BOX SET: 6 Minute English - 'Climate Change' English mega-class! Thirty minutes of new vocabulary!

Hello, this is 6 Minute English  from BBC Learning English.

I'm Neil.

And I'm Sam.

'No one is too small to make a difference'.

Do you know who said that, Sam?

Wasn't it climate change activist Greta Thunburg?

That's right! She went on to say  this in her message to world leaders.

'I don't want you to be hopeful.

I want you to act as if your house is on fire, because it is.'

Her speech reflected the feelings of many young people around the world who

think that not enough action is being taken on climate change.

And they might be right, judging by the record-breaking temperatures that hit

Canada and the north-west of the United States in July this year.

Greta Thunberg's plea to 'act like your house is on fire' became a reality for

residents of the small town of Lytton, Canada, which burned to the ground in

a shocking wildfire - a fire that is burning strongly and out of control.

So, was the Lytton wildfire yet another climate change wake-up call?

A wake-up call is the expression used to describe a shocking event that should

make people realise that action is needed to change something.

Maybe not, according to some climatologists who, worryingly, say that what happened in

Lytton should not even have been possible. So, in this programme, we'll be

asking if scientists have dangerously misunderstood the realities of climate change.

But first it's time for my quiz question

and it's about that extreme weather in Canada. It broke records when the

temperature in Lytton hit an all-time high on the 1st of July but just how

hot did it get? Was it

a) 39.6 degrees,

b) 49.6 degrees or c) 59.6 degrees Celsius?

All those temperatures look really  high, especially for snowy Canada!  

I'll say a) 39.6 degrees C.

OK Sam, we'll find out the answer later on.

Seeing your hometown burned  to the ground is bad enough,

but perhaps even worse, was the fact  that the wildfires were so unexpected.

According to weather pattern modelling done  by a team of Oxford University researchers,

such extreme heat was  impossible, in theory at least.

The research team was led by  climatologist Geert Jan van Oldenborgh.

Here he is in conversation with BBC World  Service programme, Science in Action.

This is a wake-up call beyond the  wake-up calls that we've had before.

Yes, it's a very big shock  in the sense that we thought  

we knew that how heat waves  react to global warming

and within which boundaries they 

are increasing. Of course  they're increasing in temperature

but it's a gradual process, we  thought. And then you get this thing  

and it's not gradual at all, it's a huge jump.

Professor van Oldenborgh had been studying the impact of global warming on

heatwaves - short periods of time when the weather is much hotter than usual.

Along with other climatologists, he thought that climate change was gradual

- changing or happening slowly over a long period of time.

But the Canadian heatwaves  caused him to think again.

Instead of being gradual, the temperature saw

a jump - or a sudden increase - of five degrees

and it's this sudden jump that's got Professor van Oldenborgh and his team worried.

By collecting data from all over the world, climatologists tried to

predict changes in the pattern of global warming.

But as Geert Jan van Oldenborgh told BBC World Service's Science in Action, the

heatwave in Lytton, didn't fit these predictions at all.

Everything looked like a nice, regular, gradual trend like we're used to up to

last year, and then you suddenly break all your

records by four or five degrees. I mean, this is something that's not supposed to

happen, and it has really shaken our confidence in how well we understand the

effect of climate change on heatwaves.

Despite all his research, Professor van Oldenborgh

is still unable to explain such extreme

and sudden changes in the

climate. And this, he says, has

shaken his confidence - made him

doubt something that

he was certain was true.

And it's this lack of understanding worrying

researchers because, as the story of the

town of Lytton shows, the

effects of climate change may be even worse than expected.

Maybe it's time we all took notice of Greta Thunberg's wake-up call to take

action on climate change.

Especially if even cold,  northern countries like Canada,

or Britain, for that matter, can  experience such extreme changes.

Speaking of which Neil, what was  the answer to your quiz question?

Ah yes! In my quiz question, I asked you  exactly how high the temperature reached

in the Canadian town of Lytton. What did you say, Sam?

I thought it was a) 39.6  degrees Celsius. Was I right?

Well, you were close but,  in fact, it got even hotter,

actually reaching 49.6 degrees Celsius,

the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada by at least 5 degrees.

Phew, that is hot! Ugh well, we'd better recap the vocabulary

from this programme, because we might

be hearing these words a lot more in the future.

Let's start with a wildfire, which is an

out-of-control fire that  is burning the countryside.

A wake-up call is an event which should make people realise that action needs to

be taken to change a situation.

A heatwave is a period of days or weeks when

the weather is much hotter than usual.

A jump is a sudden increase.

Whereas gradual means happening slowly over a long time.

And finally if something shakes your confidence

it makes you doubt something that you

thought was true.

That's it for our look at one  of the hottest years on record.

Bye for now.

Bye!

Hello. This is 6 Minute English  from BBC Learning English. I’m Neil.

And I’m Sam.

These days, our lives are filled with

devices that were unimaginable  only a few years ago

– the sorts of things you read  about in science-fiction novels,

but never thought you’d own.

Yes, like those robots that vacuum  your floor or voice-activated lights

– we call many of these things ‘smart tech’.

But while they can help with  the little tasks at home,

some people are wondering whether  they can help fight climate change.

Yes, smart homes, regulating things like the  temperature, are a step in the right direction.

Using AI to learn when the house is occupied  and the optimal time to fire up the heating,

is one way to limit wasteful use of resources.

The problem comes from the origin of the  energy which powers these home systems.

If it’s fossil fuels, then  digging them up – an informal way

of saying removing something from the earth

- and burning them creates carbon emissions.

I suppose that’s why many people are trying  to find more renewable forms of energy

to reduce their carbon footprint.

Well, it’s interesting that  you mentioned carbon footprint,  

because my question is about that today.

How many tonnes of carbon dioxide  are humans responsible for emitting  

into the atmosphere every year?

Is it more than: a) 30 billion; b) 40 billion; or c) 50 billion?

Well, Neil, that all sounds like a lot to me,

but I’ll go straight down the middle and say

b) 40 billion tonnes.

OK, Sam, we’ll find out the correct  answer at the end of the programme.

So, you mentioned earlier that people are  looking into ways to use more renewable energy,

but there are also some problems  with that form of energy production.

Yes – for example, many of these technologies  rely on certain weather conditions,

which affect the levels of energy production.

Dr Enass Abo-Hamed, CEO of H2go,  is working on a project on Orkney,

an island off the coast of Scotland, testing  ways of storing renewable forms of energy.

Here she is on the BBC World Service programme  Crowd Science, speaking with Graihagh Jackson,

talking about the limitations  of renewable energy sources.

Renewable energy is intermittent by its nature  because it’s dependant and relying on the weather.

When the Sun shines and when the wind blows,  

and these by nature are not  24-hour 7 reliable constant.

And that means that demand doesn’t always  meet supply of renewables – it can mean

that we get blackouts, but  on the other hand, it means

that when the Sun is up and we  are producing all that power or  

when the wind is blowing and were producing power,

we might not be able to use that energy -  there’s no demand for it - and so it’s wasted.

So, Dr Enass Abo-Hamed said the  renewable energy is intermittent,

which means that something is not  continuous or has many breaks.

She also said that because there isn’t  always a steady stream of energy,

we can get blackouts – periods  of time without energy.

People like Dr Enass Abo-Hamed are trying to find  solutions to make renewable energy storage devices

– which would make the supply  of energy more constant.

Smart tech can also help with this  problem with renewable sources.

Now, of course, not only can  computers be used to design

efficient models, but smart tech can also be

used to improve performance

after things like wind  turbines have been installed.

Here is Graihagh Jackson, science  broadcaster and podcaster,

speaking about how smart  tech can improve efficiency

on BBC World Service programme, Crowd Science:

Some engineers use something called a digital  twin. This is really interesting, actually.

This is where lots of sensors  are attached to the wind turbine,

so it can be modelled on a  computer in real time. And then,

using machine learning, you can  then simulate what’s happening

to the wind turbine in specific  weather conditions. And

this is important because it means they can  make sure they’re performing their best.

Graihagh Jackson used the  expression 'in real time', which means

without delay or live.

And she also mentioned machine learning,

which is the way computers change their  behaviour based on data they collected.

And she also said 'simulate' – produce  a computer model of something.

So, while there are issues with the  reliability of the source of renewable energy,

it’s clear that people are working  on solutions such as energy storage

to make sure there is always a supply.

And that computers can be  used to design and operate

technology as efficiently as possible.

Much in the same way that  AI can be used in your home

to make it run as efficiently as possible.

Yes – all in the hope of  reducing your carbon footprint.

Which reminds me of your quiz question, Neil.

Yes, in my quiz question, I asked Sam how many  tonnes of carbon dioxide humans produce each year!

And I went for b) 40 billion tonnes.

Which is… the correct answer! Well done, Sam!

Wow – I guessed right – but  all three of those numbers

sound really really high!

Let’s recap the vocabulary from  today’s programme about smart tech

and climate change, starting with 'dig something up'

– an informal expression which means  to remove something from the ground.

'Intermittent' is used to describe something  that is not continuous or steady.

'Blackouts' are periods of time without  energy, for example, electricity.

'In real time' means 'without delay' or 'live'.

'Machine learning' is the process  by which computers learn

and change behaviour based on data.

And finally, 'simulate' means  produce a computer model.

And that’s all for this programme. Bye for now!

Goodbye!

Hello. This is 6 Minute English  from BBC Learning English. I’m Neil.

And I’m Georgina.

With no end in sight to the coronavirus pandemic,

many people can’t wait for the year 2020 to end.

But with coronavirus dominating  the newspaper headlines,

attention has moved away from  an equally serious global issue

which has quietly been getting worse – climate change.

August 2020 saw the hottest temperature  recorded anywhere in modern times

- 54.4 degree Celsius in  California’s Death Valley.

The same month also saw  record amounts of ice melting

into the oceans around Greenland and the Arctic

- huge icebergs breaking away from the

edge of the ice sheet – a thick layer of ice

which has covered a large area for a long time.

Greenland’s ice sheet is  three times the size of Texas

and almost 2 kilometres thick.

Locked inside is enough water  to raise sea levels by 6 metres.

But global heating and melting  polar ice has many scientists

asking whether it’s now too late to stop.

Have we have reached the point of no return?

In this programme, we’ll looking  at the effects of climate

change on the Arctic and asking  if it’s too late to change.

And learning some of the related vocabulary too.

Now, Georgina, you mentioned record  levels of ice melt in the North Pole

but the scale is hard to take in.

The amounts are so big  they’re measured in gigatonnes

– that’s a billion metric tonnes.

Imagine a giant ice cube 1 kilometre  by 1 kilometre by 1 kilometre.

So my quiz question is this:  how many gigatonnes of ice

are now melting into the ocean every year?

Is it: a) 450 gigatonnes?

b) 500 gigatonnes? or c) 550 gigatonnes?

I’ll take a guess at b) 500 gigatonnes.

OK, Georgina, we’ll find out later.

Now, glaciologist Michaela King has been  monitoring the melting of Arctic ice by satellite.

Here she is answering a question from BBC  World Service programme, Science in Action,

on whether the destruction of  the ice sheet is now unavoidable:

If we were to define a tipping point as a shift from one

stable dynamic state

to another, this certainly meets that criteria, because

we’re seeing now that the ice sheet was  more or less in balance prior to 2000 where

the amount of ice being drained from the glaciers was

approximately equal to what we are gaining  on the surface via snow every year.

Ice is made from snow falling on Greenland’s glaciers

- large, slow-moving masses of ice.

At the same time though, ice is also lost through melting.

These two processes of making and  melting ice kept the ice level in balance

- having different parts or elements  arranged in the correct proportions.

Essentially, the melting ice was  replaced by newly frozen ice.

But now, the glaciers are shrinking  faster than new ice is being accumulated

and the situation may have reached a tipping point

- the time at which a change or an effect cannot be stopped.

So, does this mean that global heating and  ice melting are now running automatically,

separate from the amount  of greenhouse gases humans

are pumping into the atmosphere?

Does that mean should just give up on the planet?

In fact, the situation is far from simple,

as Michaela King explains  here to BBC World Service

programme, Science in Action:

We can definitely control the rate of mass loss,

so it’s definitely not a ‘throw your  hands up’ and just do nothing about it

– give up on the ice sheet  kind of situation – that’s

certainly not the message I want to send –

but it does seem likely that we will  continue to lose mass… but of course

a slow rate of mass loss is highly preferred to

large annual losses every year.

Michaela thinks that changes in human  activity can still slow the rate

– or speed at which something happens,

in this case the speed of Greenland’s ice sheet melting.

She’s convinced it’s not too late for  collective action to save the planet,

so, it’s not yet time to 'throw your hands up'

– an idiom meaning to show frustration and despair

when a situation becomes so  bad that you give up or submit.

It’s a positive message but one which calls

for everyone to do what they can before it really is too late.

Because the rate of ice melt is still increasing, right, Neil?

Yes, that’s right – in fact, that was my  quiz question, Georgina – do you remember?

Yes, you asked me how many  gigatonnes of Greenland’s ice sheet

are now melting every year.  I said b) 500 gigatonnes.

And you were…correct!

In fact, some of these giant ice cubes are  like small towns, almost a kilometre tall!

So, there’s still work to be done.

In this programme, we’ve been looking at the rate  – or speed – of ice melt in Greenland’s ice sheet

- the thick layer of ice covering  a large area of the Arctic.

Previously, the melting ice was  replaced by newly formed ice on glaciers

– large masses of slow-moving ice.

This kept the Arctic in balance – having  different elements arranged in proportion.

But the effects of global  heating have brought us close

to a point of no return,

called a tipping point -  the time at which a change

or an effect cannot be stopped.

The situation is serious but  there’s still time to take action

and not simply throw your hands up

– show frustration and despair  when you want to give up.

That’s all for this programme, but if you  want to find out more about climate change

and Greenland’s ice sheets, search  BBC’s Science in Action website.

And for more trending topics  and useful vocabulary,

remember to join us again soon  at 6 Minute English. Bye for now!

Goodbye!

Hello. This is 6 Minute English  from BBC Learning English. I’m Neil.

And I’m Rob.

In this programme, we’ll be discussing climate change

and teaching you some useful vocabulary  so you can talk about it too.

Such as 'emitters' – a word used to describe countries,

industries or just things that produce harmful substances

that harm the environment.

Substances such as carbon dioxide – an example of a greenhouse gas.

These gasses contribute to our warming planet.

And we’re going to be discussing  whether the world's two

biggest emitters of greenhouse gases

– the USA and China - can work together  for the good of the environment.

But a question for you first, Rob.

In November this year, world leaders  are due to meet at a climate conference.

In which city will this be taking place?

Is it: a) Brisbane, b) Glasgow, or c) Vienna?

Well, I've heard about this, so I think  it's the Scottish city of Glasgow.

OK, Rob, I’ll tell you if  you are right or wrong later.

Let’s talk more about climate change, then.

Back in 2015, world leaders met in Paris.

It was the first time virtually all the  nations of the world came together to agree

they all needed to tackle the issue.

Under the terms of the Paris deal,

countries promised to come back every five years

and raise their carbon-cutting ambitions.

An 'ambition' is something you want to  achieve even if it is difficult to do so.

President Trump pulled out of this Paris agreement

but now President Biden has brought the USA back into it.

But the USA still has a lot to do to help  reduce its contribution to air pollution.

In China, where smog is a common occurrence,

President Xi Jinping has pledged the  country will be carbon neutral by 2060.

That means it will do things to  reduce the amount of carbon dioxide

by the same amount that it produces.

The BBC World Service  programme, The Climate Question,

has been looking at this is more detail.

BBC journalist, Vincent Ni, explains why Xi  Jinping’s plans might be tricky to achieve…

What I'm really thinking is that this is

is a real inherent paradox in today's China.

It is leading in many ways on green  initiatives while at the same time

it's also a big polluter  and greenhouse gas emitter.

It's got to alleviate poverty,  as well as fight pollution.

Now, the thing to watch now is how this  dynamic will play out in the next few years.

So, China currently has two things going on – one good,

one bad – an impossible situation  because it has two opposite factors

– what Vincent called a paradox.

And this paradox is that, on one hand,

China has many projects to improve the environment,

but on the other hand, it is a big polluter.

And as well as tackling pollution, Vincent  also said China has to alleviate poverty

– 'alleviate' means 'make less severe or serious'.

But as we’ve said, China is not alone.

The USA is another big polluter which is also  trying to develop ways to 'clean up its act'

– an informal way of saying change  the way it behaves for the better.

President Biden wants the US to  achieve an 100% clean energy economy

and reach net zero emissions by 2050.

He also wants to create 10  million new ‘green’ jobs.

'Green' means related to protecting and helping the environment.

The former governor of California, Jerry Brown,

who’s now with the California-China  Climate Institute at Berkeley,

also spoke to The Climate Question programme.

He thinks the USA should do its bit to help climate change,

but it also involves working together, globally…

We have to really face reality

with humility.

We put more heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere

that are still there, than China has

- that's the historical fact… So, I think we need to stop

pointing fingers as though evil is outside...

and we have to work with China and  Russia and Europe and everywhere else,

as partners in humankind’s very dangerous path forward.

So, I'd worry more about that than figuring out all the flaws

of which there are many in my  competitive friends and enemies.

Jerry talks about facing  the situation with humility

– so, not trying to be more important than  others and admitting your bad qualities.

He says the USA should not think evil

– the polluters in this case – are from  elsewhere. Stop pointing fingers at other people!

Yes. The solution, maybe, is not to  blame others but to work together,

trust each other, and make tough choices  rather than pointing out each other’s 'flaws'

– faults or mistakes.

Hopefully, many countries can work together

more when they attend this  year’s climate conference, Rob.

But in which city?

Ah, yes, I said Glasgow, in Scotland. Was I right?

You were, Rob. Well done.

World leaders are due to meet there in November this year.

Right, now there’s just time to recap on  some of the vocabulary we have discussed.

Yes. We talked about 'emitters'

– countries, industries or just  things that produce – or emit –

harmful substances that harm the environment.

'Ambitions' are things you want to achieve even if they are difficult.

A 'paradox' is an impossible situation  because it has two opposite factors.

To 'alleviate' means, make less severe or serious.

'Humility' involves trying not to be more important  than others and admitting your bad qualities.

And 'flaws' is another word for faults or mistakes.

Well, hopefully, there were no flaws in this programme!

That’s all for now, but we’ll be back  again soon to discuss more trending topics

and vocabulary here at 6 Minute English. Goodbye for now!

Bye!

Hello, I'm Rob, and welcome to 6 Minute English,

where today we’re chatting  about a pedestrian topic

and six items of related vocabulary.

Hello, I’m Neil.

A pedestrian is someone who walks around  rather than travelling by car or bus.

But in Rob’s sentence he used the adjective,

and in this context it  means dull or uninteresting!

And, of course, I was making a pun, Neil.

Because, of course, the show is  going to be extremely interesting!

It’s about safety on the streets

– and whether pedestrianisation is a good thing or not.

Pedestrianisation means changing a street into  an area that can only be used by pedestrians.

Ah, well, it sounds like a good idea –  no traffic, less noise and air pollution.

And no chance of getting knocked down by a car or a bus!

There are plans to pedestrianise Oxford Street,

which is one of the busiest shopping streets in London.

That’s right. The Mayor of London wants to  tackle – or make an effort to deal with –

air pollution in this very busy spot

– where the amount of traffic is definitely a problem!

In fact, can you tell me, Neil,

what’s the average speed of a bus  travelling along Oxford Street?

Is it: a) 4.6 miles per hour,

b) 14.6 miles per hour or

c) 46 miles per hour?

And I think it’s 14.6 miles per hour

– a) sounds too slow and c) sounds too fast!

OK, we'll find out the answer later on.

The problem is – the traffic  doesn’t just disappear.

You ban it from one area – and  it gets rerouted somewhere else.

Ban means to say officially that something can’t be done.

And reroute means to change the  direction you’re travelling in,

in order to reach a particular destination.

That’s true, Rob. It must be a big headache for city planners.

Well, let’s listen now to Joe Urvin,  Chief Executive of Living Streets.

He’s going to talk some more about why traffic  is causing problems in our towns and cities.

In 1970, we had 20 million cars in this country.

Now we have over 30 million cars in such a short period.

So, that creates three big problems.

One is space – because we’ve still got the  same street structures in our towns and cities,

causing congestion. It causes pollution, which  people are concerned about more and more.

And actually, it’s kind of engineering walking out of our lives.

So, we’re, actually, not getting enough  exercise, which is a cause of a health crisis.

Smart cities are looking at pedestrianisation

– in Glasgow, in Birmingham, in  London for example, Manchester –

as a way of not only making their places,  cities better and more attractive,

actually, building their local economy.

So, Neil Urvin identifies three problems

– the first is that our city  streets have stayed the same

while the number of cars on the  roads has increased dramatically.

That’s right – and this has led to congestion on our roads.

Congestion means too much traffic, making it hard to move.

The second problem is pollution  – which we mentioned earlier.

Pollution is damage to the environment  caused by releasing waste substances

such as carbon dioxide into the air.

And the third problem is that by  travelling around on buses or in our cars

we aren’t getting enough exercise.

And we all know that’s a bad thing!

Would pedestrianisation engineer walking  back into our lives do you think?

I’m not sure, Neil.

It would be great if we could go shopping  or walk to work without breathing in fumes

or worrying about getting knocked down by a car.

But banning all motorised  traffic from town centres

might make life difficult  for people to get around.

Well, I’m not a town planner –  and I don’t have the answers.

But I would like to know if I got the answer  right to the question you asked me earlier!

OK, well, I asked you: What’s the average  speed of a bus travelling along Oxford Street?

Is it… a) 4.6mph, b) 14.6mph

or c) 46mph?

And I said 14.6mph.

And that’s not slow enough, Neil, I’m afraid.

The answer is actually 4.6mph.

And we pedestrians walk at an  average speed of 3.1mph, apparently!

Oh, good to know.

OK – shall we go over the words we learned today, Rob?

Sure – the first one is ‘pedestrian’

– a person who is walking, usually  in an area where there’s traffic.

‘Sorry – you can’t ride your bike here.  This path is for pedestrians only.’

The adjective – ‘This book  is full of very pedestrian  

ideas. I wouldn’t read it if I were you.’

I’ve crossed it off my list, Neil. Thank you.

OK – number two is 'to tackle' something,

which means to make an effort to  deal with a difficult problem.

For example, ‘The government isn’t really  tackling the problem of air pollution.

It needs to do much more.’

Very true.

OK, ‘ban’ means to officially  say that something can’t be done.

‘The UK government will ban the sale  of diesel and petrol cars from 2040.’

And number four is ‘reroute’ which means to  change the direction you’re travelling in.

‘The council has rerouted all  buses to avoid the town centre.’

‘Congestion’ is number five – too much  traffic, making it difficult to move.

‘Road congestion always gets better in the  summer when a lot of car drivers are on holiday.’

Hm, that’s true, isn’t it?

London always seems emptier in July and August.

Except for all the tourists walking  around – congesting the streets!

Very funny! And finally, number six is ‘pollution’

– which is damage to the environment  caused by releasing waste substances

such as carbon dioxide into the air, or plastic into the sea.

‘You can help reduce air pollution by walking  to work every day instead of driving.’

Are you talking to me,  Neil? I always walk to work!

I know you do, Rob – you’re an example to us all!

OK, that’s all we have time for today.

But please don’t forget to visit us via  our Twitter, Facebook and YouTube pages!

Goodbye!

Bye bye!