These two Ted Talks are about geoengineering. Geoengineering is a technique used to make the temperature of the earth decrease by sending particles into space to reflect some of the sun’s rays back into space.
Naomi Klein is against geoengineering. For her, the products used for geoengineering pollute the earth and that this is useless to solve pollution. Moreover, she said that the scientists who are behind this technique are not sure if this will work. On the other hand, Danny Hillis is for geoengineering. In his opinion, chalk can be used to do geoengineering.It is a safe product because we put it in baby food and because it will be dissolved in rainwater in a few years. He found out that it will be necessary to send 10 telegrams a year of chalk into space in order to undo the effects of the CO2 caused by humans which is equivalent to the debit of a hose pumping water.
We agree with Danny Hillis. We think that geoengineering can be a good idea and that it must be exploited in the future. But Naomi Klein also has good arguments, we are not sure it will be 100% safe, maybe it will have unknown side effects. So more research must be done in order to know if geoengineering can be a solution to reduce the temperature.
In both videos, the presenters are giving their opinions about geoengineering. They have divergent points of view. Geoengineering consists in reflecting some of the sun’s rays back to space by shooting particles in the atmosphere in order to cool the planet.
On the one hand, Naomi Klein is strongly against the use of this technology. According to her, the current projects are not reliable solutions to cope with global warming. Indeed, solving pollution issues with more pollution is not a solution. Moreover, scientists have no idea of the side effects that this technology could unleash, nevertheless geoengineering appears more often in the headlines as an escape hatch.
On the other hand, Danny Hillis tries to clear up some of the misunderstandings about geoengineering. He specifies geoengineering consists in creating artificial clouds, which we already do for instance with plane flights. The creation of these artificial clouds necessitates putting chalk up in the atmosphere. As stated by Danny Hillis, chalk is one of the most common minerals on earth in addition to being safe. Shooting 10 teragrams of chalk up in the atmosphere per year is all it requires to undo the effects CO2 has caused to the earth temperature.
In my opinion, geoengineering should be more explored because it could possibly be a solution to reduce the increasing temperature of the planet or at least be a time saver so more of the population can adapt their lifestyles to pollute less.
In the first video, Naomi Klein presents an overview of what is Geo-engineering.
It consists of reducing Global Warming through projects or Infrastructures that can reflect the Sun Light back to space. By taking for example the garden hose in the sky that can make a kind of screen in the sky, she shows that everything comes with some risks which people won't agree with. Personally, I pretty much agree with her because it is good to think for the best of our planet, but at what cost, we don’t know if this new building can make the problem even worse.
In the second video, Danny Hill introduces his new project against global warming by reflecting the Sunlight into space by using a natural concept, clouds. With a certain amount of clouds in the sky, it will be allowed to cool down Earth in general by reducing the Sun hit on the Earth surface. Clouds, then, will act like a shield.
In my opinion, it is a very good concept and idea to use natural phenomena to our advantage with a little infrastructure.
Naomi KLEIN and Danny HILLIS both explain how geoengineering could save the planet from global warming. Indeed, it might help the planet to cool down thanks to directing the reflection of sun rays back to space.
The two speakers have divergent opinions about this subject. In fact, Naomi KLEIN believes that people are waiting to be saved at the last minute. Nevertheless, this solution would mean fighting pollution by more pollution. Moreover, she is not quite convinced by the techniques used and the side effects implicated. According to Danny HILLIS, this solution is already proving its efficiency thanks to the easy creation of clouds which reduce global warming by a degree. Furthermore, to undo the negative temperature effects of CO2 for the world, he reckons that putting 10 teragrams of chalks a year in space would be enough, which is nearly nothing.
In my opinion, the better solution is to be realistic while trying to be positive about the potential possibilities to reduce global warming. Testing at a bigger scale the solar engineering could maybe provide us a solution and if not, people would have to stop staring at the end of the world to reflect on more sustainable ways.
Naomi Klein and Danny Hillis both presented geoengineering and how it could be a solution to reduce global warming. This technology is based on reflecting sun rays back into space.
Naomi Klein seemed opposed to this technology. She pointed out that shooting particles into the stratosphere is only an hypothesis. Moreover, by putting more particles into space, this will only mean that pollution is “saved” by another source of pollution.
On the other hand, Danny Hillis thinks geoengineering is a silly key to save our planet. According to him, people are already cooling the earth with artificial clouds caused by shipping lines or jet engines. He also explained that 10 teragrams of dust put every year in space should cool the earth back down to pre-industrial area.
In conclusion, my opinion is more linked with Naomi Klein than Danny Hillis .Instead of thinking about future engineering technologies, people should try to focus on a way to prevent global warming now and reduce its consequences.
Both videos present a solution to global warming but in the first one, the presenter is criticizing an idea, which consists of shooting sulfate and aluminium particles in the stratosphere to cool the Earth, by saying it would be solving pollution with more pollution. She also highlights the fact that it was not tested.
In the second video, the presenter shows us another solution, which is solving the problem of global warming -only the temperature- by taking chalk and putting dust into the stratosphere. He supports this idea by explaining that the clouds created by planes and boats already helped reduce global warming by a degree. He also says that only ten teragrams a year would be necessary.
I agree with the second speaker, because in my opinion he is much more factual, have more proves and calculations made, and he presents a concrete solution instead of just debunking one
Naomi Klein is arguing that geoengineering is not the redemption to our climate problem. Her idea is that sending sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere to reflect the sunlight is just adding pollution and that we don’t know if this would even work.
Danny Hillis is arguing that clouds are one of the good ways of reducing temperatures by stating that humankind is already creating “artificial” clouds by modifying air current (ex: plane) and it’s reducing global warming by a degree. He then brings David Keith's idea of sending chalk into the stratosphere to act like clouds and concludes with his calculations showing that the amount of chalk needed is ridiculous compared to its action.
At the end the two speakers are roughly talking about the same thing but Naomi Klein thinks that geoengineering won’t be of any help and that the solution lies in our lifestyle when Dany Hillis is considering the possibility of using it.
To give an honest opinion, I would have to watch both videos in their entirety, but from what I heard, I would tend to agree more with the second speaker. He brings sources, calculations and is much more nuanced in his comments. Unlike the first speaker where she doesn't bring much to the issues.
Both videos, about geoengineering, are talking about solutions people have found to deflect sun rays back into space, in order to cool down the planet.
For Naomi Klein, one of the solutions she found was to suspend a garden hose from balloons in the sky, to diffuse sulfur dioxide. She then proceeded to say that it was “solving pollution with more pollution”. But one main problem with these kinds of solutions is that they are untested techniques, which means that we still don’t know what kind of effects we are going to get. And another problematic consequence of these, is that people will think that they don’t need to change their lifestyle after all. She totally disagrees with this method.
In Danny Hillis’ case, the main idea was to create artificial clouds, which is sort of realistic, since we are already making some with plains as he said. He mentioned David Keith’s idea of putting chalk as dust on the stratosphere, as there is a lot of chalk on Earth and they are safe, and we only need 10 teragrams per year. He seems to be enthousiast about it (in the extract we were told to watch).
I am not sure how to feel about these, as these solutions sound a bit too easy. But I do agree with Naomi Klein on the fact that these are not tested yet, and even though they said chalk was safe, we are not sure if it’s really not going to affect the ecosystem. I also definitely think that are not the best kind of solutions, as Naomi Klein and Danny Hillis (just a bit after we were told to watch) said, these will make people believe that there is no need to change our lifestyles and our dependence on non-renewable resources.
Geo-engineering techniques aim to manipultae the climate and the environment. These videos are both TedX talks extracts about climate change.
The first speaker, Naomi Klein, states that there is a common belief about climate change that at the very last moment we're gonna get saved (which we get from movies). This belief prevents people from actively looking for solutions.
She explain how people thought about using geo-engineering techniques to reflect sun rays back to space in order to cool the earth (for example by putting sulfates and aluminium particules into the stratosphere).
She shows that these technqiues are for the most part not faiseable or absurd. Moreover These techniques are untested.
The second speaker Danny Hillis is more optimistic about geo-engineering.
He says that clouds reflect sun rays back to space, which traslates in a 1 degre drop in temperature rise. According to him, we are already inadvertently using geo-engineering techniques : contrails from commercial airplanes routes contribute to the formation of more clouds.
Danny then introduces the idea of putting chalk in the stratosphere to reflect more light from the sun. Chalk is a very common ressource on earth.
He explains that we would need very little chalk do undo the temprature change and bring the temperature back to a pre-industrial level.
His views differ from Naomi's besause he thinks that this is a very plausible project whereas she didn't give.
I think that we shouldn't reject any idea since we don't currently have a viable solution to climate change. Even if we develop a technology that allows us to reduce temperatures, we shouldn't forget about all the other aspects and challenges linked to climate change.
Naomi Klein first defines the concept of geoengineering as a whole. She then proceeds to describe a way of solving some of the effects of global warning, by reflecting solar rays back to space. One way to achieve this would be to spray some sulfates and aluminium into the stratosphere, thus reflecting some of the energy from the sun back to space. A drawback to this technique would be that although scientists know the positive effects of such a plan, the side effects, whether they be positive or negative, are yet to be known.
Danny Hills first introduces us to what geoengineering takes the form of, and takes as an example clouds, which are a great way of cooling down areas of the planet. He also gives us as an example that contrails spread by aircrafts and boat trails already contribute to creating artificial clouds that benefit the earth, effectively cooling down the planet by around 1°. He then proceeds to explain how we may create artificial clouds using chalk. This process would only require a handful of it, and would cancel the effects of global warming on the temperature of the planet.
While Naomi Klein seems a bit doubtful about the effects of geoengineering, Danny Hills seems to desensitize his audience about this topic.
We tend to agree more with Naomi Klein, because she seems more aware of the problems that such a plan may involve. We also agree with her because unlike Danny Hills, she warns her audience about the drawbacks of geoengineering, and she appears to show us both sides of the coin.
The first speaker, Naomi Klein, does not believe much into geoengineering because, for her, there is a common belief that technology wil save the world from climate change and she believes that geoengineering can be used as an argument to avoid attacking the subject at the heart of the problem: bad human habits.
The second speaker, Danny Hillis, try to explain how easy geoengineering is, by the fact that we already practicing it & that we already have the technology.
This problem is particular, the point of view differs not on the technology but on its societal impact and more globally, on the behavior of people.
Personally, I have absolutely no confidence in people who adopt a posture about the interest of future technology to catch up with global warming. I find it dangerous and irrational. One cannot place one's salvation in an untested utopian solution. I share Naomi Klein's point of view on this subject.
The presenter,Naomi Klein,is presenting a solution which consists in adding sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere in order to cool down the planet.She insists on the point that we don't know what would be the side effects of those solutions and that we can't fail because we don't have a second earth.
The presenter talks about the ways we could reduce the earth’s temperature to counter global warming. He talks specifically about one way which consists of sprinkling chalk powder into the stratosphere. The chalk powder would reflect a part of the sun’s light and it would reduce the earth’s temperature. Chalk is one of the most common minerals on earth so it would not cost much. It is also not dangerous for the environment : we even put some in baby food. Scientists say that it would only take the equivalent of one fire hose to powder the whole stratosphere.
The two presenters think that geoengineering could be the solution. However, Danny Hillis seems much more optimistic about it. Finally,the two talk about the fact that if we found a solution, the media and people will be saying that we can continue to live like this.
We agree on finding a way to reduce climate change but have to make sure that it’s inoffensive for living organisms. Danny’s solution looks safer than Naomi’s and more affordable
The first TED Talk by Naomi Klein can be summarized by saying that geoengineering is unwanted as it is a way to dodge climat e change and not change our bad habits. She also says that geoengineering is just a way to avoid pollution by creating more pollution.
The TED Talk presented by Danny Hillis says that creating artificial clouds is a very efficient way to completely cancel the effects of global warming. He states that it is easy to achieve as it is something we already do and it wouldn’t have much negative impact.
Their views of the problem differ as Naomi Klein is completely against the idea whereas Danny Hillis is convinced that it is harmless and efficient.
Danny Hillis seems like a complete fraud, as his words are not backed up by enough scientific evidence. However, Naomi Klein also seems very biased. She did not provide any solutions and just criticized geoengineers’ ideas.
Naomi Klein and Danny Hillis are promoting geoengineering, to regulate the temperature of the Earth. Naomi thinks that this is our only escape hatch for climate change without changing our daily lives. Moreover Danny Hillis also believes in geoengineering and according to him we can throw chalk up into the stratosphere to cool down the temperature of our planet.
Both of them believe in geoengineering but have different ideas / techniques to regulate Earth’s warmth.
In our opinion, geoengineering may be one of the solutions for climate change but the ideas given in the videos are not tested and their efficiency is not yet proved by scientists.
In those videos, each presenter introduces geoengineering and explains what he/she feels about it.
Geoengineering is the study of the Earth in order to slow down global warming.
Naomi Klein is against geoengineering. Indeed, she thinks that we don’t know all the side effects of injecting something in the atmosphere to cool down the planet's temperature. She feels like there is so much more to do and that we have no right to fail because there is no planet B.
On the other hand, Danny Hillis is quite confident about geoengineering. He explains that we already do it without knowing. For instance, with planes that release water and create some sort of clouds, which makes global warming slower (about a degree). He talks about a Harvard researcher who said that if we could send chalk (in very few quantities) in space, we could stop Earth heat.
I quite agree with Naomi Klein even though Danny Hillis seemed sure about what he said. We don’t know what could happen if we try to play with the atmosphere because we have not enough feedback and we never will. I feel like we have to apply the precautionary principle on this subject because the consequences could be devastating and I think we’ve all seen enough movies to know that nothing ever goes according to plan.
These two Ted Talks are about geoengineering. Geoengineering is a technique used to make the temperature of the earth decrease by sending particles into space to reflect some of the sun’s rays back into space.
Naomi Klein is against geoengineering. For her, the products used for geoengineering pollute the earth and that this is useless to solve pollution. Moreover, she said that the scientists who are behind this technique are not sure if this will work. On the other hand, Danny Hillis is for geoengineering. In his opinion, chalk can be used to do geoengineering.It is a safe product because we put it in baby food and because it will be dissolved in rainwater in a few years. He found out that it will be necessary to send 10 telegrams a year of chalk into space in order to undo the effects of the CO2 caused by humans which is equivalent to the debit of a hose pumping water.
We agree with Danny Hillis. We think that geoengineering can be a good idea and that it must be exploited in the future. But Naomi Klein also has good arguments, we are not sure it will be 100% safe, maybe it will have unknown side effects. So more research must be done in order to know if geoengineering can be a solution to reduce the temperature.
In both videos, the presenters are giving their opinions about geoengineering. They have divergent points of view. Geoengineering consists in reflecting some of the sun’s rays back to space by shooting particles in the atmosphere in order to cool the planet.
On the one hand, Naomi Klein is strongly against the use of this technology. According to her, the current projects are not reliable solutions to cope with global warming. Indeed, solving pollution issues with more pollution is not a solution. Moreover, scientists have no idea of the side effects that this technology could unleash, nevertheless geoengineering appears more often in the headlines as an escape hatch.
On the other hand, Danny Hillis tries to clear up some of the misunderstandings about geoengineering. He specifies geoengineering consists in creating artificial clouds, which we already do for instance with plane flights. The creation of these artificial clouds necessitates putting chalk up in the atmosphere. As stated by Danny Hillis, chalk is one of the most common minerals on earth in addition to being safe. Shooting 10 teragrams of chalk up in the atmosphere per year is all it requires to undo the effects CO2 has caused to the earth temperature.
In my opinion, geoengineering should be more explored because it could possibly be a solution to reduce the increasing temperature of the planet or at least be a time saver so more of the population can adapt their lifestyles to pollute less.
In the first video, Naomi Klein presents an overview of what is Geo-engineering.
It consists of reducing Global Warming through projects or Infrastructures that can reflect the Sun Light back to space. By taking for example the garden hose in the sky that can make a kind of screen in the sky, she shows that everything comes with some risks which people won't agree with. Personally, I pretty much agree with her because it is good to think for the best of our planet, but at what cost, we don’t know if this new building can make the problem even worse.
In the second video, Danny Hill introduces his new project against global warming by reflecting the Sunlight into space by using a natural concept, clouds. With a certain amount of clouds in the sky, it will be allowed to cool down Earth in general by reducing the Sun hit on the Earth surface. Clouds, then, will act like a shield.
In my opinion, it is a very good concept and idea to use natural phenomena to our advantage with a little infrastructure.
Naomi KLEIN and Danny HILLIS both explain how geoengineering could save the planet from global warming. Indeed, it might help the planet to cool down thanks to directing the reflection of sun rays back to space.
The two speakers have divergent opinions about this subject. In fact, Naomi KLEIN believes that people are waiting to be saved at the last minute. Nevertheless, this solution would mean fighting pollution by more pollution. Moreover, she is not quite convinced by the techniques used and the side effects implicated. According to Danny HILLIS, this solution is already proving its efficiency thanks to the easy creation of clouds which reduce global warming by a degree. Furthermore, to undo the negative temperature effects of CO2 for the world, he reckons that putting 10 teragrams of chalks a year in space would be enough, which is nearly nothing.
In my opinion, the better solution is to be realistic while trying to be positive about the potential possibilities to reduce global warming. Testing at a bigger scale the solar engineering could maybe provide us a solution and if not, people would have to stop staring at the end of the world to reflect on more sustainable ways.
Naomi Klein and Danny Hillis both presented geoengineering and how it could be a solution to reduce global warming. This technology is based on reflecting sun rays back into space.
Naomi Klein seemed opposed to this technology. She pointed out that shooting particles into the stratosphere is only an hypothesis. Moreover, by putting more particles into space, this will only mean that pollution is “saved” by another source of pollution.
On the other hand, Danny Hillis thinks geoengineering is a silly key to save our planet. According to him, people are already cooling the earth with artificial clouds caused by shipping lines or jet engines. He also explained that 10 teragrams of dust put every year in space should cool the earth back down to pre-industrial area.
In conclusion, my opinion is more linked with Naomi Klein than Danny Hillis .Instead of thinking about future engineering technologies, people should try to focus on a way to prevent global warming now and reduce its consequences.
Both videos present a solution to global warming but in the first one, the presenter is criticizing an idea, which consists of shooting sulfate and aluminium particles in the stratosphere to cool the Earth, by saying it would be solving pollution with more pollution. She also highlights the fact that it was not tested.
In the second video, the presenter shows us another solution, which is solving the problem of global warming -only the temperature- by taking chalk and putting dust into the stratosphere. He supports this idea by explaining that the clouds created by planes and boats already helped reduce global warming by a degree. He also says that only ten teragrams a year would be necessary.
I agree with the second speaker, because in my opinion he is much more factual, have more proves and calculations made, and he presents a concrete solution instead of just debunking one
150 words - Alexandre MACCHI 22C
Naomi Klein is arguing that geoengineering is not the redemption to our climate problem. Her idea is that sending sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere to reflect the sunlight is just adding pollution and that we don’t know if this would even work.
Danny Hillis is arguing that clouds are one of the good ways of reducing temperatures by stating that humankind is already creating “artificial” clouds by modifying air current (ex: plane) and it’s reducing global warming by a degree. He then brings David Keith's idea of sending chalk into the stratosphere to act like clouds and concludes with his calculations showing that the amount of chalk needed is ridiculous compared to its action.
At the end the two speakers are roughly talking about the same thing but Naomi Klein thinks that geoengineering won’t be of any help and that the solution lies in our lifestyle when Dany Hillis is considering the possibility of using it.
To give an honest opinion, I would have to watch both videos in their entirety, but from what I heard, I would tend to agree more with the second speaker. He brings sources, calculations and is much more nuanced in his comments. Unlike the first speaker where she doesn't bring much to the issues.
Lucas 22C
Both videos, about geoengineering, are talking about solutions people have found to deflect sun rays back into space, in order to cool down the planet.
For Naomi Klein, one of the solutions she found was to suspend a garden hose from balloons in the sky, to diffuse sulfur dioxide. She then proceeded to say that it was “solving pollution with more pollution”. But one main problem with these kinds of solutions is that they are untested techniques, which means that we still don’t know what kind of effects we are going to get. And another problematic consequence of these, is that people will think that they don’t need to change their lifestyle after all. She totally disagrees with this method.
In Danny Hillis’ case, the main idea was to create artificial clouds, which is sort of realistic, since we are already making some with plains as he said. He mentioned David Keith’s idea of putting chalk as dust on the stratosphere, as there is a lot of chalk on Earth and they are safe, and we only need 10 teragrams per year. He seems to be enthousiast about it (in the extract we were told to watch).
I am not sure how to feel about these, as these solutions sound a bit too easy. But I do agree with Naomi Klein on the fact that these are not tested yet, and even though they said chalk was safe, we are not sure if it’s really not going to affect the ecosystem. I also definitely think that are not the best kind of solutions, as Naomi Klein and Danny Hillis (just a bit after we were told to watch) said, these will make people believe that there is no need to change our lifestyles and our dependence on non-renewable resources.
Geo-engineering techniques aim to manipultae the climate and the environment. These videos are both TedX talks extracts about climate change.
The first speaker, Naomi Klein, states that there is a common belief about climate change that at the very last moment we're gonna get saved (which we get from movies). This belief prevents people from actively looking for solutions.
She explain how people thought about using geo-engineering techniques to reflect sun rays back to space in order to cool the earth (for example by putting sulfates and aluminium particules into the stratosphere).
She shows that these technqiues are for the most part not faiseable or absurd. Moreover These techniques are untested.
The second speaker Danny Hillis is more optimistic about geo-engineering.
He says that clouds reflect sun rays back to space, which traslates in a 1 degre drop in temperature rise. According to him, we are already inadvertently using geo-engineering techniques : contrails from commercial airplanes routes contribute to the formation of more clouds.
Danny then introduces the idea of putting chalk in the stratosphere to reflect more light from the sun. Chalk is a very common ressource on earth.
He explains that we would need very little chalk do undo the temprature change and bring the temperature back to a pre-industrial level.
His views differ from Naomi's besause he thinks that this is a very plausible project whereas she didn't give.
I think that we shouldn't reject any idea since we don't currently have a viable solution to climate change. Even if we develop a technology that allows us to reduce temperatures, we shouldn't forget about all the other aspects and challenges linked to climate change.
Naomi Klein first defines the concept of geoengineering as a whole. She then proceeds to describe a way of solving some of the effects of global warning, by reflecting solar rays back to space. One way to achieve this would be to spray some sulfates and aluminium into the stratosphere, thus reflecting some of the energy from the sun back to space. A drawback to this technique would be that although scientists know the positive effects of such a plan, the side effects, whether they be positive or negative, are yet to be known.
Danny Hills first introduces us to what geoengineering takes the form of, and takes as an example clouds, which are a great way of cooling down areas of the planet. He also gives us as an example that contrails spread by aircrafts and boat trails already contribute to creating artificial clouds that benefit the earth, effectively cooling down the planet by around 1°. He then proceeds to explain how we may create artificial clouds using chalk. This process would only require a handful of it, and would cancel the effects of global warming on the temperature of the planet.
While Naomi Klein seems a bit doubtful about the effects of geoengineering, Danny Hills seems to desensitize his audience about this topic.
We tend to agree more with Naomi Klein, because she seems more aware of the problems that such a plan may involve. We also agree with her because unlike Danny Hills, she warns her audience about the drawbacks of geoengineering, and she appears to show us both sides of the coin.
Léo, Arthur, Titouan.
The first speaker, Naomi Klein, does not believe much into geoengineering because, for her, there is a common belief that technology wil save the world from climate change and she believes that geoengineering can be used as an argument to avoid attacking the subject at the heart of the problem: bad human habits.
The second speaker, Danny Hillis, try to explain how easy geoengineering is, by the fact that we already practicing it & that we already have the technology.
This problem is particular, the point of view differs not on the technology but on its societal impact and more globally, on the behavior of people.
Personally, I have absolutely no confidence in people who adopt a posture about the interest of future technology to catch up with global warming. I find it dangerous and irrational. One cannot place one's salvation in an untested utopian solution. I share Naomi Klein's point of view on this subject.
The presenter,Naomi Klein,is presenting a solution which consists in adding sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere in order to cool down the planet.She insists on the point that we don't know what would be the side effects of those solutions and that we can't fail because we don't have a second earth.
The presenter talks about the ways we could reduce the earth’s temperature to counter global warming. He talks specifically about one way which consists of sprinkling chalk powder into the stratosphere. The chalk powder would reflect a part of the sun’s light and it would reduce the earth’s temperature. Chalk is one of the most common minerals on earth so it would not cost much. It is also not dangerous for the environment : we even put some in baby food. Scientists say that it would only take the equivalent of one fire hose to powder the whole stratosphere.
The two presenters think that geoengineering could be the solution. However, Danny Hillis seems much more optimistic about it. Finally,the two talk about the fact that if we found a solution, the media and people will be saying that we can continue to live like this.
We agree on finding a way to reduce climate change but have to make sure that it’s inoffensive for living organisms. Danny’s solution looks safer than Naomi’s and more affordable
Mathis,Noé,Ruben,Grégoire,Lucas
The first TED Talk by Naomi Klein can be summarized by saying that geoengineering is unwanted as it is a way to dodge climat e change and not change our bad habits. She also says that geoengineering is just a way to avoid pollution by creating more pollution.
The TED Talk presented by Danny Hillis says that creating artificial clouds is a very efficient way to completely cancel the effects of global warming. He states that it is easy to achieve as it is something we already do and it wouldn’t have much negative impact.
Their views of the problem differ as Naomi Klein is completely against the idea whereas Danny Hillis is convinced that it is harmless and efficient.
Danny Hillis seems like a complete fraud, as his words are not backed up by enough scientific evidence. However, Naomi Klein also seems very biased. She did not provide any solutions and just criticized geoengineers’ ideas.
Both of the videos are about geoengineering.
Naomi Klein and Danny Hillis are promoting geoengineering, to regulate the temperature of the Earth. Naomi thinks that this is our only escape hatch for climate change without changing our daily lives. Moreover Danny Hillis also believes in geoengineering and according to him we can throw chalk up into the stratosphere to cool down the temperature of our planet.
Both of them believe in geoengineering but have different ideas / techniques to regulate Earth’s warmth.
In our opinion, geoengineering may be one of the solutions for climate change but the ideas given in the videos are not tested and their efficiency is not yet proved by scientists.
Zoaila, Lucie, Atchaya 8A
In those videos, each presenter introduces geoengineering and explains what he/she feels about it.
Geoengineering is the study of the Earth in order to slow down global warming.
Naomi Klein is against geoengineering. Indeed, she thinks that we don’t know all the side effects of injecting something in the atmosphere to cool down the planet's temperature. She feels like there is so much more to do and that we have no right to fail because there is no planet B.
On the other hand, Danny Hillis is quite confident about geoengineering. He explains that we already do it without knowing. For instance, with planes that release water and create some sort of clouds, which makes global warming slower (about a degree). He talks about a Harvard researcher who said that if we could send chalk (in very few quantities) in space, we could stop Earth heat.
I quite agree with Naomi Klein even though Danny Hillis seemed sure about what he said. We don’t know what could happen if we try to play with the atmosphere because we have not enough feedback and we never will. I feel like we have to apply the precautionary principle on this subject because the consequences could be devastating and I think we’ve all seen enough movies to know that nothing ever goes according to plan.
(Salomé)