| (Click on a 'Start Time' to view the video) |
| 00:01 | i'm quite interested to to talk about the um just the policy relationship between albedo and emissions um i'm just i'm just forming the view that um uh climate policy should focus on albedo uh as a as a primary issue and i'd just like to chat about uh about that as a strategic question yeah i suppose the other news that came through this week was that that report into methane the missions being much more severe than they thought and the suggestion that uh um fires on the spoken from them are taking up the hydroxyl |
| 00:47 | radicals so there's less ability for the methane to uh be broken back down to co2 and other things yeah yeah that's i've heard that yeah that's interesting um yeah that's uh so it's kind of two things isn't it uh the higher than thought plus oh radicals uh i'm gonna have to squeeze this off a bit um used up um yeah bye there's also more support that that some of the deep sea fish are an important vector in carbon sequestration when they come up to the surface at night to eat and then go down and and defecate |
| 01:44 | um several meters below yeah so both the krill and the uh land and fish and bristol males and others are possibly nearly equally important carbon sequestration vectors yeah okay yeah yeah yeah that's because you sent me that link that mentioned uh links you might put them up on the in the chat so other people can look at them it's nice to see that yeah we're getting support from other scientists would you be able to do that sev because i i find i need to listen to the conversation ah can you find them try yeah i have got |
| 02:35 | him here somewhere um yeah but uh it's a bit clive i need to dial back you know be there in a minute okay friend uh brian okay yeah and david uh welcome david hey uncle wallace but uh you don't need to speak i got the message from you that you're recovering from an operation so you don't really want to speak but you're listening that's great that's fine um yeah um um what was the thing last time uh yeah this uh we could mention it about this methane higher than thought because we talked about that a little |
| 03:17 | bit last time uh i'd i'd like to ask a little bit about uh carbon 14 because when i looked it up i tried to understand it um and it said carbon 14 forms from and brian's are you there again bro yeah yeah yeah so so i looked up and carbon 14 comes from nitrogen so anyway this is just a kind of very sort of scientific detail perhaps a little detail um yeah any other thoughts on and stephen salter said he wouldn't be here this time because he's covered a positive um wants to recover and uh and so we can't say much about we had a good |
| 04:11 | discussion last time about the use of this was john mcdonnell's idea using uh isa or some form of isa to make clouds uh that seems to me an incredibly important thing i was also uh it's a shame that stephen isn't here because i do think john's uh john you you're very you persevere uh in a very admirable way i mean about the uh this arctic tipping point that's maybe dangerously close and re-freezing the arctic and uh use of um uh stratospheric aerosol interject injection um and so it seems to me that the |
| 04:59 | controversy that we have and i know franz is not too keen because of the atmospheric change in atmospheric chemistry uh but of uh uh nice good argument or perhaps i should allow more air time for an argument between you and stephen or just um i wanted to ask you to quantify it um these seems to me to be the really important things i mean all this stuff's important um anything else from anyone there was a there was a link sent through to the oceans conference uh recently that i talked a lot about marine cloud brightening |
| 05:37 | it was interesting not so much for the technology but just for the the process and and the sort of way daniel harrison's been been going through the process it it's it's quite a uh a lesson of the way that the way to progress forward with it with a new idea right we could just discuss that yeah okay maybe that's enough um and that's it anyway this is anything else yeah just to comment about uh marine cloud brightening yeah uh we've got to pull out all the stops so i want uh say uh stratospheric aerosol |
| 06:19 | and marine cloud brightening and i think the quickest way you could get marine cloud brightening is probably through um uh grant gawas um uh you know uh or also clarks uh phytoplankton stimulation you know russ george um you know these all all stimulate phytoplankton blooms uh i read a paper which says that all gold mats form naturally on the pools formed on uh ice plays so um on on what was that um that that you you uh you get pooling uh where i went when now i sea ice melts you get lots of pools on the surface yeah |
| 07:21 | uh and these these foster uh these maps of algal alcohol algal growth on some of the ice graves yeah so it's quite natural yeah you can't say that you know putting uh alcohol gnats into the arctic is unnatural it occurs very naturally yeah unfortunately when it happens on on the uh on the ice flows it darkens them considerably yeah um but if you if you float them on on the surface of the ocean you're you're brightening the ocean yeah right so it's a better place to have them if you're talking about uh algae algae |
| 08:10 | above the ice layer or below the escher well uh yeah there also i'll be below the eyes but i was talking about some a paper that describes algol uh maps on top of the ice or in or floating on the on the puddles on the pools that form [Music] uh on the on the broken ice at the end of summer it does seem to me john that uh what might be unnatural is uh sort of enhancing that you know if something was to happen that made them grow twice as green or something that they might melt the ice sooner anything but anyway we can discuss this this is |
| 08:55 | for the agenda isn't it no we could have that for the agenda yeah let's see let's see what we can say about it yeah yes it's just striking match it's it's quite good to have a tiny little bit of discussion a bit about this stuff at beginning now because well if it makes people think it makes you all think ah yes i've got a point to make about that later on okay perhaps that's enough now um you can always anyone can always think of something else as we know okay so let's have robert's uh let's this policy |
| 09:30 | relationship first you write you write yeah yeah well are you gonna uh stop screen share or yeah let's stop screen share good idea good um yeah so i've been reading a lot of uh you know stuff uh for example on the cdr uh google group and also the geoengineering google group there's just this orthodoxy that uh there is nothing we can do to stop temperature going above 1. |
| 10:05 | 5 and the you know just recently reading stuff saying no matter what we do with um greenhouse gas removal we're still going to overshoot 1.5 and what really strikes me with this is is that albedo enhancement would be able to prevent temperature going above 1.5 and but uh you know numerous articles uh bemoaning this problem just completely ignore it they just it's it's like it's like uh solar radiation management just doesn't exist it's uh it's just uh taboo it's it's outside the boundaries of uh |
| 10:48 | legitimate climate discourse and and that was certainly reflected in the uh ar6 report of the ipcc which uh you know had some discussion but but just no serious uh policy engagement so so there's this issue of um that um uh would it be possible to deploy uh srm technologies uh albedo enhancement technologies that would prevent the the temperature uh going above 1. |
| 11:19 | 5 degrees what does that imply in terms i i mean the the latest word i'm very interested in medical metaphors and so um there's a great book by that i read called complications which was about the complications that arise during surgery and you know to what extent would we be able to prevent uh many of the climate complications that are looming with tipping points by uh using srm and so you know why is it that this is so comprehensively excluded now the the reason is because of the moral hazard argument which is that uh climate |
| 12:04 | change is a war between good and evil and uh the uh fossil fuel industry is evil and uh the climate activists on in the green parties are good and uh and that only by um you know mounting this uh war um in which uh anyone who uh um fraternizes with the enemy is is excluded as um as a pariah that i that that's the only uh approach that's possible so so it's really quite a bizarre situation it's and it really opens up major issues in moral philosophy which is that's um the only thing uh in terms of uh climate that |
| 12:51 | that could stop um biodiversity loss and sea level rise and temperature increase in extreme weather is um increasing albedo and related activities but uh that whole argument is simply never presented now that uh i i found it really interesting that david keith uh came very close to presenting that in in the uh an article that was just recently circulated uh in which he uh he raised the substitution question now one of the other pious orthodoxies in climate um conversation is that geoengineering cannot substitute for emission reduction |
| 13:32 | and it's just frankly absurd of course geo engineering can substitute for a mission reduction and to say it can't is is simply a a rhetorical political assertion it's not a scientific statement so um i might just uh leave it at that that's those are some of the things that have been on on my mind and i'd just be eager to uh to just hear what uh what others think about those issues okay great uh arya you have your hand up please yeah yeah just to respond to what you're saying robert um i mean personally i think that |
| 14:10 | killing eight to nine million people every single year and uh you know spearheading a climate denial campaign as opposed to changing uh technology is pretty evil in my view um so i do understand why we have the moral hazard argument that does not mean to negate any of the other everything that we have been focused on in terms of the albedo situation that we're currently in but we would not be in this situation if we had taken the actions necessary way back when and the fossil fuel companies had not spearheaded climate |
| 15:00 | denial um so so yeah i just don't i i don't think that that's true that that we would not be in a situation where now in if we'd taken action because and that's this is another of these mythological claims that dominate climate policy because the uh the reality is if you go back to 1990 and say okay let's let's imagine the counter factual if we had if the fossil fuel industry had had seen the light and had voluntary voluntarily agreed to to shut down as as soon as possible uh you know |
| 15:36 | it just completely ruining everybody's energy needs by the buyer but um and then you know what with that kind of actual event it would have meant that the uh committed warming from earlier emissions which is half of the title warming that we've got would still have been in the air and uh so the the world would have continued uh to warm even if there had been much more aggressive emission reduction at that time so yeah it's and on this uh good and evil question um it's uh like i think oh yeah has an answer to that uh |
| 16:14 | robert and then let's move on i i mean i think that what's most important here is that going back you know and and i mean i i i personally feel like yes there's plenty we could have done if they hadn't killed the electric car um if we had really invested in the kinds of technologies that we know are actually available to us today if there hadn't been political obstructionism i mean i mean there's any number of things we could go back and look at in our history in terms of what we could have done if we had had |
| 16:50 | the political will and invested the right kind of money into action um but what's most important i think is that we don't line ourselves up opposed to reducing emissions which when you're framing it like that it sounds like that that's what you're saying is oh no we should just focus on albedo and we shouldn't actually do what it takes to rectify uh how we got to this situation to begin with um you know it's just a nuance that i know we've had this discussion before but i just think it's |
| 17:31 | so important that we don't uh line ourselves up against what the vast majority of the environmentalists out there are advocating for and instead we say yes and as opposed to no but you understand what i'm saying robert well to some extent uh i think that the concern that i have is that cutting emissions is actually marginal to stabilizing the climate and and by focusing on cutting emissions uh we put something that's a 20 factor in the place of what should be the 80 factor so it's it's simply that people's that |
| 18:15 | popular thinking is just in reverse in terms of what the priorities should be like emission reduction is great you know it's fantastic for the environment and and for the economy but pretending that it's it's the primary strategy for climate change i think is the uh is the real danger and even pretending that um greenhouse gas removal is the primary strategy like again you know essential over the next century but uh in terms of immediate response its albedo has to be uh the primary focus and that's just excluded by this whole sort |
| 18:52 | of mythological thinking um that that i i think dominates the climate um conversation i mean i i just i just think that we need the all of the above approach right now and we don't need to line ourselves up in an adversarial way um against what's actually currently being done there's plenty of people out there who are going to still be working on emissions reductions and they should be doing that that's their area of expertise right now we need that because we have to heal the systemic problem |
| 19:24 | that has created all of this to begin with it's kind of i love the medical analogies of talking about the tourniquet and that the albedo response is the tourniquet and that we can then also buy ourselves enough time to actually fix the underlying issues that got us to this place to begin with um you know it's it's just if we if we want to build alliances we are not going to build alliances and we're not going to move forward our agenda if we start out taking steps and having conversations people saying you're wrong we don't need |
| 20:05 | to you know worry about the eight to nine million people who are dying every single year because of the fossil fuel industry let's just you know pat them on the back and say you know keep doing what you're doing and instead we're just gonna try to you know mask all of this by by dealing with albedo response i just don't think we're going to get anywhere by using that approach thank you uh uh i get that um i have some comments but brian sure yeah i'm sorry i'm good sorry sorry i need this thing by the way |
| 20:41 | provide some metaphors here the needles get off i want to hold your hand to halter skelter in one step they took several years to do it and similarly i think when it comes to world movements like this we need to move gradually first of all i have to recommend the book and a lot of the comments i'm going to make are related to build the commits wonderful autobiography and uh analysis of the united states and that is the flag the cross and the station wagon which is just out highly recommended and i've read it twice now |
| 21:12 | in it he articulates some rather astounding aspects and that is in 1978 or 1979 then standing president jimmy carter put solar panels on the roof of the white house and pledged to get 20 solar penetration by the year 2000 um unfortunately that was unraveled by reaganism and the entire uh you know myth of uh how cutting taxes is somehow going to boost the economy the estimated boost was around two percent and it's just completely bankrupt this whole have your cake and eat it too business is morally bankrupt as evidenced by the recent change in |
| 21:53 | prime minister in the uk uh furthermore uh there's some interesting developments uh you know in 1992 uh just pre um kyoto um then standing ceo or chairman of uh exxon mobil went to japan and said oh there's no global warming it's global cooling it's just one blatant example of just bald-faced lying because exxon knew about it they had an internal price on carbon as all the oil companies do of some you know 75 dollars a ton according to chevron uh so it's just it's a grow it's a bold-faced lie you know and and |
| 22:34 | the fact that these institutions have gotten away with lying for decades has been unconscionable now that said you know i will say the following decarbonization is necessary but not sufficient and what we need to do is bring the public gradually towards a position of beyond decarbonization of restoring the planetary albedo and we'll have to do it step by step now there is a certain amount uh you know i think there's opportunities for investment restoring the planetary albedo or increasing the planetary albedo |
| 23:12 | restoring it pre-industrially the planetary albedo was far higher than it is today just look at the arctic half of the ice in the arctic is gone the albedo has gone from point eight to point two restoring the planet trail thank you for that question restoring the albedo you know if we can ever point to restoration we're on a far surer ground because it's like we're just trying to get back to pre-industrial this is a safe harbor getting back to a higher planetary albedo this is what we must do to get |
| 23:42 | back to a healthy climate and so i think this is a key framing and then furthermore i just want to point out that there is a crack in the edifice i mean we look at the fossil fuel giants as some terrible monolithic thing but the reality is you know shell has already made the commitment to 45 scope 3d carbonization by 2035 at 100 percent scope 3d carbonization by 2050 that is the first crack that i see and by engaging with partners like shell because they like it or not the stock markets are down 30 percent everyone's |
| 24:15 | feeling poor the the crypto markets have lost two of their three trillion dollars in asset value and you know if you want to turn somewhere to get capital to scale these things you know companies like shell are one of the few and maybe some mining majors that have also made scope 3 commitments one of the few who've actually you know who actually have the cash to scale quickly and that's something that we're facing right now in ongoing discussions that said we're considering drawing the line at scope 3 because we don't get out |
| 24:46 | of here very healthy if we haven't made those three commitments sorry brian can you just remind us what scope three it means what is that again yeah um scope one is direct emissions scope two is emissions from your sourcing uh value chain all the all the materials the embedded carbon coming in that you're using scope if i remember correctly and scope three is all of the carbon emissions of the customers use of your products which in the case of oil and gas represents 90 to 95 of emissions it is the giant tail |
| 25:22 | wagging the duck so do not be fooled when exxon tells you that they've committed to decarbonization they're talking scope one and scope two that literally is the tail wagging the dog all right and it is the scope three emissions that matter so quite frankly by working with the corporations that have the capital and have made the scope three commitments we can help them be carbonized but more importantly it should be a yes and in my humble opinion philosophy as arya had stated and that is let's uh you know |
| 25:52 | not try to stop the giant trend towards decarbonization but let's say you know and maybe 10 of it should be really going towards addressing the cooling that we're going to need in order to get out of jail this century and not next century and avoid the worst effects of warming as we're getting back to a healthy carbon dioxide level which will take longer all right thank you very much ryan yeah that's just one quick response i think i'm not at all saying that we should uh stop the trend to decarbonization it's |
| 26:23 | just uh where should public investment go and uh i would say that uh the public investment priority should be albedo because of the the massive risk of arctic collapse and and that's something that will be you know the trouble is the public simply are not aware of how slow and inadequate uh decarbonisation is as a climate solution that's so true and i think if we come up with a framing like uh let's re-brighten the earth uh planetary re-brightening um that might be a very interesting framing that's |
| 27:02 | easy it goes in one line but uh you know it's something that could make a difference yeah that's right on the planet i definitely agree and and i appreciate that reframing robert um and i'm i'm all for the brightening language and others have brought up to me that some of the technologies that we are using are not merely focused on brightening but that they're albedo fixes that don't necessarily brighten um i'd love it if anyone wants to speak to that if if there are some things that |
| 27:38 | are left out of the equation when we talk about brightening well albedo covers many things because there's albedo and the visible and also albedo and the infrared and i think maybe rebrighton is a simple framing for the public you know when it comes to decreasing stratospheric clouds to improve infrared emission it's an adjustment of albedo as well i think we just need to keep it relatively simple and consider uh all the interventions that can be effective yeah now the thing that occurred to me that might not fall under the category |
| 28:15 | of frightening is uh what you've been talking about in terms of bringing colder ocean waters up um would would that also somehow follow ball under frightening or not so much not so much you know it is admittedly a lower gain approach than um well actually i mean the upwelling can have a profound effect it just it does need a large scale and there is an interesting indirect effect and that is by restoring natural upwelling i believe we can transport more heat towards the poles and if we can keep the cloud cover |
| 28:56 | down on those poles at night we can radiate more heat into space or alternatively just encouraging convective transport such as with the ice volcanoes we can increase the transport of heat to the top of the troposphere top of the cloud layer and then increase the emission to into space and so again it's a way of shutting heat it's indirect it's there indirectly and i think i i think we need to consider the framings but for the moment um i'm in favor of planetary re-brightening uh if we can i think we need to make the |
| 29:34 | planet uh brighter and smarter i love that make the planet brighter and smarter or smarter and brighter whichever one but um the more we can simplify these concepts and make them appealing and have some of the you know because under brightening some of the techniques that fall under brightening are very non-threatening and it just opens it up where people go oh okay because they can say yes to a few of the things such as you know painting rooftops white that that seems to be a very easy response that could actually |
| 30:20 | have some impact in addition to tree planting um and then everything else is just additional conversation that we add on top of that once we've got that kind of acceptance to the concept so i'm i'm all for the the brightening framing i think it could really help us get our foot in the door great we're working presently with the um with the healthy climate initiative uh sumitra in actually bringing the climate benefit concert to cough 27 hopefully hopefully hundreds of thousands of viewers and the first year's project is |
| 30:56 | in fact uh sprinkling some hollow sand uh in the form of microspheres onto a small nepalese glacier and validating the ability to re-brighten that glacier and reduce the amount of melting which of course is flooding right now you know across south asia two billion people depend on this water supply and we're going to go from floods to droughts uh in the coming decades if we can't maintain that water supply for two million people yeah i must confess i'd forgotten that about the loss of albedo and so this is very useful brian to be able |
| 31:32 | to say re-brightening um restoring the albedo and i would i would encourage planetary re-brightening as being a key aspect i like to use planet rather than earth simply because 70 is ocean and um if we focus on planets then people are less terrestrially uh framed if you will yeah well but okay thank you uh sev yeah i'd like to support both robert and and and brian i think our priorities uh need to remain but we need to reorganize the um the order of them the big thing is that many forms of mitigation are painful painful to individuals |
| 32:22 | painful to corporates paid for the governments however albedo brightening and and some forms of cdr only require investment they're not painful particu and particularly albedo brightening can be done far more quickly than can either mitigation or carbon dioxide removal therefore the the order in my mind should be restoring albedo brightening one carbon dioxide removal methane removal etc two mitigation measures three particularly the ones which are can i can i just request clev that that the the fact is that um albedo enhancement |
| 33:17 | does mitigate climate change there's a conventional language within the climate community that identifies mitigation with carbon dioxide emission reduction and but it's it's not a language that that i think should be accepted so i i just make that point uh in in your use of of the concept of mitigation mitigation should be recaptured as a broad thing that includes albedo enhancement uh albedo enhancement mitigates climate attention but then we then you you're mashing together uh two different concepts i'd like to keep |
| 33:57 | them a bit separate i i'm not not a versatile i can see your point but i i like to keep the things separate and then then i would go on to thermal radiation management which you mentioned about the cirrus clouds and and the increasing the radiation of heat off planet which is different from solar radiation management and then finally yeah put a little bit into adaptation but basically most forms of adaptation fail as global warming proceeds you know sea walls can keep the sea rise out for a while but you don't have 60 meter high sea walls |
| 34:38 | and once they're broken you've made the the problem worse for the cities behind it so that's why i'd have have the five in the order albedo first carbon dioxide removal second mitigation thermal measures and and adaptation yeah that's such a logical framework and it's it's uh aligns with what i uh suggested in terms of a house metaphor with uh albedo enhancement as the foundation and uh greenhouse gas removals of the walls and emission reduction as as the ceiling in terms of uh but the um |
| 35:21 | what's i'm going to say yeah so uh i i think that framing it in that way is um is very sound so thank you good just want to say that i watched a a wonderful interview this morning uh with uh professor uh kotkin his name is uh so bear with me this was talking about um the american politics um being very polarized he said it's not that it's polarized he said that there's it's demonized he said it's great to have po there's nothing wrong with having polarization but demonization he said this is the |
| 35:58 | problem and so i wonder if this is also happening in these climate debates that you demonize the other side absolutely it is and and this is where uh i i think that um cooperation with the fossil fuel industry is likely to be a more effective strategy than um excluding them and so it's it's partly the language of should we accelerate emission reduction now once we say we need to accelerate emission reduction then we're casting the fossil fuel industry as the enemy and i completely take arya's point about |
| 36:34 | the and brian's point about the unconscionable actions of of those industries but then uh they have delivered energy in vast abundance which has created modern standard of living and so the capacity to say which many people do okay we've just got to collapse our standard of living in order to save the climate i mean that's a very anti-democratic approach so if we're wanting to have a democratic approach to climate policy we really need to engage in dialogue and uh reconciliation and these are uh these are things that you |
| 37:13 | know a lot of the demonization language uh excludes you catch more flies with honey than vinegar i i just i just want to add though when it when it comes to quality of life at what expense because they're creating cancer and bronchitis and emphysema and hospital bills and you know people who can't afford the hospital bills there is a great cost to our dependents on the fossil fuel industry and you know it it it's all comparative so if you save energy um to me that's not nearly as much of a heartache |
| 38:00 | than you know getting cancer and not being able to breathe and i agree i think you know we need to impose a predictable and rising price on pollution and pay to pollute something that the government needs to enforce uh word on framing and that is um you know we have a term and it's called climate restoration that is to get to restored levels of co2 and i think we should distinguish that from you know robert's right mitigation includes all of the actions that we can take to mitigate the worst effect of the |
| 38:32 | inter you know the anthropo anthropogenic climate change and they would include uh re-brightening the planet and so i think we should capture a high ground on mitigation ultimately but it should be done in steps and as you know the beatles didn't go from i want to hold your hand to help your skelter in one step or one year it took them four years to do it similarly we should come in with the 20 80 you know and that is uh maybe it's um you know along these lines uh you know emission reduction and a bit of |
| 39:03 | re-brightening of the planet uh furthermore i do want to mention that when it comes to greenhouse gases there is a first year and that is this year's methane emissions will contribute more to the next 20 years of warming than this year's co2 emissions so if we could do only one thing probably decimating the planetary methane levels in the atmosphere would be an excellent start with a particularly ominous present thing and that is the we leveled out on methane um levels in the early 2010s but then it started going exponential and that |
| 39:34 | exponential most recently has had a notable change in stable isotope ratio pointing to a natural origin of the methane explosion that's happening now are we at the beginning of an exponential methane bomb that's occurring from permafrost and other natural sources this is something that is an open scientific question and that underscores the need for let's say catalytic methane decimation in the atmosphere as a top priority perhaps much more urgently than the uh carbon dioxide we could actually you know by december |
| 40:08 | decimating the mixing we could actually cut our warming rate by a factor of two potentially uh in short order and so highlighting that aspect of mitigation may be worthwhile and then finally i suggest a 2080 approach and that is uh you know mostly carbon to start and then let's add a little planetary re-brightening and then let's say well you know when you come right down to it it should be 80 20. |
| 40:35 | it should be 80 planetary rewriting and 20 uh you know uh uh reduction of co2 and let's just um you know introduce the trojan horse gradually if you will and that that pareto principle is exactly right and with the uh arctic methane it's um increasing albedo is the is the best way to uh to slow the uh the release of methane with the accelerating feedback loops uh yeah yeah um so uh i'm sorry i i again i i've been working on this cooling document that's why i keep missing the the startup so i would encourage because a lot of this um we're |
| 41:20 | trying to get a handle on this that people have a lot of these suggestions it would be great to to try and include some of this uh but um so so one thing i would like i did the the the discussion that arya was talking about she i think she was referring to a little discussion that we had uh and uh and in in that document there's uh there's a number of techniques including many of sev's and uh you know other things that that rely on on uh um uh uh you know uh cirrus cloud uh uh uh thinning and so forth that that are |
| 41:57 | not specifically brightening so that you know even even ocean thermal uh energy conversion which would harvest the heat from the top of the ocean it's a little bit different from the upwelling that brian is talking about at least the method that is referred to in the document is is harvesting the heat without upwelling the water uh harvesting the heat so you cool and you create enormous amount of amounts of energy if you know if jim calculations are correct you know at a at a very efficient low cost but um one and one other point i would like to |
| 42:35 | make is that most of the fossil fuel companies in the world are national companies they're actually not the majors uh and they're developing countries that depend very very heavily on the export earnings i mean of course russia's the case we we would rather not uh have but but uh it is it is common and and uh and in that in one of the you know in my paper actually there's a calculation that's uh uh it's it's it's it's 1. |
| 43:07 | 2 billion people or something like uh you know major number of people in the world are dependent on countries that earn over 10 of their export earnings just from oil uh exports so you know i i am sympathetic to to robert's point that you know we need to square the circle somehow we need to be able to replace those earnings it's not to to to to satisfy the greedy oil majors who indeed are you know reaping windfall profits and you know right now at the expense of of mostly working people and you know just causing |
| 43:40 | enormous suffering inside of court you know gluten and and the food shortage and all that is part of that but uh you know that that's that is in my i agree with with brian and ari and all that it's just it's morally you know obscene really uh but and it and it's also worsening the the plan the you know the climate uh crisis uh but uh but we do have to acknowledge that there's more to it than that there's this transition of basically a an economic you know a civilization transition from from hunter gatherers |
| 44:14 | fossil fuel and mining minerals to what i you know i've called the the the farmer cultivation society where you're trying to use energy that's you know solar energy or the ocean actually traps most of the heat that's one of the night you know jim point out that's most of the heat goes into the ocean so one way to trap the heat from the sun is to get it from the ocean uh or but but in any case you know more much more decentralized sources of energy that people around the world can can exploit and won't be |
| 44:46 | dependent on this kind of rentier capture of property for a particular you know oil well or particular uh uh mine uh so it's it's in that's the promised land if we can get to the other side to renewable uh energy of what peter eisenberg's called renewable energy materials economy or or what i'm calling a you know a cultivator farmer cultivator society uh industrial society then we do potentially can have a more equitable world a more prosperous and equitable and sustainable world but to get to that |
| 45:21 | we need to somehow uh you know we that transition is very difficult because so many people depend you know we have a civilization built on on fossil fuels so we know all that but but it's uh uh uh so so but but i think the problem is in terms of the politics of the us uh maybe this is u. |
| 45:47 | s pacific but uh the you know the whole the a whole party has been bought by the koch brothers who are a major fossil fuel uh dynasty you know billionaires super billionaires from fossil fuels and they bankrupted the entire public you know just they put no republican in federal or whatever can talk about climate change without sacrificing without without you know basically causing them to be ostracized and not you know no money they they spend more money than the entire republican party on on these on these you know so it's it's a real |
| 46:17 | problem uh and so i don't and and i think we do we don't want to uh we want to stay on the good side and that's where i'm sort of with brian and whatnot you know that we we can't we have to be supportive of of uh a mission reduction of drawdown i mean we recognize this long-run strategy but we don't want to counter post the two we don't want to you know say we can substitute cooling for emissions because that directly leads to people kind of tiring us for moral you know for for trying to |
| 46:51 | give the fossil fuel industry a get out of jail free card uh so we have to be very careful about that and that's where i think robert and i may have some you know there's some there's it's a it's a little bit hard i agree absolutely that cooling is the fundamental thing but uh we have to be careful not i think not to just politically strategically not to to to be supportive of the long run effort to get to the other side so i'm sorry i'm i'm going on but i'll stop there okay thank you |
| 47:21 | i think got that yep focus on where the problem is here fundamental problem here is with the very well-meaning uninitiated very large environmental activist community the fossil fuel community absolutely delighted with what we're saying in terms of cooling and the slow transition away absolutely what was that placated did you say they were they're delighted they're perfectly happy with what we're saying yeah right it's it's it's the large-scale environmental groups who don't fully understand the magnitude |
| 47:56 | of the problem who are terribly concerned that we're opening the door for these guys to carry on doing what they're doing but the the proper retort is yes of course we have to reduce as fast as we can we cannot close down the global economy because that will cause untold suffering and misery therefore emissions reductions alone are not enough we have to be doing this other stuff but in terms of bringing people on side and bringing the money inside and making people go in the right direction if the our community who understand the broad |
| 48:35 | picture can be working with the fossil fuel companies and help them with their messaging because like you know shells go in the right direction they want to go that way um a big part of our job has got to be to educate the other side of this argument to the people who are saying you know it's a mission for reductions only and give them these words these ideas in respect of restoring the planetary albedo and the reflectivity and keeping it really really simple where we can because there's a huge lack of understanding |
| 49:14 | um you know amongst the leadership onto politicians general public and hugely in the in the environmental community yep thank you can i just uh add something really quickly um in in terms of the the phrasing about brightening because i think that is a very simple way to to put it and help get that community on board with us is anything we do that helps prevent melting and you know what's what's happening in in the the polar regions is essentially related to brightening so it would seem to me that anything we do |
| 49:58 | focused on albedo can have that result which is a brightening of the planet i just wonder if if that kind of recognition and thought process around it might open us up to that simplification of the language where we lead with brightening to encompass these other strategies that might be a bit more specifically focused around albedo i've used the term in the past of return to the turquoise planet i explained that if you've taken that satellite picture 500 years ago the planet was a different color yeah um aria one of the |
| 50:39 | the the like the soil regeneration i'm just looking at these methods here in that in that document um so so one of the things as you know in the past we've been sort of trying to be careful about is is to you know incorporate ecological regeneration that a lot of us recognize is is very much a part of this this climate crisis it's not just the climate it's you know destroying our natural environment more generally that needs to be regenerated uh so one of the you know a person like walter jane in australia |
| 51:12 | or folks like that would say that well the water cycle is a huge uh component of the kind of cooling we have right now it's water cycle basis evapotranspiration it's all these ways that the planet cools itself by moving water around uh and you know using water to to lift heat up into the uh into the you know get it get it out get it up into the atmosphere so you know i i just i mean i i'm not adverse to brightening or whatnot as a simple message but i think we do you know it is it doesn't you know it it's not the whole picture |
| 51:47 | and i think we do wanna and and also as i've said uh i think the problem with all the solar radiation modification anything to do with doing and you know messing with the sun reflectivity which you know we want to reflect it back or we want to open up the clouds to get it back uh uh does does sort of point in the direction of solar radiation modification which leads to all this you know all these crazy debates about the the terrible hazards of sai and so forth which you know it it it and we want to try and broaden the |
| 52:21 | the dialogue the discussion not just to focus on these global cooling methods that indeed may be where we end up but you know just to get people into the idea of cooling more generally i think it's useful in some ways not to focus just just exclusively on albedo yeah i don't think we're saying that um yeah i agree with you wholeheartedly ron i i think that when it comes to i think we need to include climate restoration and ecosystem regeneration in addition to planetary brightening and avoid the word modification |
| 52:58 | everywhere yeah don't say modification yeah i think we're a bit in between a rock and a hard place right now because i think if we don't have any uh albedo if we don't whatever it was re-brighten the planet um there's a pretty looming risk of arctic um melt meltdown and uh and essentially a catastrophic tipping point so we we need to avoid that that that's the we don't want to be too i don't want to be doing too much but do monger but i think that's what we're facing and what i think john's going to |
| 53:31 | speak about interesting club i was keen to hear from john and and yeah yeah so let's let's we'll come back to you all right john mcdonald please yeah well i just just think we need we need to achieve some wins turning this juggernaut around even if they're small i mean and there are lessons there are lessons where the world has come together the montreal protocol i mean it's removing elite in fuels there's examples where you know where cfcs have been removed and ozone layers improved i mean these |
| 53:59 | these are the success stories success breeds success and we need to be inclusive and draw on those examples and and build up a machine we need it needs to be a vehicle for this sort of change to take place and if once that's established that can that can be expanded i mean let's focus on albedo and methane and climate restoration in general but if we can bring people together drawing on examples from the past where where it has worked where we because i think this is the sense of hopelessness you know just there's no way we can all |
| 54:33 | do this but there are examples there are some examples i mean certainly what we're talking about is far bigger issue than than the ozone but that was important to to fix that and it was generally i mean it's not perfectly fixed but generally fixed so that's something that's where the where the clue is if we can somehow get this this going get some runs on the board that's what that's what it's about and then that will build momentum over time yeah another example is the acid rain thing which we |
| 55:03 | solved by coming together yeah very good yeah absolutely john uh nissan please oh yeah i just um was going to say that uh re-freezing the arctic is very simple idea and it's one that um sir david king uh has advocated and he's supported by david attenborough uh sir david attenborough so we've got two one big name and a colossal name behind that idea and it's very simple and that obviously has well i think it's obvious that's got to be the top priority even above general planetary brightening it's saving the arctic ice and |
| 55:55 | re-freezing the arctic but planetary writing does help that oh it does but let's get let's get to the thing we we need to to halt the warming and the in the arctic within a few years if we can within a few years whole halt the watering uh hold the warming yeah that's saying what do you want to do put put the brakes on or stop or avoid hitting that brick wall that's right in front of us somewhere which we're speeding towards it's like that focus on the actual there's an actual huge risk |
| 56:33 | riding right in front of us maybe right in front of us it's difficult to tell but it's it's accelerating the arctic the arctic melting and temperatures rising seven times as fast as the rest of the world in some parts of yeah yeah you said in your last email yeah on average sort of four times in some places seven times um yeah look thanks clive very much for uh opening up the conversation i think you know one point that i that i made in my opening question was can brightening the planet prevent um a a 1.5 degree warming and nobody really |
| 57:14 | answered that and like does it does anybody actually think we can stop the overshoot past 1.5 through brightening technologies they've done at scale based on the some of their early data i would not be surprised if it could be done it's just a question of actually encouraging sufficient funding to enable that to go quickly enough it could certainly be done with stratospheric aerosol injection but you you'd have to uh just scale it up globally uh whereas i'm advocating uh just doing the arctic first |
| 57:58 | um the other doing the arctic might have sufficient because you'll be cooling the whole of the area north of 50. so it opens up this problem of what actual priority the world gives to keeping below 1.5 and it seems that that priority is actually quite low because we're saying well there's uh brightening technologies that can achieve it and and people are just saying i don't talk about that that's a taboo so uh you know opening up the taboo i think is uh is something that's uh that's really critical |
| 58:34 | i don't i i think there's a taboo among climate scientists but i'm not sure there's a taboo elsewhere in fact chris um chris vivian uh sent me a a posting about somebody who is a uh who's who said uh we don't want uh srm he uh uh despite the fact that businesses are are treating it seriously yeah now who who is treating it seriously because i haven't come across any businesses who are good seriously so in australia there's general support for the uh marine corps brightening to save the |
| 59:24 | great barrier reef we could expand on that yeah except from the grains who are opposed to it manager yeah yeah thank you um it has not been my experience and i'm uh you know fairly uh trusted uh climate activist in in the mid hudson region of new york um when i talk to people about this uh and and i realize that i'm just learning myself but people are really hungry for solutions that will work what i think where i think we need to focus is on letting the general public and and the grassroots climate activists and to |
| 1:00:19 | whatever extent we can um uh influence the thought leaders um about the tipping points about the timeline about the gap between what we are currently doing or in new york where they're wrestling with um a a climate action plan that is based uh quite a bit mostly on uh emission reduction but i think people are really hungry for a solution and i think the at least for me the um achilles heel if you will is um whether or not it's um zero emission uh or rather zero degrees climate change you know temperature or 1.5 or 2 |
| 1:01:18 | degrees centigrade you know everybody or so many people are citing different numbers that if there could be more of a consensus amongst the scientific community that says two degrees is off the table and 1.5 degrees is still going to allow these tipping points to be crossed and that we really have to shoot for zero and that means that emissions reduction is not enough i mean that's what i take away from monitoring these meetings and when i talk to people they are very open to it um so i you know what i have to say what i'm |
| 1:02:07 | hearing is um [Music] the the frustration that many of you have um is we kind of keep going around in circles and keep finding um you know people to blame rather than peop people to enroll in ways to enroll and i i did hear both ron and arya pointing to that and i just want to take a moment to underscore that because it has not been my experience that people see climate engineering or geoengineering as uh taboo they i think people are scared and looking for solutions and i think our challenge is to find a way to educate people well enough so that |
| 1:03:03 | they have a context and and then to direct uh really everyone's attention but certainly the scientific community's attention to what is the degree of warming that we can tolerate uh what is the timeline where are the tipping points how many have been crossed and and i think that methane release is the strongest argument we have and what are we going to do about that so you know this is just reflecting from my experience and my listening fairly carefully to all all the calls and trying to understand uh so that i can help others understand |
| 1:03:56 | thank you for letting that's great uh manager i would just say that uh uh unfortunately nothing's ever certain and one of the reasons um climate scientists and people like us you know we argue that the reason i put these uh you know meetings on is so that people can argue it out so because there's an awful lot of just disagreeing on emails you know and it's much better when people actually speak and argue professor michael mann he's a great communicator he's a great climate scientist but he's one of the ones |
| 1:04:29 | that's saying you know once you reach a certain uh parts per million if you just stop at 450 past million those temperatures might rise for another couple of years or so but then it stops it stops rising you know that's what he says and he also says you shouldn't have any geoengineering i mean he said this a long time a long time ago he's said this in one of his books you know it's uh there was an old lady who swallowed a fly you know and and was it had a spider to catch the fly and each each solution becomes a bigger |
| 1:05:01 | problem um but uh but he did recently uh through through media in action um said that he came on board to say that methane atmospheric methane depletion or atmospheric methane removal uh was something he could get behind and he would endorse that arya please hi yes thank you um i really uh appreciated uh manajo's comments and i just wanted to say i completely agree that people are very very hungry for solutions and that i think that the scientific community is very divided about what our upper limit is primarily because they |
| 1:05:47 | haven't been talking about the solutions that would give us control over that so they've been acquiescing to levels that are should be unacceptable because they haven't seen an alternative um and then i just want to add to that that i was really really heartened by the response that i got from the emergency arctic response round table because there were people who reached out to me and who were very enthusiastic about the content and the conversation who are a part of that environmental activist community who |
| 1:06:27 | would typically speak out and say no we don't want geoengineering no don't do this don't do that so i think there is openness but that we have to be very careful about how we have those conversations and that we really place at the center a regeneration of our ecosystems and an understanding that we have to have a healthy weather system which means focusing on the arctic and on those polar regions and that brightening people are responding well to that framing um which i think is really crucial so i don't think that |
| 1:07:07 | you know i think that we've got uh i think that we can reach the people that we need to reach uh that we just need to keep going having the conversations having the conversations that focus around ecosystems uh and protecting them restoration that positive framing i believe we'll reach people bring them on board we just have to be cautious and not say yes let's continue with you business as usual but we're just gonna you know brighten the planet or you know deal with albedo response and and let those |
| 1:07:41 | fossil fuel companies do what they please i don't think we'll get anywhere with that narrative um even though i appreciate there's complications around the transition um but but but i i think we can get there right and you're a media person arya and and i i can't follow everything it looks like you're doing stuff i'm just wondering if uh you have access to or if you could get access to david attenborough like because we all seem to be saying kind of the same thing and we start great and yeah we should keep on |
| 1:08:12 | going you know you know in our own way you know um john donald said we need a vehicle that's successful and and uh you know manager saying yes education it's all so would it help d do you have access to like for example dave's king david kings king i i don't have any direct access to david king i don't have any direct access to david attenborough however um i just just as you asked that question it occurred to me that i am in conversations with sally randy and she is a huge arctic uh you know |
| 1:08:53 | preservation person um and and i think that there's a conversation she might have a direct connection to david attenborough and she might be able to help bring him aboard uh so i think that would be worth talking to her about uh she's very well connected and i and i just i'm assuming that that that would be something she she might be able to do yeah great i mean um yeah if you can a great brilliant so i'll watch this space i'll i'll be watching closely aria absolutely you know um gunning for you |
| 1:09:29 | i appreciate that suggestion with what i'm doing as well yeah okay thank you i'm in touch with sir david regularly yeah one particular message that we should try to convey i was david king right yeah um yeah well uh i mean so we we want to make this a bigger thing we want to have some sort of uh i don't know if it's something that instead of a few hundred people see that thousands of people see um that there are solutions and involves re-brightening the planet and sir david attenborough says that's a |
| 1:10:05 | good idea as well um and this is what it would take you know this is what needs to happen and governments you know so there's an opportunity a whole kind of thing maybe i don't know if a thing like that could be ready for cop 27 in egypt i don't know well smart small parts of it may be i think we have an opportunity and uh sir david may serve as master of ceremonies of one of the climate benefit concert presentations which will be near the beginning of cop27 so i would just probably start with a more familiar |
| 1:10:38 | framing of refreezing the arctic or refreezing the polls because i think the climate benefit concert itself discusses the third poll and that is the top of the world himalayas uh and thus we should talk about the three polls we should talk about refreezing the polls and that's part of the theme of the climate benefit concert this year and the benefit project that is ensuing from it so i'm happy to encourage uh you know how could we best disseminate and i think support for the climate benefit concert both arya and |
| 1:11:09 | myself and our climate foundation are working to really um co-host and co-sponsor the climate benefit concert and we're going to need to reach out to hundreds of thousands of viewers to enable that to happen so it's going to be a collective effort and there's clearly a a polar re-brightening uh benefit that would come out of the results of the concert great okay so i mean i can i've stated gave me a bbc uh contact i can do that too be in touch with that so it sounds like that's that's the media thing that's already in |
| 1:11:44 | place this climate benefit concert uh when is it november is it or what is it november 5th through the 10th there'll be two hours of programming each night we're going to pre-record them and the whole intent is to engage with sponsors who can commit to scope three decarbonization with the public and say we need to we do need to decarbonize and on the way we need to re-freeze the poles of the planet okay and and do you think any mention of re-brightening the planet as we were saying at the beginning i think that's |
| 1:12:17 | the next step i just want to walk before we run and i want to move song by song from i want to hold your hand if you will i understand i don't know if we want to end with helter skelter but let's uh let's get there i understand brian okay yeah this is i i should add that my daughter is one of the musicians in that conference so i i think it plugs for her yeah yeah fantastic one yeah okay so we have uh we've spent uh uh most of the time uh five sixth of the time talking about the first uh item here |
| 1:12:54 | so um i just wonder if we can do anything useful with these last um this is more than the 80 20 rule isn't it uh anyway so methane emissions higher so what who's any suggestion what's the most important thing to talk about here so we had uh process for progressing a new idea um well just just following on for what we've been talking about clyde it's probably relevant yeah look i listened to it a couple of weeks ago that the link to the oceans conference about marine cloud brightening i was a little gobsmacked that steven |
| 1:13:31 | soldier wasn't involved with maybe he wasn't available but uh i was impressed with the approach that was being taken particularly the way daniel harrison's going about it on the great barrier reef with his trials he's very much put it out as an open question he's not saying this is for solve but he's focusing on the engineering but but also that the way he's put together a a very broad verification team it's very well considered and i think this has been he's got he's got |
| 1:14:02 | steering committees he's got quite a few layers he's got indigenous communities very closely involved front and center um he's he's he's covered the social the scientific they could they're all the all the aspects that need to be covered and and it look it sounds like a lot of layers on layers but it but it is actually quite important to get get confidence in delivering something like this and not just go out and say look we've got the answers we're going to solve this it's it's it's quite an interesting way |
| 1:14:32 | the way it's planned it could be used as a as a prototype for other projects so maybe we should study that more closely i mean he's still a long way to go and he fully admits that but he's not it's just it's just good to see the way he's going about it have you got some material you could send out about that john yeah that that link that was sent through i'll find that again uh i'm not sure where it came from whether it was peter forecast because somebody sent it out but uh yeah it was quite |
| 1:15:00 | interesting conferencing just that that sector on marine cloud driver great okay yeah let's look out for an email from you listen to it to see how he went about how he's going about it yeah great thanks john um okay what else we got here um well it seems uh i probably should we should have done the this real techy thing at the beginning because it seems just talking about that in the last few minutes uh it doesn't seem does anyone want to talk about uh loss of oh radicals because of course with iron sold aerosol and and perhaps other |
| 1:15:41 | chemistry we're talking about would produce uh chlorine radicals as well um as oh radicals um which are 16 times as powerful at least 16 times as they remove methane 16 times as fast anyway here i am getting into a technical discussion which i just said it wasn't appropriate um any ideas anyway i i can say something about this there's some work uh done that if if the methane emissions were uh quadrupled um you would find that the lifetime would be extended uh perhaps doubled uh because of the limitation of the |
| 1:16:27 | o.h radicals there was quite a long paper done on it which i've studied for a long time so but oh wait so friends do you have something to say about that these o-h radicals i i i don't have any feel for it that if they just get used up or if there's just so many of them all the time being made all the time in the atmosphere from you know from uh photo catalysis and so forth you're muted friends we can't hear you you need to unmute unmute friends you have to press the button yes that's it yeah |
| 1:17:12 | the the fires which are now in europe produce lots of carbon monoxide and this carbon monoxide reacts uh especially with the oh radicals and they and they are reduced and the atmosphere and this takes a lens in the lifetime of missing because miss n needs also uh oh it's radicals for uh okay deeply right so it reduces the number it's a chemical reduction but it also decreases the number of oh radicals in the atmosphere yeah yeah there we go so uh that's it we must uh keep working hard on our our you know chemistry for that |
| 1:18:13 | um uh more powerful chemistry okay but yeah i haven't uh i haven't heard it i haven't heard any news in the science community about there being a lower a quantity of oh radicals has anybody let's read about it just come out john and i was trying to find it all right okay this was the impact of the fires and the increasing level of fires which are taking up those radicals and measures rapidly increasing methane as a result um yeah um i'll send it to everybody afterwards uh so um surprisingly far's produced a lot of |
| 1:19:00 | carbon monoxide and that could be as france said that could be depleting the o-h radicals it makes sense because um the o-h radical will preferentially react with smoke rather than methane methane is a very stable molecule and and it only will react with methane if there's nothing else there and uh yeah so that's that's one of the challenges we have in replicating the uh the oih radical um methane removal process in a contained environment so so um suppression of fires should be quite high on the agenda |
| 1:19:51 | um yeah and that could be something that you know done internationally it's an accelerating feedback uh that's uh because fire then removes the oah radical which would have removed the methane so so far increases methane yeah self-reinforcing feedback yeah um and just to clarify what um i was saying two weeks ago it we do think that uh the loss of acidity that that the actually the the atmosphere is naturally acidic particles in the atmosphere are naturally very acidic surprisingly uh but between ph sort of between 0.5 and |
| 1:20:29 | 2. i think phones are saying ph3 the smaller the particles in the atmosphere are is the more they are acidic yeah and uh this acidity in the atmosphere produces oh radicals um and over the ocean you have phytoplankton it gives off dms which becomes sulfur dioxide naturally which becomes sulfuric acid and so this this is one of the reasons for the acidity but also the acidity comes from people are not going to like this pollution so some of this pollution coming from china or from all over the world you know um and from ships which is |
| 1:21:10 | coal-fired power stations the sulfur coming from those is has been uh um you know taken out from the the new rules and so there's less acidity so this this was another reason so this is just repeating and i just wanted to clarify because the way i wrote it up on the agenda last night so this is another thing that there's uh this chemistry that could be done alongside the brightening which would do to kill two birds with one stone uh re-brighten the planet and also restore the acidity of the atmosphere to |
| 1:21:43 | accelerate methane depletion yeah both of those jobs ac atomizers yeah yeah because yeah they both reduce the methane and increase the albedo and also they actually water the uh the parched areas where wav files could occur so you're getting three in one three birds yeah great stuff yes thank you brian it's well known that the hockey stick in u. |
| 1:22:15 | s temperatures corresponded with passage of the clean air act in which case we got all the co2 and none of the sulfate aerosol tropospheric cooling that would have taken place otherwise uh los angeles being a key prime spot of this but uh it's really interesting coincidence that it was the clean air act that resulted in the hockey stick in uh in american temperatures and this is jim hansen's saying this as well uh that uh that these temperatures are going to rise um maybe i could quickly if i can find it um um just found the guardian article on |
| 1:22:50 | that which yeah yeah i guess this one here um or maybe it's that one there uh no damn it oh never mind i can't find it but um it was one of these anyway i sent it out i sent out a link last time there's a picture of the um that's annoying i can't find it uh picture of uh um i've got it ready to to show everybody and oh maybe it's that one here we go that one there um this is from uh i think jim hansen basically and people like him um nasa yeah ago nasa that so that was his department that the |
| 1:23:33 | goddard institute for space studies and showing uh and this is john uh nissan you'll you'll be liking a look at this because this is showing uh volcanic eruptions lowering the um that well the forcing the climate forcing and um so and then he's also it's also showing the anthropogenic aerosols so um there was a lot of negative forcing so a lot of cooling you know this is the cooling influence that was taking place from you know to 2000 and where are we now sort of about that about there this is what this line is here isn't it but |
| 1:24:09 | but this is jim hansen saying look it's projected to get less and less and less the cooling effect is going to get less and less and so the the all the overall effect here's the black line is the overall warming influence is here we are it hasn't gone up too much at the moment but it's going just about to accelerate in fact it started accelerating really fast because of the greenhouse gases going up and also because of the anthropogenic aerosols coming down because of these new rules so this is not not looking good so hence |
| 1:24:43 | everything we've been saying today about uh um re-brightening the planet re-brightening the planet means reflecting more away which means keeping this purple line down here or as far as far down as we can you know safely well we don't want to burn coal as we think we've got other ways of doing it we can get the aerosols without doing all the burning um bru that's the idea but the most important thing about putting it in this so2 in the stratosphere is is it lasts much longer before it gets washed out |
| 1:25:18 | yes yeah we don't particularly want to put so2 in in the atmosphere we just want to make a city make it from ships or the so2 yeah do it from ships direct from the aimer says reduce so2 the opposite must be done do the opposite of what the imo says actually increase the use of high sulfur bunker fuel on ships yeah early you know increase the the high sulfur content yeah so this is the problem i think you're very both arya and manager who are trying to make a difference and trying to understand what the hell we're |
| 1:25:59 | talking about here um uh you you need to have reasonably clear messages that's reasonably incontrovertible messages to give to people and the cooling is is most definitely incontrovertible in incontrovertibly convertibly a good idea so it's all these other things um that we we have to argue about and read about and study and um and uh but uh arya mentioned a thing of eight or nine million deaths but the early part of this discussion and i'm not sure whether she was referring to the deaths as a result of climate change or the |
| 1:26:44 | deaths as a result of pollution do you have an answer this is this is uh directly from the world health organization that because of our dependence specifically on fossil fuels eight to nine million people die every single year now what we have from oxfam is probably a much higher figure for the number of people who die as a result of climate change you know one or two orders of magnitude bigger than that so i think those are so frequently those who die from uh cooking stove emissions eight hundred thousand you're talking |
| 1:27:24 | about a million ish sort of thing john yeah uh so you know there are huge numbers of famines and things and people dying as a result of climate change and if we call the planet uh we could save huge numbers of lives very quickly if we call the arctic we can save lives even quicker what was that figure again john two orders of magnitude higher i think two orders of magnitude per year it's quite a lot yeah but i think it's a crisis sorry i'm going to have to run but i can't see you on we'll see you |
| 1:28:08 | next week yeah well we've come to the end of our time anyway so uh any last uh thank you brian uh if there's no last um comments i'll do the usually would you just capture the chat if you would there seemed to be a lot of |