My classmate Jon Foley has an interesting presentation, and it's mostly true and important, so admittedly everything actually should be said at least twice.
So he does.
I wonder about the presentation. Which is more effective, the twelve minute talk with images or the four minute screed-toon without much evidence. Or both? Is it really better to present exactly the same thing twice?
Personally I'd have liked more evidence, and links to literature.
PS - Is the part about the 30% greenhouse footprint true?