have to do so not because it's going to cut the economy, but because it's the planet we live on and it's the people that we love that are going to be affected.