David Keith, environmental scientist HARDtalk

response to opposition protests. Now it is time for HARDtalk.

Few branches of science divide opinion as sharply as that

championed by Professor David Keith. He is one of the pre-eminent geo-

engineers, striving to find new ways to combat global warming by

altering the way the sea, clouds and the atmosphere work. This isn't

a replacement, he says, for the political drive to reduce emissions,

but his geo-engineering A Costa festive emergency stop gap before

the effects of climate change become irreversible, or a dangerous

Professor David Keith, welcome to HARDtalk. The no. Thank you for

being here. Let's start at the start. What is geo-engineering?

is two very different things would have come under the same name but

have very little relationship to each other. One is ways that we

would alter the amount of sunlight it absorbs. And so called the

planet, partly offsetting the effects of carbon in the atmosphere.

That is called solar radiation management. The other one is to

take carbon out of the atmosphere, called carbon-dioxide removal.

is both reducing emissions or at dealing with the growth in

emissions by taking the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, but

it is also trying to prevent those emissions getting to us in the

first place? The thing that has really unusual, and rightly scary,

is the idea that we can directly alter the climate by reflecting a

way some more sunlight. That is scary because we have extraordinary

leverage, in science and technology, and with very tiny amounts of money

or effort, we could alter the world's climate by putting these

reflective particles, say it in the stratosphere, and that has profound

implications, right up to duplicate -- geopolitical implications.

Before we get on to solar radiation management, let me ask you about

carbon dioxide removal. A Royal Society report here in the UK back

in 2009 said that no method of carbon dioxide removal has yet been

demonstrated to be effective at an affordable cost, with acceptable

environmental impacts. And the only work -- they only work to reduce to

be just over very long timescales. It does not sound that it is

visible at the moment? That is exactly right. Both as an author of

that report and as somebody running a company trying to capture Cup

under a third from the air. -- capture carbon dioxide from the air.

Carbon know so build up and the atmosphere over centuries. It is a

long timescale. How far are we away from some sort of technology which

could do this in a way which is effective, it is not too expensive,

will work, in a way that can be rolled out across the planet?

acknowledge used for removing carbon-dioxide from the air, and I

speak as somebody running a small company doing that, I think there

are some niche markets where I am some of my competitors might

succeed soon. But I do my job as to build a tour that humanity may or

may not use over the next 50 years. I don't expect to see an

application any time soon. In that case, it is the idea of solar

radiation management more exciting, were you trying summit to reflect

the sun's raised away from the planet? -- reflect the sun's raised

away from the planet. It is more immediate. I want to explore

firstly the science of it. In terms of how it can work, whether it is

feasible, how much it costs - is solar radiation monitor --

management the path it looks more viable at the moment? No. I think

it is impossible to say which is better. They are both different

roles to manage the overall climate risk, just as his cutting emissions.

There is no way to say that one is better. They do different things in

different ways. Explain firstly how solar radiation management might

work. Police actually, it is simple. The Earth is in some kind of

balance, we absorb some light and radiate away infrared. Carbon

dioxide makes it harder for infrared to get out. If you reflect

away a little more sunlight by adding reflective aerosols, tiny

particles, say, to the upper atmosphere. How do you do that?

Were the aircraft, for example. Doing it is not the hard part. You

can use aircraft or other methods to deliver millions of tons of

small particles to the upper atmosphere. Spray in them out at

high altitude? Correct. One thing this does is to mimic what more

Panos do, at least in a crude way. Large volcanoes books offer up into

the atmosphere which will cool the planet. This will society report

from 2009 did suggest that although this type of management might be

relatively cheap to deploy, and simple in the way that you describe

it, that there are considerable uncertainties about their regional

consequences, and they only reduce some, but not all of the effects of

climate change will possibly creating other problems. How far do

you recognise that? Be is absolutely correct. I had spent

time trying to look at the environmental problems and social

problems it will create. It is completely clear that you cannot

perfectly compensate for the environmental effect of carbon

dioxide in the atmosphere by cutting sunlight. You may be able

to reduce some risks of carbon dioxide in the air by this method.

Isn't there a problem that you could end up with different effects

in different parts of the world? For example, you could find that

although you are reducing the amount of sunlight and therefore

the matter that warmth -- the earth is warming up, and rainfall could

be affected in different ways? Absolutely. We have looked at that,

published papers on that topic. What conclusions have you drawn?

That it is not exactly equal, just like climate change. Climate change

itself is not equal, it affects different people, different

industries, different parts of the biosphere in different ways. So

does solar radiation management. The problem could be that if you

ended up having, or a country ended up having a scheme by way they have

solar radiation management over their country, but the effect was

that the neighbouring country ended up getting a lot less rainfall,

which is one of the feared consequences of this, that you

could almost end up with a cause for conflict? Yes. This is

precisely where the hard geopolitical issues arise. To put

it crudely, whose hand is on the thermostat? The scientists and

technocrats, including myself, are helping to invent a thermostat

model. But it is much easier to invent the nod them to figure out

who should be in charge of it in a world with many states. I want to

ask specifically about the science of this, which is, how far can you

tell whether the effect of solar radiation management are going to

cause perhaps a catastrophic loss of rainfall in a certain part of

the world? At the moment it seems to be hazy. I think it is not as

crazy as that. Using exactly the same climate models we have used to

estimate the problems with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we have

applied the same models to look at this, and the results so far look

good. That is why we are paying attention to it. For small amounts

of solar radiation management, it is remarkably even, more than

expected, and the benefits are substantial. I am quoting again

from one recent study, nature Geos science, which suggested that

engineering calling of this sort would lead to a much bigger loss of

rainfall in China than in India. That doesn't seem to tally with

what you are just saying. I think they are saying the same thing. One

of the issues is doing it and extreme amount, to compensate for

all of the CO2 in the atmosphere, or just a little bit. But the

inequalities in practice, when you look at it America, don't appear so

far to be that big. All I am saying is we should do more research to

find out. More research. Address the problem with more research is

that the research itself could lend itself to consequences which could

be damaging. If you think about drug trials, the best drug trials

by and large are the ones that are done on the largest scale. If you

do southern light is on a large scale you could be talking about

affecting huge swathes of the planet. Yes. But at present, nobody

is talking about that. In the near- term, research to me means research

with computer models, to test the effect on the ozone layer of small

quantities of these particles. computer models. Isn't one of the

problems with the climate and studying the climate is that it is

incredibly difficult to know exactly exactly how it works. It is

difficult to model. Sean. It is impossible to know exactly, but you

can still learn a lot. But at some point you will have to leap from

the computer screen into real life, and that is the point at which they

could be danger? First of all, we have to make a decision to do that.

I am not ready right now to say we should do that. We have to do other

research. If it makes sense to do this at some point, we will do it

with very tiny amounts of aerosol, and rounded up very slowly,

watching for ill effects and benefits as we did that over a

decade or two. He would monitor the system and if you saw problems he

would stop. That still does not guarantee safety. There is no

guarantee of safety. Remember, the benefits are also large. One of the

things we best understand about climate is heat stress on crops.

The most poor farmers in the world will see that Peter Riches reduce

the productivity of crops a lot. The first models we have run with

crop models suggests that solar radiation management will suddenly

reduce that. That is a big deal for a lot of poor people on this planet.

Given that you are talking about starting on a small-scale, what is

your reaction at this moment to -- to the postponement of the Spice

project here in the UK, which was planning to send a balloon one, cut

up into the sky as a possible precursor to this type of kind of

solar radiation management you are talking about. That was postponed

at short notice for a further six- month of public consultation

because there was a bit of an art cry. How did you think that was

handled? It is interesting because it was the first real opening up of

the public debate. I personally never understood the point of that

experiment. That experiment's only goal was to find a democratic way

to make it a little too good to get materials into the stratosphere.

The one thing -- problem that we don't have is that this is too

expensive. All the problems are around who controls it and what the

environmental risks are, not how much it costs. It is already cheap.

I put it was a misguided way to start. More point is not so much

the science but more about the public outcry about it. If it was

that the 9th they must be a cause of concern for you that there was

this outcry and a decision to postpone it for six both? My job is

to help state the size clearly and help people think about the

governance. It is not to promote this. It is in part to promote this,

you are a great and the easiest for it and as you said, you have your

own private company. A private company that works on a very

different part of it, that doesn't suffer from these governments

problems. But it is a sensitive topic. It is. My job is to help

clear thinking and clear knowledge about the tools we have to regulate

climate risk, among them, this one. And I am privately prepared to find

that the results show that we should never do this. Do you think,

in that case, that the current climate in terms of the political

climate is overheated? Or do you think it is actually fair enough

that people might be very concerned about these sorts of experiments?

think it is healthy that people are concerned. They should be concerned

about technologies that can run of play the entire planet's climate.

But don't be so sure which way the public outcry went. We ran a survey

almost a year ago now that took data, high quality data from 1,000

people in the UK, Canada and the US to try and understand public

support for research on these technologies and what kind of

political leanings influence people's decision to be for or

against. We found pretty broad research support. It is not clear

that that has changed. Some groups have been vocal trying to oppose. I

think it is reasonable that they should. These are hard topics.

that particular survey you are talking about, it also found that

64% subject agree that humans should not be manipulating nature

in the way suggested by Saul with - - solar radiation management. That

would suggest that there isn't particularly broad support at the

I am one of the people who helped open the door to get public

conversation going. My career fear is that people will be kicked open

and people will rush forward and do it too quickly. Given how quick it

is -- seen as a quick fix, I am not eager to have the public's a

runaway support. That would be a disaster. People will then do it

without adequate Test and control. It would be a disaster. How do you

think the public can be convinced? You say the research is at a very

benign level to begin with. If this is a global emergency, which we are

always hearing from climate scientists, it is important to move

ahead quickly? It is not an emergency at an hour by hour cents.

We must develop that technology and governance systems to understand if

we can use these in the future. Public opinion will evolve over a

long time. My goal is to make that public opinion to be able to be

shaped by backs and shaped by people's values. I have no

perceived notions about what it the right answer is. Except that we

look seriously at these options because there appears to be

evidence that they would provide remarkable levels of protection.

That would be fine if it was just a question of looking at whether the

science could be affected. We also resist -- exist in a political

world. This is something that you said it needs to work alongside a

cut in emissions. The inherent problem with this technology is

that it would remove the political will in agreement on cut emissions.

Is removes some of the incentives to drive slower. Is there an

argument against seatbelts? If the technology works, and it may not,

that is why you do research, if it works, people will mimic climate

risks in the future. Are you really say that we should wish not to have

the technology that minimises risk a? Your analogy with seatbelts

falls down on the grounds that there are laws to stop people from

driving too fast. Cars are safer with airbags and crash barriers but

there are laws to police that. Deployed about the cut in emissions

is that there are no laws, there are no agreements. There has been

repeated Ferrier as far as multinational institutions are

concerned. You are removing the impetus. Maybe not deliberately but

it is a side effect. The UK has made remarkable progress. They're

beginning to have laws. I have spent more of my time lobbying for

lawyers for gio-engineering. If it worse, it provides something for

the future. It is an odd moral stance for you to wish to have such

technology to be unavailable. Especially in the rich world.

talking about when is the negotiation? In terms of the

negotiation between up more than a kind -- hundreds of countries. When

a war renegotiation be completed without that deadline hanging over

them? There is no Plan B. The problem is you are offering a plan

B. Do you think it is moral for us to pretend it was not there? Our

job is to be honest about the trade-offs. The trade-offs are hard.

We cannot pretend they are not hard. But to pretend that we do not have

those trade-offs are worse. must shudder slightly when he here

people saying to stop the Korean movement. Of course I shudder.

ING's moral hazard into this debate. I am terrified of this outcome.

That is not my a - up -- have not a reason to be silent. The reasons

people ultimately do we do not commit to cutting emissions is not

simple. There is no simple rule that just because this is true that

people will cut emissions. People's reactions could be if they are so

concerned about climate change, then we should take it seriously

and cut emissions. You are chasing the funding from Richard Branson,

ie concern that Richard Branson was quoted saying, if we can come up

with a gio-engineering answer to this problem would not be necessary.

We could carry on flying out planes and driving our cars. That is a

naive statement. That is obviously not real. It will cost a lot of

money. You end your company are after his money. The cheapest thing

today is to use the atmosphere as a waste dump. If so have to stop that

we must restrict the ability to use the amnesty as a waste dump. I mean

a concern that you and your company are looking for money from people

like Richard Branson's -- Richard Branson. Are you not slyly

concerned about the people you are getting into bed with. Yes and no.

I do not share their views. Do you not see there, or these are people

who see gio-engineering as a quick fix? My job is to work with a lot

of people and be clear with my work. I am completely proud of me

bringing my tour to the public. I am happy to take money from serious

folk who have a broader set of interest. Given the difficulty in

terms of agreeing cuts in global emissions. It will also be

phenomenally difficult on whose hand is on the thermostat for there

to be an agreement to what temperature is the writer

temperature for the planet of. Russia and Canada may once a

slightly warmer environment but Ireland in the Pacific Ocean it

would want a colder environment so they will not be overtaken by water.

Those people who have capital at risk in the Arctic would not want

the warming to stop because they would want the warmer Arctic for

their economic access. That is one of the things that horrifies me.

That is one of the reasons why we should discuss these questions now.

The world needs, sooner rather than later, to think about this.

Technology reviles faster then our governments. It could be extremely

difficult for you. If you, or the technologies and countries that

using them by themselves which is not subject to a global government.

For these technology that have security concerns, they should be

in a private action. It would make sense to restrict or eliminate this.

It has to be publicly controlled and publicly owned. Your company is

controlled in several patents at the moment. This is the difference.

It is in highly expensive so there is no risk of setting too much CO2

because it cost so much. Any technology you have there are moves

CO2 has local risks. But they can be managed by the normal risk

management that we have. This is very different to the technology a

pudding particles in the stratosphere. I'm happy to see

private action on cutting emissions by making solar power or electric

vehicles. I am not happy to see public action by technology with

huge leverage by putting particles in the satyrs be. I have one more

quote. Gio-engineering is a bad idea. The share their emissions?