What I’m going to talk about today is just in general terms. What is needed to address the climate crisis, this is the thing that if we do, what actions can we take that will accelerate the transition out of the Fossil fuel era there’s a certain amount of carbon that is circulating through the environment So it’s going into the air being absorbed by plants and animals And then getting back into the air, and this this carbon is just circulating on the surface And this is fine, and it’s been doing that for hundreds of millions of years The thing that’s changed is that we’ve added something to the mix So this is what I would call the turd in the punchbowl so we added all this extra carbon to the carbon cycle and the net result is that The carbon in the oceans and atmosphere is growing over time. It’s much more than can be absorbed by the ecosystem It’s really quite simple. We’re taking billions of tons of carbon that’s been buried for hundreds of millions of years and is not part of the carbon cycle, taking it from deep underground and adding it to the carbon cycle The result is a steady increase in the carbon in the atmosphere and in the oceans which doesn’t look like much if you look at it on this chart But when looked at in the context of history it actually looks like this The carbon parts per million has really been bouncing around the 300 level for around 10 million years And in the last few hundred years it went into a vertical climb This is the the essence of the problem. This is very unusual and a very extreme threat as you can see from from this rate of growth. Then this is accompanied by a temperature increase as one would expect This temperature increase… people talk about two degrees or three degrees It’s important to appreciate just how sensitive the climate actually is to temperature And it’s important to look at it in terms of absolute temperature, not in degrees Celsius relative to zero. We need to say what is the temperature change relative to absolute zero, that’s how the universe thinks about temperature, it’s how physics thinks about temperature, it’s relative to absolute zero. Small changes result in huge effects So New York City under ice would be minus 5 degrees, New York City under water would be plus 5 degrees But looked at as a percentage relative to absolute zero, it’s only a plus minus 2 percent change so the sensitivity of the climate is extremely, extremely high We’ve amplified this sensitivity by building our cities right on the coastline. And most people live very close to the ocean in some countries that are their very low-lying and would be completely under water in a climate crisis. We’ve essentially designed civilization to be super sensitive to climate change. The important thing to appreciate is that we are going to exit the fossil fuels era. It is inevitable that we will exit the fossil fuels era because at a certain point we will simply run out of carbon to mine and burn. So the question is really “when” do we exit the era not not “if”. The goal is to exit the era as quickly as possible. That means we need to move from the old goal with a pre-industrial goal, which was to move from chopping down forests and killing lots of whales… The old goal was to move from chopping wood and killing whales to fossil fuels. Which actually in that context was a good thing. But the new goal is to move to sustainable energy future. We want to use things like Hydro, Solar, Wind, Geothermal. Nuclear is also a good option in places like France which aren’t subject to natural disasters. And we want to use energy sources that will be good for a billion years. So how do we accelerate this transition away from fossil fuels to a sustainable, era? And what happens if we don’t? So if we wait, and if we delay the change, The best case is simply delaying that inevitable transition to sustainable energy. So this is the best case if we don’t take action now. At the risk of being repetitive, There’s going to be no choice in the long term to move to sustainable energy. It’s tautological. We have to have sustainable energy or we’ll simply run out of the other one. So the only thing we gain by slowing down the transition is… It is just slowing it down. It doesn’t make it not occur. Just slows it down. The worst case however, is more displacement and destruction than all the wars in history combined These are the best/worst-case scenarios. We have about 3% of scientists that believe in the best case. And about 97% that believe in the worst case. This is why I call it the dumbest experiment in history – ever. Why would you do this? So the reason that the transition is delayed, or is happening slowly, is because there is a hidden subsidy on all carbon producing activity. In a healthy market, if you have 10€ benefit and 4€ of harm to society, the profit would be 6€. It makes obvious sense. This is where the incentives are aligned with a good future. This is not this is not the case today. but if you have the incentives aligned, then the forcing function towards a good future, a sustainable energy future, will be powerful. In an unhealthy market you have 10€ of benefit, but the 4€ of harm isn’t taxed so you have an untaxed negative externality. This is basic economics 101. So you have unreasonable profit and a forcing function to do carbon-emitting activity because this cost to society is not being paid. The net result is 35 gigatons of carbon per year into the atmosphere. This is analogous to not paying for garbage collection. It’s not as though we should say, in the case of garbage, Have a garbage-free society. It’s very difficult to have a garbage-free society, but it’s just important that people pay for the garbage collection. so we need to… Go from having untaxed negative externality, which is effectively a hidden carbon subsidy of enormous size, 5.3 Trillion dollars a year according to the IMF every year. We need to move away from this, and have a carbon tax. This is being this is being fought quite hard by The carbon producers, and they’re using tactics that are very similar to what the the Tobacco industry used for many years. They would take the approach of… even though the overwhelming scientific consensus was that smoking cigarettes was bad for you, they would find a few scientists that would disagree and then they would say “look, scientists disagree.” So that’s essentially how they would try to trick the public into thinking that smoking is not that bad. The solution obviously is to remove the subsidy. That means we need to have a carbon tax. And to make it something which is neither a left nor right issue. We should make it probably a revenue-neutral carbon tax So this would be a case of increasing taxes on carbon, but then reducing taxes in other places. So maybe there would be a reduction in sales tax or VAT and an increase in carbon tax. Only those using high levels of carbon would pay an increased tax. Moreover, in order to give the industry time to react, this could be a phased-in approach. So that maybe it takes 5 years before the carbon taxes are very high, so that only companies that don’t take action today will suffer in five years. But there needs to be a clear message from government in this regard. because the fundamental problem is the rules today incent people to create carbon, and this is madness! Whatever you incent will happen. That’s why we’re seeing very little effect thus far. And depending upon what action we take will drive the the carbon number to either extreme or moderate levels. I think it’s pretty much a given that that the two-degree increase will occur… the question is whether it’s going to be much more than that… not if there will be a 2 degree increase. So then the question is what can you do? I would say whenever you have the opportunity talk to your politicians, ask them to enact a carbon tax. We have to fix the unpriced externality. Talk to your friends about it and fight the propaganda from the carbon industry. So that’s the basic message I have and I’m happy to take questions.