Everything Wrong With Environmentalism In 11 Minutes Or Less!!

Most people care about the environment…at least enough to say they do on a study. And most people have faith that the top environmental agencies in the world are fighting the good fight to remedy the wrongs of humankind, certain that they’re focusing on the core issues with the greatest impact. Well, today we’re going to look at the top issues championed by the environmental agencies and the vast majority of environmentalists and see why they’re wrong. So…very…wrong. Hi it’s Emily from Bite Size Vegan and welcome to another vegan nugget, the first of the “everything wrong with” series. Way back in the day I did a video comparing the effectiveness of all the common “go green” tips to eating a vegan diet. That video’s up there if you want to check it out later. Unfortunately it was before I was very rigorous with citing my sources and I haven’t had time to cobble them back together for that post. So today is a bit of a revamp with new numbers, many even more incredible. I’m going to move more quickly in this video than usual but citations for every fact I state and additional information are available on the blog post for this video which linked up there and in the video description.

I will also track any errors that I or anyone else finds in this video there as well. I will also be far more sarcastic in this video but do not mean to say that other environmental issues have no importance. You have been warned. Let’s get the tally of wrongness up [which you’ll see is more of an art than a science] and start the clock after…. Issue One: Climate Change Environmental agencies focus on fossil fuels as the big bad baddy of greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming, suggesting alternative energy, carpooling, hybrid cars, and biking, but animal agriculture accounts for more CO2 per year than all transportation methods combined. A conservative 2006 study by the United Nations Food and Agricultural organization placed animal agriculture at 7,516 metric tons per year or 18% of annual global GHG emissions with a far more thorough 2009 World Watch study taking into account overlooked livestock respiration, land use, methane and other oversights of the FAO, with the ultimate outcome of at least 32,654 million tons of CO2 per year coming from animal agriculture.

That’s 51% of all global emissions compared to the 13% of all combined transportation. And what do the environmental agencies point to: reducing fossil fuel usage. If we completely stopped all use of gas, oil, fuel, electricity, et cetera, and never used them ever again, we would still exceed our carbon equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of 565 Gigatons by the year 2030 just with the impact of livestock alone. So not using fossil fuels at all, which would be the wet dream of every environmental agency, we’re still gassing out the planet with the one contributor, the main contributor, which they refuse to even address. In a similar vein, the focus is always almost exclusively on CO2 but methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 and has 86 times the global warming power. If we do reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere as all the organizations are calling for, it will take around 100 years to see an actual decline, whereas reducing methane shows results almost immediately with significant results within decades. So the proposed solutions are even farther from the mark than the actual constructive change.

Additionally, livestock is responsible for 65% of all emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas 296 x more destructive than carbon dioxide and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years. Put in comparative terms, your average car produces 3-12 kg/day of CO2. but to clear rainforest to produce beef for one hamburger produces 75 kg of CO2. Eating one pound of hamburger does the same damage as driving your car for more than three weeks. But is animal agriculture ever mentioned by any of the top environmental organizations or environmentalists in relation to global warming? No. They focus on alternative energy when converting to wind and solar power will take 20+ years and roughly 43 trillion dollars, and going vegan takes seconds and can be even cheaper than being non-vegan. Issue Two: Water Conservation Environmental protection agencies recommend to use less water, take shorter showers, use a low flow shower head. Now here is where you’ll find the greatest variation from my original calculations based on a 5 gallon per minute shower head.

This time around I found that the typical shower head after 1980 emits 2.5 gallons/minute with the low flow emitting no more than 2gpm. If you take daily 15 minute showers with a low-flow shower head you’ll be saving 2,737.5 gallons per year. If, instead, you forgo one pound of beef one time, you’ll save 2,500 gallons of water for ONE POUND OF BEEF. That is a conservative number as figures range all the way to over 8,000 gallons of water for one pound of beef. 477 gallons of water are required to produce 1lb. of eggs; almost 900 gallons of water are needed for 1lb. of cheese. and 1,000 gallons or liters of water are required to produce 1 gallon or liter of milk. Environmental agencies focus almost exclusively on curbing home water usage, but only 5% of water consumed in the US is by private homes, while 55% of water consumed in the US is for animal agriculture, and 20-33% of all fresh water consumption in the world today. That’s up to a third of the planets water for animal agriculture.

If you didn’t consume beef, eggs, milk, or cheese, not even counting other meats or other dairy items, based on American consumption habits from 2000 and the conservative figures of water per pound, you’d save 222,345 gallons of water that year. But the environmental agencies prefer saving 1,825-2,737.5 gallons a year by using a low flow shower-head. Oh and the little trendy Greek Yogurts out there? 90 gallons of water for a 6 oz. serving. And one stick of butter takes 109 gallons. If we added all forms of dairy and meat for the average American in 2000, which is less dairy and more meat than the data I had for my first video, and use a very conservative average of 1,500 gallons per pound for the remaining meat as each type varies and even more conservative 600 gallons for the remaining dairy, a vegan year would save approximately 724,925 gallons. Not only does that blow every water conservation recommendation out of the water, but with the new calculations, forget what I’ve said before about not showering.

You would have to not shower AT ALL for over 66 years if you took daily 15 minute showers or close to 100 years if you took daily 10 minute showers, both with a water saving shower head. And the advice of the supposed environmental champions: shower less, turn off the water while soaping your hands, run your sprinklers at night. Because that’s how we’re going to change the world. Issue Three: Fracking, no I did not curse… Fracking is the new golden child of environmentalists and their leading organizations. Fracking is destroying the planet! It’s polluting the waters. In the United States alone, fracking uses from 70-140 billion gallons of water. Keep in mind for the big numbers that a thousand seconds is 17 minutes, a million seconds is 12 days, a billion seconds is 31.7 years, and a trillion seconds is 31,709.

8 years. In the United States alone, animal agriculture uses from 34-76 trillion gallons annually. Taking into account the exponential difference between a billion and a trillion, animal agriculture in the United States consumes anywhere from 486 to over a 1,000 times more water than fracking, the largest threat to water according to environmentalists. Issue Four: Ocean Dead Zones and Over-Fishing Some of the worst human-created devastation is in our oceans. 3/4 of the world’s fisheries are exploited. 90 million tons of fish are pulled from our oceans each year. For every 1 pound of fish caught, up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as by-kill. We could see fishless oceans by 2048. And what’s the suggestion of the major ocean protection organizations? Sustainable fishing. There’s no way to make 100 million tons of fish by 2050 sustainable, especially given the 5 pounds of by catch for every one pound of fish. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of ocean dead zones with livestock operations on land having created more than 500 nitrogen-flooded dead zones around the world in our oceans.

Issue Five: Waste Management Environmental agencies focus on industrial waste and the sanitation of human waste while a farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people and it is entirely untreated. In fact, every minute, 7 million pounds of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the US alone. This doesn’t include animals raised outside of USDA jurisdiction or in backyards, or the billions of fish raised in aquaculture settings in the US and it all has no proper management system leading to ground water and ocean pollution. Perhaps they don’t want to address the fecal issue because they themselves are full of…moving on. Issue Six: Species Extinction 10,000 years ago 99% of the biomass (i.e. zoo-mass) was wild animals, today, humans and the animals that we raise as food make up 98% of the zoo-mass, with wild animals comprising only 2%. Up to 137 plant, animal, and insect species are lost every day due to rainforest destruction, the leading cause of which, as we shall see, is animal agriculture. We are currently facing the largest mass extinction in 65 million years. The Alliance for Global Conservation estimates 36 percent of all species on our planet are in danger of extinction.

And what are the major species protection organizations recommending? Wildlife rehabilitation and conservation, fighting poaching, and breeding programs. Way to throw a bandaid on an open artery. I’m sure it will hold. Issue Seven: Habitat Destruction, Land Usage & Deforestation A third of the planet is desertified, with livestock as the leading cause. Nearly half of the contiguous United States is devoted to animal agriculture. 1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food and only 375 pounds of meat. The land required to feed 1 vegan for 1 year is 1/6th of an acre. It is 3x as much for a vegetarian and 18x as much for a meat-eater. You can grow 15x more protein on any given area of land with plants, rather than animals. 136 million rainforest acres have been cleared for animal agriculture with 1-2 acres of rainforest being cleared every second.

In fact animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon destruction. A single quarter pounder burger takes 55 square feet of rainforest to produce. But what do the major rainforest protection agencies focus on primarily? Palm oil and pulp production. Now for the Too Long Didn’t Watch version: Animal agriculture is the leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming, uses a third of the earth’s fresh water, up to 45% of the Earth’s land, is responsible for 91% of Amazon destruction with 1-2 acres being cleared every second, and is a leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, and habitat destruction. Environmental agencies not only do not focus on animal agriculture, the absolute most devastating and pervasive single cause of multi-dimensional environmental destruction, but they actually refuse to even acknowledge it. And individual environmentalists, by and large, perhaps as a consequence or by their own social indoctrination, aren’t even aware of this issue despite devoting themselves to championing the environment.

For the wrap up: The ACTUAL problem is animal agriculture and the ACTUAL solution is a vegan diet. A person who follows a vegan diet PRODUCES the equivalent of 50% less carbon dioxide, uses 1/11th oil, 1/13th water, and 1/18th land compared to a meat-lover for their food, and every day saves 1,100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 square ft. of forested land, 20 lbs of CO2 equivalent, and one animal’s life. Given all of these facts, it’s abundantly clear that veganism is THE ONLY answer to the environmental crisis and the environmental organizations collective failure to recognize this fact leaves them with a wrongness tally total of: qualifying them for an ultimate score of More Full of Fecal Matter Than the 7 Million Tons Produced Every Second By Farm Animals in the United States! It’s time to get real.

You cannot be an environmentalist and a non-vegan. It’s now beyond “personal choice” and allowing everyone their dietary preference. The earth cannot sustain the way that we eat. It is a fact and it’s fast approaching critical mass. At this point there is no reason to keep eating animals other than the purely selfish reason of not wanting to change our habits. If we want our children to have a world to live on, we have to stop being so childish ourselves regarding our diets and cut out the crap. I hope you enjoyed this fact-riddled nugget. Please share it around to wake people up to the importance of this issue and feel free to tag any of the major environmental agencies when you share. The time it took to produce this video clocks in at about [68 hours] If you'd like to help support Bite Size Vegan so I can keep putting in the long hours to bring you this educational resource, please check out the support links in the video description below where you can give a one-time donation or receive perks and rewards for your support by joining the Nugget Army- the link for that is also in the iCard sidebar. If you enjoyed this video, please give it a thumbs up and if you’re new here, be sure to hit that big red subscribe button down there for more awesome vegan content every Monday, Wednesday, and some Fridays, and to not miss out on the rest of the “Everything Wrong With" series.

And hey, check out some of the related videos while you’re here for more information. And remember, citations for everything I talked about are in the blog post for this video which is linked up below and in the sidebar. Now go live vegan, save the world, and I’ll see you soon. Man, I feel like I was at an auction. You know…55!…45!…blahlala!….2 dollars! I should just keep doing this. Subtitles by the Amara.org community.

Why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change

"We are hurtling toward the day when climate change could be irreversible." "Rising sea levels already altering this nation’s coast." "China’s capital is choking in its worst pollution of the year." "5% of species will become extinct." "Sea levels rising, glaciers melting." Okay. Enough. I get it. It’s not like I don’t care about polar bears and melting ice caps. I’m a conservation scientist, so of course I care. I’ve dedicated my entire career to this. But over the years, one thing has become clear to me: We need to change the way we talk about climate change. This doom-and-gloom messaging just isn’t working; we seem to want to tune it out. And this fear, this guilt, we know from psychology is not conducive to engagement. It's rather the opposite. It makes people passive, because when I feel fearful or guilt-full, I will withdraw from the issue and try to think about something else that makes me feel better. And with a problem this overwhelming, it’s pretty easy to just turn away and kick the can down the road. Somebody else can deal with it.

So it’s no wonder that scientists and policymakers have been struggling with this issue too. So I like to say that climate change is the policy problem from hell. You almost couldn't design a worse problem as a fit with our underlying psychology or the way our institutions make decisions. Many Americans continue to think of climate change as a distant problem: distant in time, that the impacts won't be felt for a generation or more; and distant in space, that this is about polar bears or maybe some developing countries. Again, it’s not like we don’t care about these things — it’s just such a complicated problem. But the thing is, we’ve faced enormous, scary climate issues before. Remember the hole in the ozone layer? As insurmountable as that seemed in the 1970s and ’80s, we were able to wrap our heads around that and take action.

People got this very simple, easy to understand, concrete image of this protective layer around the Earth, kind of like a roof, protecting us, in this case, from ultraviolet light, which by the way has the direct health consequence of potentially giving you skin cancer. Okay, so now you've got my attention. And so then they came up with this fabulous term, the “ozone hole.” Terrible problem, great term. People also got a concrete image of how we even ended up with this problem. For decades, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, were the main ingredient in a lot of products, like aerosol spray cans. Then scientists discovered that CFCs were actually destroying the atmospheric ozone. People could look at their own hairspray and say, “Do I want to destroy the planet because of my hairspray? I mean, god no.” And so what's interesting is that sales of hairspray and those kinds of products and underarm aerosols started dropping quite dramatically.

People listened to scientists and took action. Now scientists predict that the hole in the ozone layer will be healed around 2050. That’s actually pretty amazing. And while stopping the use of one product is actually pretty easy, climate change caused by greenhouse gases … that’s much trickier. Because the sources are more complicated, and for the most part, they’re totally invisible. Right now, there is CO2 pouring out of tailpipes, there is CO2 pouring out of buildings, there is CO2 pouring out of smokestacks, but you can't see it. The fundamental cause of this problem is largely invisible to most of us. I mean, if CO2 was black, we would have dealt with this issue a long time ago. So CO2 touches every part of our lives — our cars, the places we work, the food we eat.

For now, let’s just focus on one thing: our energy use. How do we make that visible? That was the initial goal of UCLA’s Engage project, one of the nation’s largest behavioral experiments in energy conservation. What we're trying to do is to figure out how to frame information about electricity usage so that people save energy and conserve electricity. The idea is that electricity is relatively invisible to people. The research team outfitted part of a student housing complex with meters that tracked real-time usage of appliances and then sent them weekly reports. So you can see how much energy the stove used versus the dishwasher or the fridge. We realized, because of this project, the fridge was like the monster. So lucky for them, their landlord upgraded their fridge to an energy-efficient one. They also learned other energy-saving tips, like unplugging their dishwasher when not in use and air-drying their clothes during the summer months. And researchers, in turn, discovered where people were willing to cut back. The Engage project wanted to know what types of messaging could motivate people to change their behavior. We wanted to see over time over a year and with repeated messages, how do people, behave? How does that impact the consumer behavior? And what we found is that it's very different.

Some households were sent personalized emails with their energy bill about how they could save money; others learned how their energy usage impacted the environment and children’s health. Those who received messages about saving money did nothing. It was totally ineffective because electricity is relatively cheap. But emails sent that linked the amount of pollutants produced to rates of childhood asthma and cancer — well, those led to an 8% drop in energy use, and 19% in households with kids. Now, in a separate study, researchers brought social competition into the mix. First, they hung posters around a dorm building to publicly showcase how students were really doing: red dots for energy wasters, green for those doing a good job, and a shiny gold star for those going above and beyond. This social pressure approach led to a 20% reduction in energy use. This strategy was also used at Paulina’s complex, and it definitely brought out her competitive streak. For me, the competition was what motivated me, because seeing your apartment number and telling you that you are doing at the average, but you are not the best, was like, Why? I’m doing everything you are telling me to do.

I always wanted the gold star, because it was like, “Oh, my god, I want to be like the less consumption of energy in the whole building.” And psychology studies have proved this. We are social creatures, and as individualistic as we can be, turns out we do care about how we compare to others. And yes, we do like to be the best. Some people don’t want to say, Oh, I'm like the average. No, my usage is different and I want to be able to act on it. And people can act on it because with these meters, they can now see their exact impact. A company called Opower is playing with this idea of social competition. They work with over 100 utility companies to provide personalized energy reports to millions of customers around the world. Now consumers can not only see their energy use but how it compares to their neighbors’. Like the UCLA study found, this subtle social pressure encourages consumers to save energy.

It’s been so effective that in 2016, Opower was able to generate the equivalent of two terawatt-hours of electricity savings. That’s enough to power every home in Miami for more than a year. And they’re not alone. Even large companies are tapping into behavioral science to move the dial. Virgin Atlantic Airways gave a select group of pilots feedback on their fuel use. Over the course of a year, they collectively saved over 6,800 tons of fuel by making some simple changes: Adjusting their altitudes, routes, and speed reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by over 21,000 tons. These behavioral “nudges” do seem to be advancing how we as a society deal with some pretty complicated climate change issues, but it turns out we’re just getting started. There is no “quick fix.” We need people changing their companies, changing their business models, changing the products and services they provide. This is about broader-scale change. And part of this change includes embracing what makes us human.

That it can’t just be a guilt trip about dying polar bears or driving around in gas guzzlers. We need to talk about our wins, as well — like how we’re making progress, really being aware of our energy use, and taking advantage of that competitive spirit we all have in order to really move us from a state of apathy to action. Global warming is by far the biggest issue of our time. Climate Lab is a new series from Vox and the University of California, and we’ll be exploring some surprising ways we can tackle this problem. If you want to learn more, head to climate.universityofcalifornia.edu..

Trump Fails To Mention Climate Change During Earth Day Address

This past Saturday was Earth Day, and during his Earth Day address President Donald Trump failed to mention the terms climate change or global warming, even one time. During his entire address there was not a single mention of climate change or any climate change related events. Basically, Donald Trump went out there on the day that we're supposed to acknowledge that we as human beings are destroying this planet, he went out there and said basically nothing. He didn't talk about the fact that we've got to cut carbon emissions. He didn't talk about the fact that we have to protect coastal low lying communities from the increase in water level. He didn't say anything about actually protecting, preserving, and making the planet better. Instead, he gave us typical republican talking points. Smart regulations, you know, ones that don't hurt businesses. Well, I have news for you Mr. Trump, and every republican ever.

Regulations don't kill jobs. In fact, according to every study on the issue, regulations actually provide a net benefit to economies as opposed to letting those regulations go away. Meaning that regulations create more jobs, create more economic activity than undoing those regulations would do. Furthermore, repealing regulations, which is what this Trump White House is all about, that's why they're cutting the EPA by 31% and laying off over 3,000 workers, we're losing economic activity. We're losing human health because we're letting corporations get away with destroying the environment. An American Lung Association report last year showed that air quality in 2016 actually improved. Now, there's still 166 million American citizens living in areas where the level of air pollution is considered dangerous, but overall things are getting better.

Donald Trump is going to undo all of that. That's not speculation, that's not hyperbole, that is what he said he's going to do. Why? To benefit corporations in the fossil fuel industry. Unless you are a CEO of a fossil fuel company, repealing environmental regulations has no benefit to your life. Basically what, there's maybe 30, 40 people in this country who would benefit from that? That's it. Is that worth laying off 3,000 people from that their government jobs? Is that worth risking the lives of 4,000 people every year by doing away with Obama's Clean Power Rule? We're putting the profits of corporate fossil fuel CEOs over the lives of American citizens. You know, since the Clean Air Act was passed in the 1970s an estimated 160,000 lives have been saved per year from reduced airborne particulate in this country.

160,000 lives every year. We're still losing on average 200,000 lives every year in the United States, premature deaths due to air pollution alone. We could keep reducing that number. We could literally save lives, thousands of lives, possibly hundreds of thousands of lives every year if we would just say, "Hey corporation, fossil fuel, coal power plant, you can't spew that crap into the air anymore." That's all it takes. That is all it would take to save American lives, reduce the number of people who have asthma attacks every year, reduce the number of sick days that employees take so productivity actually increases, but we're not willing to do that because of 30, 40 fossil fuel CEOs that we want to take care of. That's what's more important in this country today. Your life is worth less than the few extra dollars that a corporate CEO gets to put in his pocket. I want you to realize that, and I want you to think about that next time you head into your precinct and cast your vote. Which candidate is supporting the money of the fossil fuel companies, and which candidate thinks that your life is more important than a $10 or $20 bill going to a corporate CEO?.

Bill Nye Explains Climate Change, Acidification With Simple Science Experiments | TODAY

>>> AND YOU GUYS, I'VE GOT TO SAY — >> YOU LIKE THAT? >> JUST FOR YOU. >> YOU LOOK PRETTY SHARP. IF YOU LIKE TO WORRY ABOUT THINGS YOU'RE LIVING IN A GREAT TIME. >> OKAY. >> SO — THIS IS JUST A TRADITIONAL DEMONSTRATION TO SHOW YOU THE BIG PROBLEM. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MARK ON THIS RED TAPE. AS WE WARM THIS WATER, IT EXPANDS. HERE YOU ARE — HOLD THE BULB. >> HOLD THE BULB. >> SHEINELLE HOLD THE BULB, BOTTOM PART. YOU KNOW IT WILL GO UP. >> SURE. >> THE RED LIQUID WILL GO UP. >> YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. >> SAME IS HAPPENING HERE. THERE YOU GO. AND THE SAME IS HAPPENING WITH THE WORLD'S OCEAN, EVERYBODY. YOU GET THIS ENORMOUS OCEAN JUST A LITTLE BIT WARMER, IT GETS BIGGER, JUST LIKE THIS. JUST LIKE THIS. AND WHEN IT GETS BIGGER, EXOTIC PLACES LIKE NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, GALVESTON, TEXAS TO A LESSER EXTENT MANHATTAN, ARE GOING TO HAVE WATER COMING IN TO YOUR LIVING ROOM, AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LEAVE.

WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT? ABANDON HOUSES. IT'S GOING TO BE A DRAG. SEE THAT? IN JUST A FEW SECONDS, WATER EXPANDS. JUST AS, JUST LIKE THE SPIRIT AND THE THERMOMETER. YOU DON'T NEED TO TAKE THAT WITH YOU. >> I'M WALKING BECAUSE — YOU'RE RIGHT. SOMETHING I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT. >> DOES GO UP. RIGHT? >> IT DOES. >> MOVING ALONG. THINGS TO DO. >> ANOTHER EXAMPLE. >> ANOTHER IMPORTANT THING. SO HERE IN THE WORLD IN WHICH WE LIVE, THERE WE ARE ADDING CARBON MONOXIDE TO THE AIR EXTRAORDINARILY FAST. THE CARBON MONOXIDE IS MIXING WITH THE OCEAN. HERE'S SOMETHING YOU CAN DO AT HOME. NOTHING BUT FUN. RED CABBAGE, BOILING WATER. >> UH-HUH. >> PRODUCES THIS LIQUID. CRAIG, IF YOU WOULD, PUT THE SHMINKIEST TINY SHMINK OF VINEGAR IN THIS ONE. >> A TINY DROP? >> USE YOUR JUDGMENT. >> WHOA. IT TURNED RED AS IF BY MAGIC. IT'S NOT MAGIC, IT'S — >> VINEGAR.

>> SCIENCE. >> SCIENCE. >> SCIENCE! >> IF YOU WOULD, NOW, BLOW BUBBLES INTO THIS, ALSO. >> BECAUSE YOU BREATHE OUT CARBON DIE Y CARBON DIOXIDE. >> LIKE BREATHING INTO THE EARTH? >> INTO THE AIR. ADDING CARBON DIOXIDE MIXING WITH THE OCEAN FORMING CARBONIC ACID. WHAT SHE'S MIXING HERE. LOOK, IT'S CHANGING COLOR. ADDING THIS TO THE OCEAN IT'S BECOMING MORE AAID– ACIDIC, HARD ON SEA LIFE. YOU'RE WALK, THIRSTY AND SOMEONE HANDS YOU A BOTTLE OF VINEGAR INSTEAD OF WATER. WHAT WE'RE DOING TO THE ATMOSPHERE. THREE THINGS WE WANT FOR EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD. >> CLEAN WATER. >> RIGHT ON. >> CLEAN AIR? >> YEAH, CLEAN AIR, BUT I WAS GOING TO SAY, THE SECOND THING IS, RENEWABLY PRODUCED, RELY ELECTRICITY AND THE THIRD THING IS ACCESS TO THE INTERNET, FOR EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD. >> WE ALWAYS LEARN SOMETHING NEW.

>> TRY THIS AT HOME AND THINK BIG ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. LET'S CHANGE THE WORLD. >> I HAVE TO SAY, THANK YOU. IF YOU'D LIKE TO WATCH HIS NEW SHOW "BILL NYE SAVES THE WORLD.".