Ted Talk: How to Fight Desertification and Reverse Climate Change – My Thoughts

Climate change is something I find myself becoming increasingly anxious about. The more I hear about the reported effects of climate change, the more worried I become. Because climate change is something I feel so strongly about, there’s a certain TED talk from more than a decade ago, that I thought I’d look at in more detail. 

The TED talk I’ve chosen to analyze today comes from renowned ecologist Allan Savory. The TED talk, entitled ‘How to Fight Desertification and Reverse Climate Change’ has received a fair amount of criticism over the years, and has certainly divided opinions. While personally I agree with a lot of Allan’s points, there are a number of points he raises that I don’t agree with, and feel would never work. 

Allan floats the idea of adopting more of a holistic approach to tackling climate change, and makes some pretty bold claims that I personally don’t consider feasible. Nevertheless, it’s clear he’s passionate about the subject, so here are my thoughts on his TED talk which has proved so controversial. 

What Exactly is the Idea Behind ‘How to Fight Desertification and Reverse Climate Change’?

Back in 2013, Zimbabwean ecologist/biologist Allan Savory held a TED talk which he called ‘How to Fight Desertification and Reverse Climate Change’. In it, he floated the idea of tackling climate change with a holistic approach, namely, by implementing a holistically managed grazing method.

In his talk, Allan highlighted how desert land is becoming increasingly common around the globe, and how greenery, namely grassland, is on the decline as it is replaced by dry, barren, desert landscapes. His talk highlights his theory that, by implementing ‘holistic planned grazing’ not only could we reintroduce grassland and greenery, but we could also reverse the effects of climate change in a relatively short amount of time. 

Savory’s theory is that holistic grazing, which involves transforming desert landscapes into grassland to be used for grazing cattle and livestock, could help fertilize the soil from which the grass grows and promote new growth of plants, trees, and other greenery. This would then reduce atmospheric CO2 and increase oxygen production and improve air quality.

Mixed Opinions

As I mentioned before, I agree with Allan’s idea in theory, as surely replacing dry and arid desert landscapes with grassland and fertile soils is going to be great for the planet? This holistic approach to farming and fertilizing the soil, though, has a number of obstacles that would need to be overcome. 

To begin with, the grasslands will need plenty of fresh water to grow. In drier parts of the world, or during periods of drought, watering these landscapes would prove difficult and costly. Then of course, there’s the fact that the animals grazing on the grass would need fresh water as well. 

Savory also refers to “soil crusts” which are essentially thick layers of dried algae coating the surface of the soil, preventing it from being fertilized. He claims that his holistic grazing methods would help break down these crusts so that the soil beneath can absorb nutrients and become fertile. Algae, however, can be highly nutritious and some experts believe that these crusts are integral for soil health. 

Finally, the biggest issue that I, and many others, have with his proposed method, is an increase in methane production. One of the main causes of deforestation in the past has been to make way for grazing pastures for livestock to be used in food production. Not only are we removing trees to make way for green pastures, but the animals grazing on the grass all day are producing vast amounts of methane which many believe is a contributing factor for climate change. Savory proposes even more grazing pastures, which would mean more livestock, and more methane. 

While I understand his theory, I personally believe that more livestock producing more greenhouse gasses could have the opposite effect of what he is hoping to achieve. I’m also skeptical about the science, or lack thereof, and he doesn’t really provide any credible sources. Ultimately, I admire his passion and can see where he’s coming from, but there’s a lot I don’t agree with.