| (Click on a 'Start Time' to view the video) |
| 00:00 | in all of the scenarios all of the high level scenarios intergovernmental panel on climate change so working what's called working group three of the ipcc all of their scenarios and indeed really all of the all of the major Global high level scenarios and these are you know um scenarios about the future in terms of C you terms of energy and Emissions they all rely on some form of carbon dioxide removal and we these terms now chip off our tongue as if they're perfectly reasonable things to discuss carbon dioxide removal negative |
| 00:32 | emission Technologies and increasingly even the language of geoengineering but these things aren't material particularly the negative emissions and the geoengineering they're not they're not actually material things you can go out and get and buy at scale they are at very best very small pilot schemes that you know that capture a few thousand tons here and there you know but set against the fact is we're emitting around about 36 to 37 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year from burning fossil fuels these Technologies are just |
| 01:01 | capturing you know just a few thousand tons there's absolutely no way that you can scale these things up from just being you know very small pilot schemes often with with you know a very checkered technical history that you can scale these things up in a timeline that matches the carbon budgets that come out of the science that relate to 1. |
| 01:23 | 5 and 2 degrees centigrade and yet we evoke them as if somehow they are they can be aligned they cannot be aligned in fact they've undermined The Narrative I would argue for the last at least 10 to 15 years if not 20 years so the adoption of these sorts of Technologies and it's not they're not the only ones not only these technologies that that are planned to remove our our carbon dioxide to suck the carbon dioxide hundreds of billions of tons you up to sort of half a trillion tons of carbon dioxide from the |
| 01:53 | atmosphere and bury it securely underground in a timely manner that the Assumption of that has actually done the oil company's job for them it has AO allowed us to to to postulate ongoing fossil fuel use to avoid major profound political um social change so I in this and I have made this point before I think the the big what I've often referred to as integrated assessment models whilst I think a lot of the modelers are are good people doing as objective work as they can the the boundaries they work within are |
| 02:27 | deeply subjective and they have actually done the the job of Exxon for the last 20 years by undermining the narratives we've needed to have to start to address climate change so and I think that these have been so normalized now that when you talk about them and and that they may not work as is assumed you almost seem to be an extremist so you're an extremist because you're pointing out that these technologies that barely exist are completely relied on the models that seem to be the extreme position right |
| 03:00 | other than the extreme position being how on Earth can it be that virtually every single model run that we have rely on these either Technologies or some of use of what you know the awful term of nature-based solutions I mean yeah the language we use it sort of captures something and makes it all sound so neat that we can simply put it into the accountancy spreadsheet that under underpins these models and hey Presto we can we can um evoke wonderful low carbon Futures that occur almost overnight it's and the journalists have |
| 03:32 | allowed this to happen a lot of the senior academics have allowed this to happen and I think it comes back to them a point earlier that actually often as experts we're very good at reductionist thinking but we're not very good at systems thinking |