:00:09. > :00:14.response to opposition protests. Now it is time for HARDtalk.
:00:14. > :00:18.Few branches of science divide opinion as sharply as that
:00:18. > :00:22.championed by Professor David Keith. He is one of the pre-eminent geo-
:00:22. > :00:26.engineers, striving to find new ways to combat global warming by
:00:26. > :00:31.altering the way the sea, clouds and the atmosphere work. This isn't
:00:31. > :00:35.a replacement, he says, for the political drive to reduce emissions,
:00:35. > :00:39.but his geo-engineering A Costa festive emergency stop gap before
:00:39. > :00:49.the effects of climate change become irreversible, or a dangerous
:00:49. > :01:11.
:01:12. > :01:16.Professor David Keith, welcome to HARDtalk. The no. Thank you for
:01:16. > :01:19.being here. Let's start at the start. What is geo-engineering?
:01:19. > :01:22.is two very different things would have come under the same name but
:01:22. > :01:26.have very little relationship to each other. One is ways that we
:01:26. > :01:30.would alter the amount of sunlight it absorbs. And so called the
:01:30. > :01:34.planet, partly offsetting the effects of carbon in the atmosphere.
:01:34. > :01:39.That is called solar radiation management. The other one is to
:01:39. > :01:46.take carbon out of the atmosphere, called carbon-dioxide removal.
:01:46. > :01:50.is both reducing emissions or at dealing with the growth in
:01:50. > :01:53.emissions by taking the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, but
:01:53. > :01:58.it is also trying to prevent those emissions getting to us in the
:01:58. > :02:02.first place? The thing that has really unusual, and rightly scary,
:02:02. > :02:07.is the idea that we can directly alter the climate by reflecting a
:02:07. > :02:12.way some more sunlight. That is scary because we have extraordinary
:02:12. > :02:16.leverage, in science and technology, and with very tiny amounts of money
:02:16. > :02:20.or effort, we could alter the world's climate by putting these
:02:20. > :02:24.reflective particles, say it in the stratosphere, and that has profound
:02:24. > :02:28.implications, right up to duplicate -- geopolitical implications.
:02:28. > :02:33.Before we get on to solar radiation management, let me ask you about
:02:33. > :02:37.carbon dioxide removal. A Royal Society report here in the UK back
:02:38. > :02:41.in 2009 said that no method of carbon dioxide removal has yet been
:02:41. > :02:46.demonstrated to be effective at an affordable cost, with acceptable
:02:46. > :02:51.environmental impacts. And the only work -- they only work to reduce to
:02:51. > :02:55.be just over very long timescales. It does not sound that it is
:02:55. > :03:00.visible at the moment? That is exactly right. Both as an author of
:03:00. > :03:10.that report and as somebody running a company trying to capture Cup
:03:10. > :03:11.
:03:11. > :03:14.under a third from the air. -- capture carbon dioxide from the air.
:03:14. > :03:18.Carbon know so build up and the atmosphere over centuries. It is a
:03:18. > :03:24.long timescale. How far are we away from some sort of technology which
:03:24. > :03:28.could do this in a way which is effective, it is not too expensive,
:03:29. > :03:31.will work, in a way that can be rolled out across the planet?
:03:31. > :03:35.acknowledge used for removing carbon-dioxide from the air, and I
:03:35. > :03:38.speak as somebody running a small company doing that, I think there
:03:38. > :03:43.are some niche markets where I am some of my competitors might
:03:43. > :03:47.succeed soon. But I do my job as to build a tour that humanity may or
:03:47. > :03:51.may not use over the next 50 years. I don't expect to see an
:03:51. > :03:55.application any time soon. In that case, it is the idea of solar
:03:55. > :04:02.radiation management more exciting, were you trying summit to reflect
:04:02. > :04:09.the sun's raised away from the planet? -- reflect the sun's raised
:04:10. > :04:13.away from the planet. It is more immediate. I want to explore
:04:13. > :04:21.firstly the science of it. In terms of how it can work, whether it is
:04:21. > :04:24.feasible, how much it costs - is solar radiation monitor --
:04:24. > :04:27.management the path it looks more viable at the moment? No. I think
:04:27. > :04:31.it is impossible to say which is better. They are both different
:04:31. > :04:35.roles to manage the overall climate risk, just as his cutting emissions.
:04:35. > :04:41.There is no way to say that one is better. They do different things in
:04:41. > :04:46.different ways. Explain firstly how solar radiation management might
:04:46. > :04:51.work. Police actually, it is simple. The Earth is in some kind of
:04:51. > :04:55.balance, we absorb some light and radiate away infrared. Carbon
:04:55. > :04:59.dioxide makes it harder for infrared to get out. If you reflect
:04:59. > :05:03.away a little more sunlight by adding reflective aerosols, tiny
:05:03. > :05:07.particles, say, to the upper atmosphere. How do you do that?
:05:07. > :05:11.Were the aircraft, for example. Doing it is not the hard part. You
:05:11. > :05:15.can use aircraft or other methods to deliver millions of tons of
:05:15. > :05:19.small particles to the upper atmosphere. Spray in them out at
:05:19. > :05:23.high altitude? Correct. One thing this does is to mimic what more
:05:23. > :05:28.Panos do, at least in a crude way. Large volcanoes books offer up into
:05:29. > :05:34.the atmosphere which will cool the planet. This will society report
:05:34. > :05:37.from 2009 did suggest that although this type of management might be
:05:38. > :05:43.relatively cheap to deploy, and simple in the way that you describe
:05:43. > :05:47.it, that there are considerable uncertainties about their regional
:05:47. > :05:50.consequences, and they only reduce some, but not all of the effects of
:05:50. > :05:54.climate change will possibly creating other problems. How far do
:05:54. > :05:56.you recognise that? Be is absolutely correct. I had spent
:05:56. > :06:00.time trying to look at the environmental problems and social
:06:00. > :06:03.problems it will create. It is completely clear that you cannot
:06:04. > :06:07.perfectly compensate for the environmental effect of carbon
:06:07. > :06:12.dioxide in the atmosphere by cutting sunlight. You may be able
:06:12. > :06:15.to reduce some risks of carbon dioxide in the air by this method.
:06:15. > :06:20.Isn't there a problem that you could end up with different effects
:06:20. > :06:25.in different parts of the world? For example, you could find that
:06:25. > :06:29.although you are reducing the amount of sunlight and therefore
:06:29. > :06:33.the matter that warmth -- the earth is warming up, and rainfall could
:06:33. > :06:37.be affected in different ways? Absolutely. We have looked at that,
:06:37. > :06:41.published papers on that topic. What conclusions have you drawn?
:06:42. > :06:45.That it is not exactly equal, just like climate change. Climate change
:06:45. > :06:49.itself is not equal, it affects different people, different
:06:49. > :06:54.industries, different parts of the biosphere in different ways. So
:06:54. > :06:59.does solar radiation management. The problem could be that if you
:06:59. > :07:02.ended up having, or a country ended up having a scheme by way they have
:07:03. > :07:07.solar radiation management over their country, but the effect was
:07:07. > :07:10.that the neighbouring country ended up getting a lot less rainfall,
:07:10. > :07:16.which is one of the feared consequences of this, that you
:07:16. > :07:19.could almost end up with a cause for conflict? Yes. This is
:07:19. > :07:24.precisely where the hard geopolitical issues arise. To put
:07:24. > :07:27.it crudely, whose hand is on the thermostat? The scientists and
:07:27. > :07:31.technocrats, including myself, are helping to invent a thermostat
:07:31. > :07:36.model. But it is much easier to invent the nod them to figure out
:07:36. > :07:40.who should be in charge of it in a world with many states. I want to
:07:40. > :07:44.ask specifically about the science of this, which is, how far can you
:07:44. > :07:48.tell whether the effect of solar radiation management are going to
:07:48. > :07:52.cause perhaps a catastrophic loss of rainfall in a certain part of
:07:52. > :07:56.the world? At the moment it seems to be hazy. I think it is not as
:07:56. > :08:00.crazy as that. Using exactly the same climate models we have used to
:08:00. > :08:03.estimate the problems with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we have
:08:03. > :08:08.applied the same models to look at this, and the results so far look
:08:08. > :08:12.good. That is why we are paying attention to it. For small amounts
:08:12. > :08:17.of solar radiation management, it is remarkably even, more than
:08:17. > :08:23.expected, and the benefits are substantial. I am quoting again
:08:23. > :08:26.from one recent study, nature Geos science, which suggested that
:08:27. > :08:30.engineering calling of this sort would lead to a much bigger loss of
:08:30. > :08:34.rainfall in China than in India. That doesn't seem to tally with
:08:34. > :08:39.what you are just saying. I think they are saying the same thing. One
:08:40. > :08:49.of the issues is doing it and extreme amount, to compensate for
:08:49. > :08:52.all of the CO2 in the atmosphere, or just a little bit. But the
:08:52. > :08:56.inequalities in practice, when you look at it America, don't appear so
:08:56. > :09:02.far to be that big. All I am saying is we should do more research to
:09:02. > :09:06.find out. More research. Address the problem with more research is
:09:06. > :09:11.that the research itself could lend itself to consequences which could
:09:12. > :09:17.be damaging. If you think about drug trials, the best drug trials
:09:17. > :09:20.by and large are the ones that are done on the largest scale. If you
:09:20. > :09:23.do southern light is on a large scale you could be talking about
:09:23. > :09:28.affecting huge swathes of the planet. Yes. But at present, nobody
:09:28. > :09:32.is talking about that. In the near- term, research to me means research
:09:32. > :09:37.with computer models, to test the effect on the ozone layer of small
:09:37. > :09:41.quantities of these particles. computer models. Isn't one of the
:09:41. > :09:44.problems with the climate and studying the climate is that it is
:09:44. > :09:50.incredibly difficult to know exactly exactly how it works. It is
:09:50. > :09:54.difficult to model. Sean. It is impossible to know exactly, but you
:09:54. > :10:00.can still learn a lot. But at some point you will have to leap from
:10:00. > :10:04.the computer screen into real life, and that is the point at which they
:10:04. > :10:08.could be danger? First of all, we have to make a decision to do that.
:10:08. > :10:12.I am not ready right now to say we should do that. We have to do other
:10:12. > :10:16.research. If it makes sense to do this at some point, we will do it
:10:16. > :10:19.with very tiny amounts of aerosol, and rounded up very slowly,
:10:19. > :10:23.watching for ill effects and benefits as we did that over a
:10:23. > :10:26.decade or two. He would monitor the system and if you saw problems he
:10:26. > :10:33.would stop. That still does not guarantee safety. There is no
:10:33. > :10:37.guarantee of safety. Remember, the benefits are also large. One of the
:10:37. > :10:41.things we best understand about climate is heat stress on crops.
:10:41. > :10:45.The most poor farmers in the world will see that Peter Riches reduce
:10:45. > :10:48.the productivity of crops a lot. The first models we have run with
:10:49. > :10:53.crop models suggests that solar radiation management will suddenly
:10:53. > :10:58.reduce that. That is a big deal for a lot of poor people on this planet.
:10:58. > :11:03.Given that you are talking about starting on a small-scale, what is
:11:03. > :11:11.your reaction at this moment to -- to the postponement of the Spice
:11:11. > :11:17.project here in the UK, which was planning to send a balloon one, cut
:11:17. > :11:20.up into the sky as a possible precursor to this type of kind of
:11:20. > :11:25.solar radiation management you are talking about. That was postponed
:11:25. > :11:29.at short notice for a further six- month of public consultation
:11:29. > :11:35.because there was a bit of an art cry. How did you think that was
:11:35. > :11:38.handled? It is interesting because it was the first real opening up of
:11:38. > :11:43.the public debate. I personally never understood the point of that
:11:44. > :11:47.experiment. That experiment's only goal was to find a democratic way
:11:47. > :11:50.to make it a little too good to get materials into the stratosphere.
:11:51. > :11:54.The one thing -- problem that we don't have is that this is too
:11:54. > :11:57.expensive. All the problems are around who controls it and what the
:11:57. > :12:01.environmental risks are, not how much it costs. It is already cheap.
:12:02. > :12:07.I put it was a misguided way to start. More point is not so much
:12:07. > :12:10.the science but more about the public outcry about it. If it was
:12:10. > :12:17.that the 9th they must be a cause of concern for you that there was
:12:17. > :12:20.this outcry and a decision to postpone it for six both? My job is
:12:20. > :12:24.to help state the size clearly and help people think about the
:12:24. > :12:28.governance. It is not to promote this. It is in part to promote this,
:12:28. > :12:32.you are a great and the easiest for it and as you said, you have your
:12:32. > :12:35.own private company. A private company that works on a very
:12:35. > :12:42.different part of it, that doesn't suffer from these governments
:12:42. > :12:45.problems. But it is a sensitive topic. It is. My job is to help
:12:45. > :12:50.clear thinking and clear knowledge about the tools we have to regulate
:12:50. > :12:54.climate risk, among them, this one. And I am privately prepared to find
:12:54. > :12:58.that the results show that we should never do this. Do you think,
:12:58. > :13:01.in that case, that the current climate in terms of the political
:13:01. > :13:04.climate is overheated? Or do you think it is actually fair enough
:13:04. > :13:09.that people might be very concerned about these sorts of experiments?
:13:09. > :13:12.think it is healthy that people are concerned. They should be concerned
:13:12. > :13:16.about technologies that can run of play the entire planet's climate.
:13:16. > :13:20.But don't be so sure which way the public outcry went. We ran a survey
:13:20. > :13:24.almost a year ago now that took data, high quality data from 1,000
:13:24. > :13:28.people in the UK, Canada and the US to try and understand public
:13:28. > :13:31.support for research on these technologies and what kind of
:13:31. > :13:36.political leanings influence people's decision to be for or
:13:37. > :13:41.against. We found pretty broad research support. It is not clear
:13:41. > :13:45.that that has changed. Some groups have been vocal trying to oppose. I
:13:45. > :13:49.think it is reasonable that they should. These are hard topics.
:13:49. > :13:53.that particular survey you are talking about, it also found that
:13:53. > :13:56.64% subject agree that humans should not be manipulating nature
:13:56. > :14:00.in the way suggested by Saul with - - solar radiation management. That
:14:00. > :14:10.would suggest that there isn't particularly broad support at the
:14:10. > :14:12.
:14:12. > :14:19.I am one of the people who helped open the door to get public
:14:19. > :14:24.conversation going. My career fear is that people will be kicked open
:14:24. > :14:29.and people will rush forward and do it too quickly. Given how quick it
:14:29. > :14:34.is -- seen as a quick fix, I am not eager to have the public's a
:14:34. > :14:41.runaway support. That would be a disaster. People will then do it
:14:41. > :14:51.without adequate Test and control. It would be a disaster. How do you
:14:51. > :14:52.
:14:52. > :14:58.think the public can be convinced? You say the research is at a very
:14:58. > :15:05.benign level to begin with. If this is a global emergency, which we are
:15:05. > :15:14.always hearing from climate scientists, it is important to move
:15:14. > :15:19.ahead quickly? It is not an emergency at an hour by hour cents.
:15:19. > :15:23.We must develop that technology and governance systems to understand if
:15:23. > :15:29.we can use these in the future. Public opinion will evolve over a
:15:29. > :15:36.long time. My goal is to make that public opinion to be able to be
:15:36. > :15:41.shaped by backs and shaped by people's values. I have no
:15:41. > :15:45.perceived notions about what it the right answer is. Except that we
:15:45. > :15:55.look seriously at these options because there appears to be
:15:55. > :15:56.
:15:56. > :16:00.evidence that they would provide remarkable levels of protection.
:16:00. > :16:06.That would be fine if it was just a question of looking at whether the
:16:06. > :16:11.science could be affected. We also resist -- exist in a political
:16:11. > :16:15.world. This is something that you said it needs to work alongside a
:16:15. > :16:22.cut in emissions. The inherent problem with this technology is
:16:22. > :16:27.that it would remove the political will in agreement on cut emissions.
:16:27. > :16:31.Is removes some of the incentives to drive slower. Is there an
:16:31. > :16:37.argument against seatbelts? If the technology works, and it may not,
:16:37. > :16:41.that is why you do research, if it works, people will mimic climate
:16:41. > :16:50.risks in the future. Are you really say that we should wish not to have
:16:50. > :16:54.the technology that minimises risk a? Your analogy with seatbelts
:16:54. > :17:02.falls down on the grounds that there are laws to stop people from
:17:02. > :17:07.driving too fast. Cars are safer with airbags and crash barriers but
:17:07. > :17:13.there are laws to police that. Deployed about the cut in emissions
:17:13. > :17:16.is that there are no laws, there are no agreements. There has been
:17:16. > :17:24.repeated Ferrier as far as multinational institutions are
:17:24. > :17:30.concerned. You are removing the impetus. Maybe not deliberately but
:17:30. > :17:35.it is a side effect. The UK has made remarkable progress. They're
:17:35. > :17:45.beginning to have laws. I have spent more of my time lobbying for
:17:45. > :17:45.
:17:45. > :17:52.lawyers for gio-engineering. If it worse, it provides something for
:17:52. > :17:58.the future. It is an odd moral stance for you to wish to have such
:17:58. > :18:06.technology to be unavailable. Especially in the rich world.
:18:06. > :18:11.talking about when is the negotiation? In terms of the
:18:11. > :18:14.negotiation between up more than a kind -- hundreds of countries. When
:18:14. > :18:19.a war renegotiation be completed without that deadline hanging over
:18:19. > :18:26.them? There is no Plan B. The problem is you are offering a plan
:18:26. > :18:32.B. Do you think it is moral for us to pretend it was not there? Our
:18:32. > :18:36.job is to be honest about the trade-offs. The trade-offs are hard.
:18:36. > :18:44.We cannot pretend they are not hard. But to pretend that we do not have
:18:44. > :18:54.those trade-offs are worse. must shudder slightly when he here
:18:54. > :18:57.
:18:57. > :19:01.people saying to stop the Korean movement. Of course I shudder.
:19:01. > :19:10.ING's moral hazard into this debate. I am terrified of this outcome.
:19:10. > :19:17.That is not my a - up -- have not a reason to be silent. The reasons
:19:17. > :19:20.people ultimately do we do not commit to cutting emissions is not
:19:20. > :19:26.simple. There is no simple rule that just because this is true that
:19:26. > :19:29.people will cut emissions. People's reactions could be if they are so
:19:29. > :19:39.concerned about climate change, then we should take it seriously
:19:39. > :19:47.
:19:47. > :19:52.and cut emissions. You are chasing the funding from Richard Branson,
:19:52. > :20:00.ie concern that Richard Branson was quoted saying, if we can come up
:20:00. > :20:05.with a gio-engineering answer to this problem would not be necessary.
:20:05. > :20:11.We could carry on flying out planes and driving our cars. That is a
:20:11. > :20:19.naive statement. That is obviously not real. It will cost a lot of
:20:19. > :20:23.money. You end your company are after his money. The cheapest thing
:20:23. > :20:30.today is to use the atmosphere as a waste dump. If so have to stop that
:20:30. > :20:32.we must restrict the ability to use the amnesty as a waste dump. I mean
:20:33. > :20:42.a concern that you and your company are looking for money from people
:20:43. > :20:43.
:20:43. > :20:50.like Richard Branson's -- Richard Branson. Are you not slyly
:20:50. > :21:00.concerned about the people you are getting into bed with. Yes and no.
:21:00. > :21:05.I do not share their views. Do you not see there, or these are people
:21:05. > :21:15.who see gio-engineering as a quick fix? My job is to work with a lot
:21:15. > :21:18.
:21:18. > :21:22.of people and be clear with my work. I am completely proud of me
:21:22. > :21:28.bringing my tour to the public. I am happy to take money from serious
:21:28. > :21:33.folk who have a broader set of interest. Given the difficulty in
:21:33. > :21:37.terms of agreeing cuts in global emissions. It will also be
:21:37. > :21:40.phenomenally difficult on whose hand is on the thermostat for there
:21:40. > :21:45.to be an agreement to what temperature is the writer
:21:45. > :21:51.temperature for the planet of. Russia and Canada may once a
:21:51. > :22:01.slightly warmer environment but Ireland in the Pacific Ocean it
:22:01. > :22:03.
:22:03. > :22:07.would want a colder environment so they will not be overtaken by water.
:22:07. > :22:11.Those people who have capital at risk in the Arctic would not want
:22:11. > :22:15.the warming to stop because they would want the warmer Arctic for
:22:15. > :22:19.their economic access. That is one of the things that horrifies me.
:22:19. > :22:23.That is one of the reasons why we should discuss these questions now.
:22:23. > :22:29.The world needs, sooner rather than later, to think about this.
:22:29. > :22:36.Technology reviles faster then our governments. It could be extremely
:22:36. > :22:44.difficult for you. If you, or the technologies and countries that
:22:44. > :22:48.using them by themselves which is not subject to a global government.
:22:48. > :22:54.For these technology that have security concerns, they should be
:22:54. > :23:01.in a private action. It would make sense to restrict or eliminate this.
:23:01. > :23:10.It has to be publicly controlled and publicly owned. Your company is
:23:10. > :23:15.controlled in several patents at the moment. This is the difference.
:23:15. > :23:20.It is in highly expensive so there is no risk of setting too much CO2
:23:20. > :23:24.because it cost so much. Any technology you have there are moves
:23:24. > :23:27.CO2 has local risks. But they can be managed by the normal risk
:23:27. > :23:31.management that we have. This is very different to the technology a
:23:31. > :23:36.pudding particles in the stratosphere. I'm happy to see
:23:36. > :23:41.private action on cutting emissions by making solar power or electric
:23:41. > :23:46.vehicles. I am not happy to see public action by technology with
:23:46. > :23:56.huge leverage by putting particles in the satyrs be. I have one more
:23:56. > :24:03.quote. Gio-engineering is a bad idea. The share their emissions?