4.4 • 785 Ratings
🗓️ 25 February 2019
⏱️ 34 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
An earlier version of this podcast had an audio problem that meant listeners were unable to hear it. This has now been fixed. Apologies for any inconvenience
In this episode of Spectator Books, Sam talks to the American journalist David Wallace-Wells about his new book The Uninhabitable Earth: A Story of the Future. In it, he uses the best available scientific projections to underpin a picture of what the world would look like if it heats up by four degrees or more. Not pretty, is the conclusion he comes to. But what’s he trying to achieve with this book? Why, in his view, do we not take climate change seriously enough? And is this Project Fear — or Project Damn Well Pay Attention?
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
0:00.0 | This is Spectator Radio and you're listening to The Books Podcast with Sam Leith. |
0:11.2 | Hello and welcome to The Spectator Books Podcast. |
0:14.0 | I'm Sam Leith, the literary editor of The Spectator. |
0:16.4 | This week I'm joined by David Wallace Wells, who is the deputy editor of New York magazine. |
0:20.9 | He's over from the States, but he's also the author of a new book called The Uninhabitable |
0:25.3 | Earth, a Story of the Future. This is a book that really sums up a lot of what we know about |
0:30.4 | climate change, and it begins with the words, it is much, much worse than we think, all words |
0:36.7 | that effect. David, how worse than we think, all words of that effect. |
0:40.3 | David, how screwed are we? |
0:43.5 | Well, to me, it's all a matter of perspective. |
0:49.6 | So I don't think that there's much chance that we stay below 2 degrees Celsius of warming, |
0:52.5 | which is what the scientists call the threshold of catastrophe. |
0:58.4 | And we're headed by the end of the century to about 4.3 degrees of Celsius. |
1:07.0 | Between those two poles, where we end up, how far along close to 4.3 and how close to 2 we get, |
1:11.7 | it's an entirely open question that is being determined every day by the way that we act. |
1:17.0 | This is not, you know, it's not a question that can be answered with science per se. It's a question that really is about what kind of action humans take and how quickly and at what scale. |
1:22.6 | And so I think it's a little bit hard to answer. It's really, it's a question for the political |
1:27.1 | sciences rather than the natural sciences. |
1:28.9 | I would say personally that without some dramatic intervention of what's called negative emissions technologies, |
1:36.9 | so by the simple path of replacing dirty energy sources with clean ones, we're unlikely to stay below even three degrees of warming by the end |
1:45.0 | of the century. And that would mean the total loss of just about all ice on the planet, which would |
1:50.9 | eventually raise seas by as much as 80 meters. It would mean that many of the biggest cities in the |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Spectator, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of The Spectator and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.