1
00:00:06,410 --> 00:00:11,990
Well, hello, and a very warm welcome to week five of Oxford net zero climate in the balance,

2
00:00:11,990 --> 00:00:17,570
which is our series of conversations throughout the term in which we're exploring what we know and importantly,

3
00:00:17,570 --> 00:00:22,220
what we need to know to achieve net zero emissions and stabilise the climate.

4
00:00:22,220 --> 00:00:26,480
I'm Steve Smith, executive director of the Oxford Net Zero Initiative,

5
00:00:26,480 --> 00:00:34,290
and this week it's my privilege to be joined by Tim Kruger of the Oxford Martin School to talk about the role of negative emissions.

6
00:00:34,290 --> 00:00:38,070
If the concepts of negative emissions stands out to you, then stay tuned to find out more.

7
00:00:38,070 --> 00:00:43,490
That's what we're here for, and some of you who did see the schedule a little while ago might have noticed that.

8
00:00:43,490 --> 00:00:47,960
Michael Oubre Steiner is a director of the Environmental Change Institute here.

9
00:00:47,960 --> 00:00:50,510
Had planned to be with us. He sends his apologies.

10
00:00:50,510 --> 00:00:56,930
Unfortunately, he got called just in the last week to advise the European Commission that another meeting at the same time.

11
00:00:56,930 --> 00:01:03,170
So he's very sad not to be here, but nevertheless we're in superb hands with him.

12
00:01:03,170 --> 00:01:08,540
He, too is involved in Oxford net zero and has really been a leading lights over the last decade or so in

13
00:01:08,540 --> 00:01:14,840
putting negative emissions on the agenda here in the UK and not just researching specific measured methods,

14
00:01:14,840 --> 00:01:21,590
but also pioneering work really on policies to govern them and wider engagement across society

15
00:01:21,590 --> 00:01:26,510
about how we approach these and other novel climate technologies in a responsible way.

16
00:01:26,510 --> 00:01:31,430
So Tim is an Oxford Martin fellow, and he manages the geoengineering programme.

17
00:01:31,430 --> 00:01:37,010
He's co-author of the Oxford Principles to guide the conduct of geoengineering research,

18
00:01:37,010 --> 00:01:41,720
and these have been widely influential on researchers and policy makers in the field.

19
00:01:41,720 --> 00:01:49,310
He's also founder of a negative emissions start up company, and no doubt he will give you a little bit more information about that soon.

20
00:01:49,310 --> 00:01:56,510
So he really understands not only the research landscape, but also the very practical issues and trying to scale up negative emissions.

21
00:01:56,510 --> 00:02:04,820
So as ever, we're very keen to hear from you, the audience, for you to send us your questions and we're going to do our best to answer them as we go.

22
00:02:04,820 --> 00:02:13,130
Tim will explain to us what negative emissions means, and some of the issues around them set out the key issues for the first 30 minutes or so.

23
00:02:13,130 --> 00:02:20,210
And at any time during this talk, please do drop in your question. You need to be viewing on crowd cost rather than the YouTube channel,

24
00:02:20,210 --> 00:02:27,170
and you should be able to see on crowd carson crab cost and ask a question button at the bottom right of your screen so you can click on that.

25
00:02:27,170 --> 00:02:35,150
You can write in your question. And importantly, you can vote on other questions you like to just so you know, we are recording this event,

26
00:02:35,150 --> 00:02:39,350
and it will be available to watch on YouTube later on via the Oxford Martin School channel,

27
00:02:39,350 --> 00:02:46,700
along with all the other conversations in this box with net zero series. So I think that said four housekeeping announcements.

28
00:02:46,700 --> 00:02:51,700
So, Tim, welcome over to you. Thank you very much, Steve.

29
00:02:51,700 --> 00:02:59,630
I appreciate that. So as Steve says, I work at the University of Oxford and I run the programme that looks at the whole

30
00:02:59,630 --> 00:03:04,310
range of proposed techniques of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

31
00:03:04,310 --> 00:03:14,960
And also, I'm the founder and CEO of a company called Origin Power, which is developing a technology to remove CO2 from the air as well.

32
00:03:14,960 --> 00:03:21,230
And I won't be talking about origin. That's that's separate what we're going to be talking about the broader issues here.

33
00:03:21,230 --> 00:03:29,160
But I can certainly bring the experience of being involved in a start-up in this space to the discussion that follows.

34
00:03:29,160 --> 00:03:36,020
So in this series so far, you have heard a lot about need to get to net zero.

35
00:03:36,020 --> 00:03:41,750
And there's been a lot of focus I need to get to net zero in order to stabilise the climate.

36
00:03:41,750 --> 00:03:49,100
And there's been a lot of focus on what we need to do to reduce emissions, and that is absolutely crucial that we do that.

37
00:03:49,100 --> 00:03:54,110
But mitigation alone is not enough. We can't get that.

38
00:03:54,110 --> 00:04:02,660
We can't get to zero just by cutting emissions. We're also going to have to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as well.

39
00:04:02,660 --> 00:04:10,700
So in order to avoid dangerous climate change, and obviously there are different definitions of where dangerous climate change starts.

40
00:04:10,700 --> 00:04:21,650
But if you want to achieve the 1.5 degree goal, we really need to get to net zero by 2050, and that means very radical reductions in emissions.

41
00:04:21,650 --> 00:04:25,430
And then the application of what's known as negative emissions,

42
00:04:25,430 --> 00:04:32,680
the actual removal of CO2 from the atmosphere to counteract any remaining emissions that there are.

43
00:04:32,680 --> 00:04:41,110
We've made a mess. We have used the atmosphere as a dump for our CO2 and for a long time since the industrial

44
00:04:41,110 --> 00:04:46,120
revolution that we've been adding large amounts of fossil carbon to the atmosphere.

45
00:04:46,120 --> 00:04:49,210
We thought that we could do this without having consequences,

46
00:04:49,210 --> 00:04:55,960
but we now understand that it does have consequences, that it does raise the temperature, acidification as well.

47
00:04:55,960 --> 00:05:01,210
And we need to stop adding to that problem.

48
00:05:01,210 --> 00:05:05,110
And the scale of the problem is enormous.

49
00:05:05,110 --> 00:05:13,600
So this this plot here shows a report from the unit emission cut proposal that the United Nations Environment Programme

50
00:05:13,600 --> 00:05:20,080
every year they publish a report saying What we're doing in cutting emissions and what we need to do going forward.

51
00:05:20,080 --> 00:05:32,230
And this was from 2017, and this was a plot showing what would need to happen to emissions in order to have a good chance of keeping below 2°C.

52
00:05:32,230 --> 00:05:38,530
Bear in mind, at the time, the target was 1.5 to two degrees after the Paris Agreement,

53
00:05:38,530 --> 00:05:44,890
and a lot of people were saying, Well, what would we need to do to get to two degrees the the yellow line?

54
00:05:44,890 --> 00:05:52,780
I'm not sure if you can see biomass, but if you can the yellow line, the business as usual is kind of the trajectory we're on at the moment.

55
00:05:52,780 --> 00:06:00,010
The Red Line, this hard right term here is tree that we would need to follow to get two degrees.

56
00:06:00,010 --> 00:06:04,840
And that shows that we need to have very, very steep cuts in emissions.

57
00:06:04,840 --> 00:06:10,240
And then we need to at some point in about the 2030s, we need to get to net zero.

58
00:06:10,240 --> 00:06:14,740
That is, we need to get our emissions down to zero.

59
00:06:14,740 --> 00:06:19,720
That's so we need to get our emissions down and then counter any remaining emissions with

60
00:06:19,720 --> 00:06:25,390
negative emissions so that this brown line here shows what's happening to emissions.

61
00:06:25,390 --> 00:06:30,760
And then this blue is negative emissions. This is removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

62
00:06:30,760 --> 00:06:35,920
And really, at this stage, we don't know whether we can actually do these negative emissions.

63
00:06:35,920 --> 00:06:41,830
I don't think this is a projection, a kind of trajectory of what needs to happen.

64
00:06:41,830 --> 00:06:49,570
It doesn't mean that it will happen. We don't know exactly how we are going to cut emissions as aggressively as this,

65
00:06:49,570 --> 00:06:57,730
and we certainly don't know whether we can deploy proposed negative emission techniques at the scale that is implied here.

66
00:06:57,730 --> 00:07:01,990
And the other thing to note about this is that this is for two degrees.

67
00:07:01,990 --> 00:07:09,310
If you want to get to 1.5 degrees, you have to cut even quicker. You need to get to net zero by 2050.

68
00:07:09,310 --> 00:07:18,160
So that means steeper cuts in emission and more rapid build up of technologies that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

69
00:07:18,160 --> 00:07:21,850
So it really is a massive challenge that we face.

70
00:07:21,850 --> 00:07:28,960
The size of the challenge, we had about 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year.

71
00:07:28,960 --> 00:07:33,730
And if we want to stabilise temperatures, we have to reduce that to net zero.

72
00:07:33,730 --> 00:07:39,700
So we might be able to do a new 75 percent reduction in emissions.

73
00:07:39,700 --> 00:07:47,060
That's 10 billion tons. And then you need to remove that equivalent 10 billion tons.

74
00:07:47,060 --> 00:07:57,950
It's important in the context of the pandemic, we've seen emissions falling, and last year it's expected they'll have fallen by about seven percent.

75
00:07:57,950 --> 00:08:06,800
But in order to be on track for one and a half degrees, we would need to reduce emissions by about 7.6 percent every year.

76
00:08:06,800 --> 00:08:17,870
So we need to have a contraction of industry of about that amount or completely reconfigure industry to achieve that.

77
00:08:17,870 --> 00:08:28,970
And it's going to be extremely hard to actually achieve, and we will need to remove multiple billions of tons of carbon dioxide per year.

78
00:08:28,970 --> 00:08:36,620
And quite soon we'll have to do that. And ultimately, you will probably need to remove trillions of tonnes of carbon dioxide.

79
00:08:36,620 --> 00:08:43,700
So the kind of central projections are that if we can reduce emissions very aggressively and to be honest,

80
00:08:43,700 --> 00:08:49,940
I think a lot of those scenarios where we reduce emissions very aggressively are really quite optimistic.

81
00:08:49,940 --> 00:08:55,370
But if we were to do that, we're talking hundreds of billions of tons of CO2.

82
00:08:55,370 --> 00:08:59,720
I think a more realistic view is we're going to need to remove trillions of

83
00:08:59,720 --> 00:09:05,240
tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over the course of this century.

84
00:09:05,240 --> 00:09:12,470
So what did these proposed techniques look like and always use were proposed because none of them have really been deployed,

85
00:09:12,470 --> 00:09:17,390
anything like a material scale? This this chart.

86
00:09:17,390 --> 00:09:24,740
This picture here gives a quick overview of a large number of proposed techniques,

87
00:09:24,740 --> 00:09:29,630
and there are a large number of techniques that potentially could be used.

88
00:09:29,630 --> 00:09:39,160
I'm not going to go through this particular image in detail, except to point out that you've got the top, you've got CO2 in the air.

89
00:09:39,160 --> 00:09:46,510
In the middle, you have a variety of different ways in which CO2 could be removed from the air and then to the bottom,

90
00:09:46,510 --> 00:09:51,460
you have different ways in which the CO2 is stored away from the atmosphere.

91
00:09:51,460 --> 00:10:00,040
We need to take the CO2 out of the air through a process and then stored away from the atmosphere for a long period of time for it to be effective.

92
00:10:00,040 --> 00:10:08,140
And over on the left side of the the image, you have techniques that harness photosynthesis.

93
00:10:08,140 --> 00:10:13,210
Nature's power to take CO2 out of the Earth through photosynthesis.

94
00:10:13,210 --> 00:10:18,340
On the right hand side, you have what's known as engineered carbon dioxide removal methods,

95
00:10:18,340 --> 00:10:25,580
which use various chemical processes that you can industrialise in the middle.

96
00:10:25,580 --> 00:10:31,810
There are some techniques that use a combination of biomass and engineered approaches.

97
00:10:31,810 --> 00:10:33,670
So I'm going to go through a few of these.

98
00:10:33,670 --> 00:10:41,290
I'm not going to go through all of them, but I'll go through a few of them and just give kind of headlines about what they are and what they can do.

99
00:10:41,290 --> 00:10:48,370
But before I do that, I want to talk about the criteria that we should look at in order to assess these proposed techniques.

100
00:10:48,370 --> 00:10:55,030
And there are dozens of criteria that you could use. And but I'm going to just focus on three of them.

101
00:10:55,030 --> 00:11:01,810
And the first of those is safety. So is it safe now?

102
00:11:01,810 --> 00:11:12,250
What do I mean by safe? It's not just about the kind of health impacts, but it's also is it safe from a societal point of view?

103
00:11:12,250 --> 00:11:21,100
Can we do this in a way that doesn't create countervailing side effects to society, to the environment, biodiversity, all sorts of things.

104
00:11:21,100 --> 00:11:27,100
And as we go through it, you will see what I mean by some of these side effects.

105
00:11:27,100 --> 00:11:34,530
But it's important that just as with a treatment for a disease, pretty much every treatment has side effects.

106
00:11:34,530 --> 00:11:37,210
The question is, does it have countervailing side effects?

107
00:11:37,210 --> 00:11:43,030
All these side effects so severe that they mean that you can't effectively use those techniques?

108
00:11:43,030 --> 00:11:50,440
So the very simple level, if you had something that could cure diabetes and resulted in dandruff, you go, Okay,

109
00:11:50,440 --> 00:11:55,000
that's not a countervailing side effect you've you've managed to address this big problem of diabetes,

110
00:11:55,000 --> 00:12:02,200
and it's giving you the small problem of dandruff. If, however, it was the other way around, then obviously that isn't something that you would want.

111
00:12:02,200 --> 00:12:07,690
It's the safety is the first of the criteria. The second one is, is it robust?

112
00:12:07,690 --> 00:12:12,730
And this comes in two parts. First of all, does it actually work?

113
00:12:12,730 --> 00:12:20,410
So there are all sorts of proposed techniques out there, but you need to be very careful when you do the sums.

114
00:12:20,410 --> 00:12:25,420
When you add it all up, how much energy is spent and how much carbon is captured, et cetera.

115
00:12:25,420 --> 00:12:31,600
Some of the proposed techniques don't actually look very good once you've done what's known as a life cycle assessment.

116
00:12:31,600 --> 00:12:36,490
So that's really important. But the other part is, is it permanent?

117
00:12:36,490 --> 00:12:41,950
It might fix the problem in the short term, but if it doesn't fix the problem in the long term,

118
00:12:41,950 --> 00:12:49,840
then it's just a temporary fix and you go back to where you started and it's not robust.

119
00:12:49,840 --> 00:12:55,720
The third criteria is scalable. Are we talking about something that is a mouse or an elephant?

120
00:12:55,720 --> 00:13:01,720
Is it small scale? Is it going to have a tiny impact? Or is it going to have a massive impact?

121
00:13:01,720 --> 00:13:08,510
And it's likely that there isn't any one of these proposed techniques that can be scaled to the extent of solving the whole problem.

122
00:13:08,510 --> 00:13:16,270
So it's going to be a portfolio approach that's going to be needed in order to address this matter of principles that we need.

123
00:13:16,270 --> 00:13:24,100
But it's really important to understand how big these different techniques are when you're trying to remove trillions of tons from the atmosphere.

124
00:13:24,100 --> 00:13:30,280
If you're only removing 100 million tons, it's really not very much.

125
00:13:30,280 --> 00:13:32,200
It doesn't move the scale very much.

126
00:13:32,200 --> 00:13:42,030
You need things that can really be deployed a billion tons of gear scale, and some techniques can achieve that and some can't.

127
00:13:42,030 --> 00:13:47,190
So let's start talking about some of the proposed techniques. One of them is trees.

128
00:13:47,190 --> 00:13:55,830
Forestry. So if you take a piece of land that doesn't have trees on it and you grow trees as they grow, they take CO2 out of the atmosphere.

129
00:13:55,830 --> 00:13:59,670
And this is probably at first sight, everyone's favourite idea.

130
00:13:59,670 --> 00:14:03,210
Because who doesn't like trees and the great trees? I love them.

131
00:14:03,210 --> 00:14:07,530
I'm all in favour of them. But there are certain questions about them.

132
00:14:07,530 --> 00:14:12,030
So the first is, are they safe now planting trees?

133
00:14:12,030 --> 00:14:18,540
Seems like a really good idea, but the scale at which you would have to plant trees in order to have a material impact on the amount

134
00:14:18,540 --> 00:14:28,230
of CO2 in the atmosphere would potentially cause harm in terms of things like the supply of food.

135
00:14:28,230 --> 00:14:36,420
You need land that can photosynthesise that can grow things. If you're replacing crop plants with trees, that can be a problem.

136
00:14:36,420 --> 00:14:39,060
There are also issues of who owns the land.

137
00:14:39,060 --> 00:14:48,240
Often, people in models will say, Oh, we're going to put this on marginal land, but marginal land is where marginalised people often live,

138
00:14:48,240 --> 00:14:55,320
and you've got to be very careful about the the amount who actually owns that land and that the land rights that go with it.

139
00:14:55,320 --> 00:15:01,140
You just have to be careful about what kind of trees you plant. It's about planting the right tree in the right place.

140
00:15:01,140 --> 00:15:07,320
It's not about blanketing a piece of land with with a monoculture that wouldn't be good for biodiversity.

141
00:15:07,320 --> 00:15:15,870
So there is potential. There are lots of co-benefits that can come from planting trees, watershed management, livelihoods, all sorts of good things.

142
00:15:15,870 --> 00:15:19,560
We have to understand what's the the scalability of it.

143
00:15:19,560 --> 00:15:24,270
How much land could you actually plant with? Trees kind of have a material impact.

144
00:15:24,270 --> 00:15:29,220
And really, one of the most important aspects is the permanence of the storage.

145
00:15:29,220 --> 00:15:34,020
So when a tree is growing, it's taking CO2 out of the air.

146
00:15:34,020 --> 00:15:39,300
The issue comes is will that land remain forested if there's a fire or if someone

147
00:15:39,300 --> 00:15:44,280
chopped down the tree or there's an invasion of pests that kill the trees?

148
00:15:44,280 --> 00:15:47,880
When those trees die, they release CO2 back into the atmosphere.

149
00:15:47,880 --> 00:15:55,710
So we need to be sure that when we lock the carbon off in the in the trees that didn't remain there permanently,

150
00:15:55,710 --> 00:16:04,630
because if it doesn't, it's not going to have a long term impact on the problem that we face, which is climate change.

151
00:16:04,630 --> 00:16:15,490
Biochar is another way of using photosynthesis, so by China is taking plant matter and charring it,

152
00:16:15,490 --> 00:16:19,090
heating it up so it turns into this black material,

153
00:16:19,090 --> 00:16:25,150
which you can put into the soil that can have benefits for the soil and including improving

154
00:16:25,150 --> 00:16:30,460
productivity of the soil and the carbon will stay in the soil for a period of time.

155
00:16:30,460 --> 00:16:35,440
The question is how long does it stay in the soil? In some places, it can stay for a very long time.

156
00:16:35,440 --> 00:16:41,500
But how long it stays is a function of where you put it, how deep it is, how you put it in,

157
00:16:41,500 --> 00:16:46,600
how you produce the biochar, the temperature and humidity, many different factors.

158
00:16:46,600 --> 00:16:51,400
And if the carbon doesn't stay locked up for a long time, it's not a permanent fix.

159
00:16:51,400 --> 00:17:00,220
It's just a temporary fix. And again, the question is the scalability. We only have so much land on which to plant trees or to undertake biochar.

160
00:17:00,220 --> 00:17:10,310
If we do this at a bigger scale, can we do it hard in order to have a permanent effect?

161
00:17:10,310 --> 00:17:16,490
Another technique is called Banks, which stands for biomass energy with carbon capture and storage.

162
00:17:16,490 --> 00:17:19,130
And this is obviously a very simplified diagram.

163
00:17:19,130 --> 00:17:30,440
But the idea is that you grow biomass that takes CO2 out of the air and then you burn that biomass in a power station that generates energy,

164
00:17:30,440 --> 00:17:34,520
which can be used for electricity, for example.

165
00:17:34,520 --> 00:17:43,400
But you capture the CO2 and you bury it deep underground, where it stays permanently and stable geological formations said.

166
00:17:43,400 --> 00:17:51,350
The idea here is the CO2 is travelling from the air to underground, and you're getting another useful product out of it.

167
00:17:51,350 --> 00:17:56,270
But the questions again, all about the scalability and the impact of this.

168
00:17:56,270 --> 00:18:00,560
So there is a power station in the UK called Drax,

169
00:18:00,560 --> 00:18:11,570
and Drax is buying biomass from around the world and transporting it to their power station in Yorkshire, burning it there.

170
00:18:11,570 --> 00:18:18,800
And at the moment, they emit the CO2 back into the atmosphere, and that's broadly carbon neutral, according to this accounting.

171
00:18:18,800 --> 00:18:25,040
But if you were to capture that CO2 and put it on the ground and that's what Drax plans to do, then it would be carbon negative.

172
00:18:25,040 --> 00:18:29,570
The question is, how scalable can you do that? What are the impacts?

173
00:18:29,570 --> 00:18:36,890
How much strain are we putting on our ecological systems by doing that?

174
00:18:36,890 --> 00:18:41,360
Now we come to direct our caption, I hasten to add, this is an artist's impression.

175
00:18:41,360 --> 00:18:46,610
This kind of flies what kind of images to the left of the image.

176
00:18:46,610 --> 00:18:55,760
There are a version, a nice impression of a machine that can suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

177
00:18:55,760 --> 00:19:02,240
And this is something that could probably be done at a large scale, but it would have very large implications in terms of energy.

178
00:19:02,240 --> 00:19:08,280
Trying to capture CO2 from the air is likely to be energy intensive, and it's going to cost a lot of money.

179
00:19:08,280 --> 00:19:17,770
So there are many factors that we need to look at when we are trying to decide what may be the best way to approach this.

180
00:19:17,770 --> 00:19:21,160
There's another series of techniques called enhanced weathering.

181
00:19:21,160 --> 00:19:27,400
This is where you grind up certain kinds of rocks and in grinding them up, you increase the surface area.

182
00:19:27,400 --> 00:19:31,360
These these kinds of rocks are ones that whether they're whether naturally and thing,

183
00:19:31,360 --> 00:19:39,040
whether they take CO2 out of the atmosphere and by grinding them up, you make them weather more quickly.

184
00:19:39,040 --> 00:19:43,900
And this could have potential to draw down a large amount of CO2.

185
00:19:43,900 --> 00:19:49,510
But there are all sorts of impacts associated with grinding up the material to that size.

186
00:19:49,510 --> 00:19:54,670
So again, none of these things are slam dunks. Is it going to work straight away?

187
00:19:54,670 --> 00:20:00,850
We have to understand what the trade offs are to understand if they can work.

188
00:20:00,850 --> 00:20:07,990
And then there's the ocean. So this is an image just off the coast of France and the UK.

189
00:20:07,990 --> 00:20:17,470
And it shows an algal bloom. And what happens is that the ocean's in being host to these algal blooms.

190
00:20:17,470 --> 00:20:23,130
As the algae blooms, it takes CO2 out of the atmosphere. And when those organisms, they sink to the bottom.

191
00:20:23,130 --> 00:20:30,730
And that that draws down some carbon dioxide. There are some proposed techniques which involve adding iron to the ocean.

192
00:20:30,730 --> 00:20:33,580
So parts of the ocean are deficient in iron.

193
00:20:33,580 --> 00:20:41,410
And the thought is, well, if you add iron to those parts of the ocean, you allow more algal blooms, more drought, more drawdown of CO2.

194
00:20:41,410 --> 00:20:50,290
But this again has lots of potential side effects, and there are very serious questions about the scalability of this approach as well.

195
00:20:50,290 --> 00:20:55,990
So what I'm pointing out here is not saying any one of these is the solution or this one's good.

196
00:20:55,990 --> 00:20:59,080
That one's bad. I'm not in that game.

197
00:20:59,080 --> 00:21:06,280
What I'm doing is, I'm saying there are lots of proposed techniques, but we need to understand what the trade-offs about them are.

198
00:21:06,280 --> 00:21:14,230
One issue that comes up across all of these techniques is a concern about the social acceptability,

199
00:21:14,230 --> 00:21:23,170
not just of individual techniques, but of the whole field, and this is encapsulated in a phrase that's known as moral hazard.

200
00:21:23,170 --> 00:21:30,460
So moral hazard is the concern that if we talk about these techniques or if we implement these techniques,

201
00:21:30,460 --> 00:21:34,600
that they will undermine the will to cut emissions.

202
00:21:34,600 --> 00:21:44,140
And this is something that has been put out by people who are opposed to looking at these techniques.

203
00:21:44,140 --> 00:21:48,050
And I totally understand the concern.

204
00:21:48,050 --> 00:21:56,230
At the same time, I think we need to actually look at how we deal with it and put it in the context of the pandemic that we have.

205
00:21:56,230 --> 00:22:06,400
If we want to stop the pandemic, we need to not only reduce transmission, but we also need to research vaccines as well.

206
00:22:06,400 --> 00:22:12,250
And I don't think many people would say we shouldn't research vaccines because it

207
00:22:12,250 --> 00:22:20,680
might reduce the ability of people or the will of people not to keep socially distant.

208
00:22:20,680 --> 00:22:25,270
There is likely to be an effect there. But at the same time, you need both.

209
00:22:25,270 --> 00:22:31,810
It's not one or the other, it's both. And I would say that again about this whole ambition to achieve net zero.

210
00:22:31,810 --> 00:22:37,270
It's about reducing emissions and it's about removing CO2 as well.

211
00:22:37,270 --> 00:22:48,250
So one one scenario I might look at here is imagine some people chatting and one of them says, What do you mean you work on a cure for diabetes?

212
00:22:48,250 --> 00:22:58,600
That's a terrible shame on you. You wouldn't hear that the argument could be well, if we're if we know about the problem of diabetes,

213
00:22:58,600 --> 00:23:07,660
the best thing to do would be to stop people from eating so much and having the health problems associated with that.

214
00:23:07,660 --> 00:23:13,150
If we got rid of obesity, we wouldn't need a cure for diabetes.

215
00:23:13,150 --> 00:23:23,320
And actually, I, if you're researching a cure for diabetes, you're just undermining the will of people to stick to a healthy diet.

216
00:23:23,320 --> 00:23:27,730
I don't agree with that, but I'm putting that out as a kind of counterargument.

217
00:23:27,730 --> 00:23:36,700
And so prevention is better than a cure. And just to give you a, you know, his his what's happened to obesity in the US over the last few decades?

218
00:23:36,700 --> 00:23:41,500
And here's what's been happening with CO2 emissions, and there are some kind of similarities.

219
00:23:41,500 --> 00:23:51,190
It is a matter to some degree of self-control, but it's also broader cultural issues which people individuals don't have so much control over.

220
00:23:51,190 --> 00:23:58,150
So what we want to do is, yes, we want to prevent it, but if we can't prevent it, we also need to have a cure.

221
00:23:58,150 --> 00:24:10,210
We can't rely on emissions falling at the rate that they have in this last year for the next three decades that it's unrealistic to do so.

222
00:24:10,210 --> 00:24:16,160
And if you can't prevent it, you sure need a cure. So this is a plot that shows what happens to.

223
00:24:16,160 --> 00:24:26,000
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere, if at the same time shown by those green, blue and orange curves, you cut all emissions completely.

224
00:24:26,000 --> 00:24:36,680
So this is a kind of hypothetical scenario where all industry shuts down instantaneously and everybody on the planet dies immediately,

225
00:24:36,680 --> 00:24:44,870
which, by the way, I'm not advocating as a policy option. But if that were to happen, you would see the level of CO2 in the atmosphere go down.

226
00:24:44,870 --> 00:24:52,970
But it would go down very gradually. So we are currently at about 410 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.

227
00:24:52,970 --> 00:24:57,200
We don't know what a safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere is.

228
00:24:57,200 --> 00:25:02,330
It depends on a lot of different factors which we don't fully have the answer to.

229
00:25:02,330 --> 00:25:06,860
But say you wanted to get to 350 parts per million?

230
00:25:06,860 --> 00:25:11,180
There's an organisation called 350.org, and they think that's the right level.

231
00:25:11,180 --> 00:25:19,670
If everybody, if ever all emissions stop now, it will be several centuries before you actually go back to 350 parts per million.

232
00:25:19,670 --> 00:25:27,870
So. If we overshoot and we may well overshoot, we will need these techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

233
00:25:27,870 --> 00:25:34,770
But these things aren't going to happen for free. I talked to the beginning about this being a waste management problem.

234
00:25:34,770 --> 00:25:39,690
And when we have waste management problems, we expect to have to pay to clear them up.

235
00:25:39,690 --> 00:25:46,020
So we do not expect people to sweep the streets, to sweep the streets for nothing.

236
00:25:46,020 --> 00:25:53,680
They are paid to do so. We have to pay to treat wastewater and nuclear waste.

237
00:25:53,680 --> 00:25:57,780
This is not tidy itself. Well, we have to pay people to tidy it away.

238
00:25:57,780 --> 00:26:05,040
So we have to create incentive structures that actually ensure that people do clean up this waste.

239
00:26:05,040 --> 00:26:11,160
And we need to be very careful how we create this incentive structures so that we don't create perverse incentives.

240
00:26:11,160 --> 00:26:15,840
So I'm going to leave it there. Oh, just one more thing Anderson's law.

241
00:26:15,840 --> 00:26:24,690
This is a complicated area, and there's a science fiction writer called Paul Anderson, and he had a law and the law was.

242
00:26:24,690 --> 00:26:33,060
I have yet to see any problem, however complicated when you look at it in the right way did not become still more complicated.

243
00:26:33,060 --> 00:26:38,670
This is a complicated area, and the more you look into it, the more complicated it becomes.

244
00:26:38,670 --> 00:26:44,100
But we do need to look into it because without making admissions, we're not going to be able to achieve net zero.

245
00:26:44,100 --> 00:26:51,070
We're not going to be able to cut prices at 1.5 degrees. Thank you very much.

246
00:26:51,070 --> 00:26:53,950
Thank you, Tim, for that overview.

247
00:26:53,950 --> 00:26:58,990
It was really nice that you explain the landscape of the different approaches out there and actually there's a nice link.

248
00:26:58,990 --> 00:27:05,710
For those of you interested on that, on the natural and biological methods too weak to where I was discussing with

249
00:27:05,710 --> 00:27:10,450
Nathalie Seddon and Cecil Girardin the role of nature and reaching net zero.

250
00:27:10,450 --> 00:27:14,740
And there's quite a bit of information there about the limitations too,

251
00:27:14,740 --> 00:27:23,440
but also the opportunities for enhanced carbon capture and storage in nature as part of a nature based solutions.

252
00:27:23,440 --> 00:27:28,750
Tim, I'm going to throw to you first. A question which wasn't at the top of the list wasn't isn't currently voted.

253
00:27:28,750 --> 00:27:34,010
The most popular, but I think is a good scene setter, one for for what you've just said and the discussion we'll have next.

254
00:27:34,010 --> 00:27:41,500
So you mentioned that you're the founder of a for profit venture and greenhouse gas removal carbon dioxide removal.

255
00:27:41,500 --> 00:27:48,700
So can you talk a bit about the ethical issues you face in the fall through and in being in that role and also at the same time,

256
00:27:48,700 --> 00:27:52,480
an advocate for CO2 removal? Yeah, certainly.

257
00:27:52,480 --> 00:28:01,660
So I've been involved in this space for about 12 years, and I joined Oxford 10 years ago, and when I joined,

258
00:28:01,660 --> 00:28:13,060
I was very clear that I was going to be working part time on this attempt to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in a commercial sense.

259
00:28:13,060 --> 00:28:18,490
So I've always attempted to be as transparent as possible about that and make it clear.

260
00:28:18,490 --> 00:28:27,760
And I, when I'm having conversations with people, I'd bring it up as it's something that's important to me to be clear about that.

261
00:28:27,760 --> 00:28:40,240
And when I talked to policymakers, I say that I think one of the things that I have tried to do in the programme at the

262
00:28:40,240 --> 00:28:45,760
Oxford Martin School is to ensure that when people are looking at these techniques,

263
00:28:45,760 --> 00:28:56,770
they are looking at them in a technology agnostic way that they don't come into these discussions in a way that says,

264
00:28:56,770 --> 00:29:04,690
Well, this is the right answer and everything else is wrong. We need to or assume that certain techniques are going to work at the moment.

265
00:29:04,690 --> 00:29:14,950
You have the disintegration assessment models where it assumes that backs is going to be deployed at a massive scale, but we don't know if it will.

266
00:29:14,950 --> 00:29:22,300
And so I think it's really important to go into those conversations and say, we don't know which of these techniques can work.

267
00:29:22,300 --> 00:29:26,320
We need to look at all of them and understand their issues.

268
00:29:26,320 --> 00:29:40,180
I think another point about this, it is that I recognise that it's very difficult for policy makers to make policy about incentivising the removal.

269
00:29:40,180 --> 00:29:48,280
I said in the absence of technologies that can actually show that they need a machine that goes ping.

270
00:29:48,280 --> 00:29:55,430
And this creates a chicken and egg problem because if there aren't any technologies and there's no policy,

271
00:29:55,430 --> 00:29:59,380
but there's no policy, there's no incentive to develop the technologies.

272
00:29:59,380 --> 00:30:09,580
And so part of what I'm doing in trying to develop these technologies is to actually have the machine that goes ping to say that we can do this,

273
00:30:09,580 --> 00:30:16,060
but it can only be done if there is a mechanism, but actually fairly incentivises it.

274
00:30:16,060 --> 00:30:24,280
And so that actually creates a kind of fact on the ground that policymakers have to respond to.

275
00:30:24,280 --> 00:30:34,630
And I think that's an important thing to do. So I'm going to buy the work that I do at Oxford in order to inform the work that I do in my company,

276
00:30:34,630 --> 00:30:41,920
but also bring the work that I do in my company to actually usefully inform the work that I do at Oxford.

277
00:30:41,920 --> 00:30:49,900
So people have to make up their own minds as to whether what I'm doing is right or appropriate.

278
00:30:49,900 --> 00:30:52,690
I thought about it a lot. I think it is.

279
00:30:52,690 --> 00:31:01,420
I've communicated that clearly to other people, and I certainly don't seek to advance my technology over other technology.

280
00:31:01,420 --> 00:31:05,930
I think that would be. Thanks, Tim.

281
00:31:05,930 --> 00:31:11,330
That leads us nicely on to several questions we've received actually about the policy side of things.

282
00:31:11,330 --> 00:31:19,130
So how do we get this going? I'll just pull out a few themes that the divorced from different angles, about different routes.

283
00:31:19,130 --> 00:31:22,880
And I know certainly I think we first met when I was working in policy on this stuff,

284
00:31:22,880 --> 00:31:29,660
and you've always been quite quite good at taking the view across the range of different approaches and not just your technology.

285
00:31:29,660 --> 00:31:39,800
So for instance, we've got Stuart Clark asking about airline passengers paying a carbon tax on their ticket price to pay for removals.

286
00:31:39,800 --> 00:31:47,720
He asks about the cost, and we'll come back to the cost question, actually, but that's one way in which removals could be incentivised.

287
00:31:47,720 --> 00:31:51,470
Miles Allan is in the conversation and says to stir things up,

288
00:31:51,470 --> 00:31:57,140
why should the taxpayer pay for CO2 removal to compensate for the impact of a still profitable industry?

289
00:31:57,140 --> 00:32:06,710
So if oil and gas is the use of oil, coal and gas is the major source of emissions, and they're still turning a profit if they are.

290
00:32:06,710 --> 00:32:10,130
Then why should the taxpayer pay in place of them?

291
00:32:10,130 --> 00:32:17,680
A third angle just on this point, as is the idea of carbon removal offsets more generally as a as a viable route to financing that.

292
00:32:17,680 --> 00:32:25,070
So most Dan Brown asks this and asks, given that some of these are capital intensive projects,

293
00:32:25,070 --> 00:32:32,030
maybe green bonds or other vehicles are more appropriate. So I know you've done quite a bit of thinking about the different ways in which

294
00:32:32,030 --> 00:32:38,720
you might scale these things up from a policy and consensus point of view. What's your thinking on what the right vehicle should be?

295
00:32:38,720 --> 00:32:50,420
Okay, so I think we can use to take a lead from the the successful roll out of wind and solar.

296
00:32:50,420 --> 00:32:57,740
So if you go back three decades, there was some early stage technologies in wind and solar very expensive.

297
00:32:57,740 --> 00:33:08,990
But there was a recognition that we needed to have a lower carbon footprint in the emissions that we had from the power generation.

298
00:33:08,990 --> 00:33:17,920
And so I there was a programme, certainly in the UK and in other countries, similar as well.

299
00:33:17,920 --> 00:33:24,160
Which incentivised the development and deployment of these techniques.

300
00:33:24,160 --> 00:33:28,120
And so in the UK, we had something called contracts for difference,

301
00:33:28,120 --> 00:33:35,470
which was basically a guaranteed price for delivering electricity from wind and solar.

302
00:33:35,470 --> 00:33:40,760
And what that did is that it did several things, but it really just kick started that industry.

303
00:33:40,760 --> 00:33:47,500
It said, this is what we need to develop, and it actually got people to deploy the techniques.

304
00:33:47,500 --> 00:33:54,280
And once you start deploying these techniques, you have learning curve effects, so the costs come down.

305
00:33:54,280 --> 00:33:58,750
You also de-risk the technology. So initially,

306
00:33:58,750 --> 00:34:05,440
people who are lending money to develop these techniques will charge a very high interest rate on

307
00:34:05,440 --> 00:34:12,700
the money that the lending because the technologies are risky from a technology point of view,

308
00:34:12,700 --> 00:34:15,080
they're also risky from a regulatory point of view.

309
00:34:15,080 --> 00:34:20,470
If you don't know how much you're getting paid, then it's going to mean that people are going to go well.

310
00:34:20,470 --> 00:34:24,250
I'm not sure we want to back you because we don't know if you're going to make any money out.

311
00:34:24,250 --> 00:34:31,390
But with a fixed price fairly high at the beginning, then what that means is you get money coming in.

312
00:34:31,390 --> 00:34:39,760
And that has been enormously successful in driving down the cost of wind and solar so that they're now cheaper than many fossil fuels in many,

313
00:34:39,760 --> 00:34:46,030
many locations around the world. So I think we can take that as an example of how to move.

314
00:34:46,030 --> 00:34:48,620
It's a we call pre-commercial procurement.

315
00:34:48,620 --> 00:34:58,150
It's a recognition that there is a market failure, that there isn't an incentive to move in that space unless someone moves in there and says,

316
00:34:58,150 --> 00:35:02,950
right, we're going to give you effectively a fixed price for us at the beginning.

317
00:35:02,950 --> 00:35:07,990
So I think that's how we should start. I think that subsequently,

318
00:35:07,990 --> 00:35:15,850
once there has been kind deployed and we can see a pathway get a better understanding cost

319
00:35:15,850 --> 00:35:19,870
because at the moment that isn't clear on the standard COS there's all sorts of things model.

320
00:35:19,870 --> 00:35:23,770
That's a very big difference between what's modelled and what actually happens.

321
00:35:23,770 --> 00:35:35,740
But once we've got those costs beginning to come down, then we can move to something similar to what we do with how we treat recycling waste.

322
00:35:35,740 --> 00:35:43,420
So paper and packaging and electronic equipment in the U.K., we have something called the producer responsibility obligation.

323
00:35:43,420 --> 00:35:51,910
And this is something that relies on a very good approach, which is that the polluter pays.

324
00:35:51,910 --> 00:35:55,090
If you pollute, then you are the person the pace.

325
00:35:55,090 --> 00:36:04,240
And what we need to do is we need to ensure that the costs are transferred to the polluters, said Miles Allan's point.

326
00:36:04,240 --> 00:36:09,190
We need to make sure that the people who are producing the pollution are the ones who pay.

327
00:36:09,190 --> 00:36:20,290
And yes, ultimately that will be the consumers, because if the consumers are benefiting from the use of technologies,

328
00:36:20,290 --> 00:36:24,700
of course pollution, then they're the ones who should be paying for it.

329
00:36:24,700 --> 00:36:32,110
Hopefully, that answers some of the questions that were three there, and I wasn't quite sure if I've got enough of them anyway.

330
00:36:32,110 --> 00:36:36,930
No. Thanks, Tim. I think that underlines the fact that we're talking about.

331
00:36:36,930 --> 00:36:40,240
We're talking about a wide range of different methods here, aren't we actually?

332
00:36:40,240 --> 00:36:48,040
So it sounds like that the contrasts for difference approach, presumably it is actually the taxpayer who provides that money, even if indirectly.

333
00:36:48,040 --> 00:36:53,080
But then you're saying what you want is a is a set of policies which might

334
00:36:53,080 --> 00:36:57,370
help early stage deployment and de-risk those things which might cost money.

335
00:36:57,370 --> 00:37:00,760
And then in the long run, when you've got these things deployed at scale,

336
00:37:00,760 --> 00:37:07,180
you are actually you're arguing that you put you put the cost on the on the polluter pays principle.

337
00:37:07,180 --> 00:37:15,430
And I think just just to add that to that abusing chairman's privilege, of course, thinking about the range of different removal methods,

338
00:37:15,430 --> 00:37:21,670
we do have quite a lot of policies in place and approaches that we've tried with varying degrees of success with tree planting.

339
00:37:21,670 --> 00:37:28,000
And in the U.K. we have we've had a system of grants for a long time, but also now we have the Woodland Carbon Guarantee,

340
00:37:28,000 --> 00:37:34,250
which is effectively a contract for difference, a guaranteed carbon price for the sequestration that trees provide.

341
00:37:34,250 --> 00:37:40,150
So as a tree planted, you then get an income stream, which is guaranteed at a at a carbon price.

342
00:37:40,150 --> 00:37:43,750
So there is that precedent for tree planting.

343
00:37:43,750 --> 00:37:50,920
I just want to pick up on that question of cost, though you touched on you made the point that the costs are actually quite uncertain.

344
00:37:50,920 --> 00:37:58,720
And in Stuart's question about if if airline passengers had to pay a carbon removal tax, let's say for that flight, how much would it be?

345
00:37:58,720 --> 00:38:08,020
So Stewart flying to New York return, for instance, I think the carbon footprint of that is about a tonne, just under a tonne of carbon.

346
00:38:08,020 --> 00:38:13,180
So if you think of the cost of removal being x pounds per ton,

347
00:38:13,180 --> 00:38:18,580
then you can just simply multiply that by one to get the cost that you would add to a flight ticket.

348
00:38:18,580 --> 00:38:23,530
But Tim, what do we know? What do we know about the costs of these different approaches?

349
00:38:23,530 --> 00:38:28,090
So yeah, it's it's an extremely good question.

350
00:38:28,090 --> 00:38:33,010
So you can go and buy an offset for a very low amount of money.

351
00:38:33,010 --> 00:38:39,400
People will say I will plants and trees for you and that will remove CO2 from the atmosphere and indeed it will.

352
00:38:39,400 --> 00:38:43,720
Those trees will remove CO2 during the lifetime of those trees.

353
00:38:43,720 --> 00:38:50,050
But the question is how long is that lifetime and how permanent is that removal?

354
00:38:50,050 --> 00:38:58,270
And will the person who sells you that carbon removal guarantee it for a thousand years?

355
00:38:58,270 --> 00:39:01,420
Can they guarantee that those trees will remain standing?

356
00:39:01,420 --> 00:39:10,470
And if not, then what mechanism do you need to put in place to ensure that the carbon is removed permanently?

357
00:39:10,470 --> 00:39:16,390
And there are other techniques. So there's a company in Switzerland called Climeworks.

358
00:39:16,390 --> 00:39:21,910
They have machines to take CO2 out of the air and they inject it into the ground.

359
00:39:21,910 --> 00:39:27,160
They have an operation in Iceland where they inject the CO2 in it, the CO2 they inject into the ground,

360
00:39:27,160 --> 00:39:33,070
reacts deep underground and forms another kind of mineral that it will stay that from there.

361
00:39:33,070 --> 00:39:38,920
And that is a more expensive technique, but it is more permanent.

362
00:39:38,920 --> 00:39:41,680
And so you have this trade-off between.

363
00:39:41,680 --> 00:39:52,190
You can get something that will store the CO2 for some decades, maybe a century, and you have other techniques that will basically store CO2 for tens,

364
00:39:52,190 --> 00:40:02,290
hundreds of thousands of years, and you need to have a way of comparing those those two, because otherwise the temptation is to go for the cheap oil.

365
00:40:02,290 --> 00:40:05,570
But it isn't permanent and it will then come back out.

366
00:40:05,570 --> 00:40:17,550
And I think one of the things is it's not just about how well it manages the forest, but how robust is the forest to future climate change.

367
00:40:17,550 --> 00:40:28,050
So in California, California has allowed these offsets for forestry,

368
00:40:28,050 --> 00:40:37,080
one plot of land that Californians are using to help to balance their carbon budget is a piece of land in Oregon,

369
00:40:37,080 --> 00:40:43,500
and recently there was a forest father and a lot of the carbon was released.

370
00:40:43,500 --> 00:40:47,690
Now the scheme has got like a buffer.

371
00:40:47,690 --> 00:40:55,710
They say we we have a buffer of land that we use to account for the fact there will be forest fires.

372
00:40:55,710 --> 00:41:03,360
But there are a number of projections that say if you project where the climate is likely to go,

373
00:41:03,360 --> 00:41:11,100
we're going to see an increase in the amount of forest fires and says very difficult to actually know at the moment

374
00:41:11,100 --> 00:41:20,370
whether the offsets that are related to forestry will actually result in long term removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

375
00:41:20,370 --> 00:41:27,840
And I think it's really important there's been a lot of work that's been done on the greenhouse gas protocol,

376
00:41:27,840 --> 00:41:31,170
understanding exactly how we measure emissions of CO2.

377
00:41:31,170 --> 00:41:38,970
We need a similar sort of standard that looks at the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere as well to understand how

378
00:41:38,970 --> 00:41:47,780
we treat the different levels of permanence that there are between different ways of removing CO2 from the air.

379
00:41:47,780 --> 00:41:52,150
So I'm going to ask a few questions on the theme of.

380
00:41:52,150 --> 00:41:57,330
The overall role of removal in these in these mitigation pathways,

381
00:41:57,330 --> 00:42:02,140
so you made it you advocated a pretty strong case that we're going to need this stuff,

382
00:42:02,140 --> 00:42:06,940
but you also touched on the fact that there's quite a lot of discussion about moral hazards,

383
00:42:06,940 --> 00:42:13,270
the idea that in talking about this stuff, you might actually suppress the much needed action on emissions reductions.

384
00:42:13,270 --> 00:42:20,980
So Troy asks the question Is there any actual evidence to suggest that talk of GHG removal limits a person's willingness?

385
00:42:20,980 --> 00:42:27,420
Or we might even expand this out to an organisations or governments willingness to enact mitigation methods?

386
00:42:27,420 --> 00:42:37,750
What's the actual evidence on that front? I think it's it's difficult to point to clear evidence that it does,

387
00:42:37,750 --> 00:42:47,290
but there is certainly an understanding that policymakers who are not inclined

388
00:42:47,290 --> 00:42:56,290
to reduce emissions might wish to use this as a crock to excuse their inaction.

389
00:42:56,290 --> 00:43:03,880
And I so it is a, I think, a strong potential issue.

390
00:43:03,880 --> 00:43:06,280
I think one way of dealing with this,

391
00:43:06,280 --> 00:43:13,690
and that's something that they've done in Sweden and the recommendations that are there about them achieving that.

392
00:43:13,690 --> 00:43:20,500
So I said Sweden has set a net zero target for 2045, which is more ambitious in the UK.

393
00:43:20,500 --> 00:43:30,340
And what they've said is that they wish to achieve that target 85 percent through emission reduction and 15 percent through removals.

394
00:43:30,340 --> 00:43:38,650
And I think that is a sensible approach because what it does is it recognises that there is a need for removals,

395
00:43:38,650 --> 00:43:47,390
but it doesn't talk about removals at a massive scale that allows industry to carry on as normal.

396
00:43:47,390 --> 00:44:00,170
And I think that's where a lot of campaigners get anxious about discussion about removals is that they think that it will allow industry off the hook.

397
00:44:00,170 --> 00:44:06,860
And they look at how in the past certain elements to the fossil fuel industry have

398
00:44:06,860 --> 00:44:16,220
talked about using carbon capture and storage on emissions from their operations.

399
00:44:16,220 --> 00:44:18,980
And they've talked about it, but haven't actually done anything about it.

400
00:44:18,980 --> 00:44:28,340
So they think a they recognise that there is a gap between what people say they might do to address the problem and what they're actually.

401
00:44:28,340 --> 00:44:33,950
So what we need to do is we need to hold companies and governments to account and say,

402
00:44:33,950 --> 00:44:38,120
Well, if you're going to achieve this net zero target, how are you going to do it?

403
00:44:38,120 --> 00:44:43,610
What is it that you need to do to actually get there and hold them accountable to do that?

404
00:44:43,610 --> 00:44:53,030
I think another thing that I would say about the moral hazard argument is that in a situation where you have a company polluting

405
00:44:53,030 --> 00:44:59,750
and there are missing CO2 in the atmosphere and there is no feasible way in which you can remove CO2 from the atmosphere,

406
00:44:59,750 --> 00:45:07,520
you can campaign against that organisation and tell them they're being bad and that they need to clean up the mess that they can just shrug and say,

407
00:45:07,520 --> 00:45:11,210
Well, there's no way we can clean up the mess. So what can we do?

408
00:45:11,210 --> 00:45:18,320
There's nothing that we can do. But if you get to a situation where that is a way in which they can clean up the mess,

409
00:45:18,320 --> 00:45:23,780
then if a company says we can't clean up the mess, they're not actually being correct.

410
00:45:23,780 --> 00:45:26,270
What they're saying is we don't want to clean up the mess.

411
00:45:26,270 --> 00:45:35,510
And this is a very real moral difference between a company saying We can't clean up the mess and we don't want to clean up the mess.

412
00:45:35,510 --> 00:45:39,170
And I would say that once you've got ways in which you can safely,

413
00:45:39,170 --> 00:45:45,200
robustly and scalable and remove CO2 from the atmosphere, you actually create an obligation to do so.

414
00:45:45,200 --> 00:45:47,600
Before it was impossible to clean up the mess.

415
00:45:47,600 --> 00:45:57,200
Now it is so violent, so I think actually the argument is is not so much about the moral hazard of if we develop these technologies,

416
00:45:57,200 --> 00:46:04,670
people won't deploy them. I think actually, if you develop the technologies and they are safe and they are robust and they all scalable,

417
00:46:04,670 --> 00:46:11,260
then people will have a moral obligation to do so. So the morality cuts both ways, yes.

418
00:46:11,260 --> 00:46:12,100
Just to add to that,

419
00:46:12,100 --> 00:46:19,520
I think quite a few people in the academic community are quite life to this moral hazard issue and have written fairly extensively about it.

420
00:46:19,520 --> 00:46:23,830
Now I know Duncan McLaren at Lancaster University has done quite a lot of work on this,

421
00:46:23,830 --> 00:46:28,760
and he is one of the main people proposing precisely what you say that the Swedish model is a good one.

422
00:46:28,760 --> 00:46:34,620
You should have separate targets for emissions reductions on the one hand and scaling up of removals on the other hand,

423
00:46:34,620 --> 00:46:40,720
and don't join them together into net zero targets have emissions targets and removal targets.

424
00:46:40,720 --> 00:46:46,210
And if I may, I'll just touch on what one person asked specifically about a paper I've written on this topic,

425
00:46:46,210 --> 00:46:49,020
which is called the case for transparent net zero targets.

426
00:46:49,020 --> 00:46:55,150
So I was kind of arguing maybe slightly differently to attend that, but we don't need separate targets.

427
00:46:55,150 --> 00:47:00,250
I think just to briefly summarise it, my perspective on it.

428
00:47:00,250 --> 00:47:03,950
Certainly, it's not to argue that there isn't any form of moral hazard.

429
00:47:03,950 --> 00:47:10,780
So I think that there's lots of discussion. Conceptually, the moral hazard mitigation deterrents may happen.

430
00:47:10,780 --> 00:47:14,170
I think one one of the clearest examples Duncan McLaren gives is,

431
00:47:14,170 --> 00:47:19,990
I think that's a case of someone who works for a carbon removal company in the states arguing in

432
00:47:19,990 --> 00:47:24,910
a in an evidence session and said that to the U.S. federal government that if you scale this up,

433
00:47:24,910 --> 00:47:28,200
you can preserve the life of coal-fired power plants.

434
00:47:28,200 --> 00:47:35,640
But but I'd say that broadly, it's mainly a conceptual argument, and the evidence is very hard to unpick as to whether it really is happening.

435
00:47:35,640 --> 00:47:44,950
Part of this carbon removal is just at a very early stage. And so I say not not that you should never in any circumstances separate out targets,

436
00:47:44,950 --> 00:47:52,270
but I say a lot of issues that are raised about carbon removal in the House document actually link two aspects of emissions reduction as well.

437
00:47:52,270 --> 00:48:00,170
And so it's so, so that conjoined issues that need teasing out not necessarily solved by naively separating targets.

438
00:48:00,170 --> 00:48:04,960
So I say, you know, one of the arguments is you can delay action because you can actually reverse the climate.

439
00:48:04,960 --> 00:48:09,520
And we know that, as you said, if you go net negative, you can bring down global temperature.

440
00:48:09,520 --> 00:48:16,420
But actually, that doesn't mean that the climate is purely reversible. There are a lot of irreversibility in ice sheet melts and so on.

441
00:48:16,420 --> 00:48:22,150
So you really want to set targets on a time scale where you're not banking on overshooting and then coming back.

442
00:48:22,150 --> 00:48:27,400
You are trying to get as low as possible, and that means near-term action is critical.

443
00:48:27,400 --> 00:48:32,110
The second aspect is around that the uncertainties around some of these technologies and can they

444
00:48:32,110 --> 00:48:36,820
deliver and that's both the carbon that's argument that pertains to some high tech carbon removal.

445
00:48:36,820 --> 00:48:39,250
It also pertains to some high tech emissions reductions,

446
00:48:39,250 --> 00:48:44,480
like battery powered planes and other forms of carbon capture and storage of cement works, for instance.

447
00:48:44,480 --> 00:48:52,000
So. So the argument there is to have a plan to actively innovate, but not bank on all these magic bullets actually materialising.

448
00:48:52,000 --> 00:48:57,410
And the third point is is it's some of the questions about carbon storage and subsequently.

449
00:48:57,410 --> 00:49:05,380
So if you promise trees and then they burn or get riddled with pests, as you say, or even if you put the CO2 in geological stores, they can leak.

450
00:49:05,380 --> 00:49:11,230
And we'll be discussing that with Mike Kandel and Roderick Abbey in a future talk in a couple weeks time.

451
00:49:11,230 --> 00:49:15,400
So but again, you can you can reduce emissions by capturing them and storing them.

452
00:49:15,400 --> 00:49:20,270
So it's not a carbon removal problem per say, it's a it's a carbon storage.

453
00:49:20,270 --> 00:49:27,970
Where are you going to put this carbon question? So just to say I'm not necessarily arguing that target separation is something you'd never do?

454
00:49:27,970 --> 00:49:28,540
Let's say, though,

455
00:49:28,540 --> 00:49:34,870
those three factors are the more important and deeper things to think about if you do those and then consider target separation useful.

456
00:49:34,870 --> 00:49:41,440
That's fine. But I guess the point I was making was if you think that target separation social based problems.

457
00:49:41,440 --> 00:49:47,140
I disagree. You need to think about those actively engaged with what you're saying about you have targets,

458
00:49:47,140 --> 00:49:51,790
but then there's a whole bunch of other stuff you need to do under that. So that's enough for me.

459
00:49:51,790 --> 00:49:59,110
I want to go back to the questions you were all asking. One of them is linked, actually, and it is.

460
00:49:59,110 --> 00:50:05,230
It's it's about this question of risk, actually. So PIP Wheaton says there are some pretty big assumptions in all of this.

461
00:50:05,230 --> 00:50:12,220
What makes you think that will be more likely to scale up unproven negative emissions technologies and cut emissions more aggressively?

462
00:50:12,220 --> 00:50:18,040
So is there any more you want to add Tim on this? This balance of risk question?

463
00:50:18,040 --> 00:50:21,680
So I think the question of that gets entirely right.

464
00:50:21,680 --> 00:50:28,170
You know, we don't know. And I think it's really important to say that, you know,

465
00:50:28,170 --> 00:50:36,080
and I talk about these proposed techniques and I said that we really don't know if we can achieve them or not.

466
00:50:36,080 --> 00:50:45,180
I think I'd probably go back to the beginning of the pandemic and people are saying, right, well, we need to develop a vaccine.

467
00:50:45,180 --> 00:50:52,870
And there was a lot of uncertainty as to whether it would be actually possible to do and whether it would be possible to achieve a vaccine within.

468
00:50:52,870 --> 00:50:58,710
It would take three five years and it seemed how long it's taken with other diseases.

469
00:50:58,710 --> 00:51:04,200
And in fact, that's been an extraordinary story about how quickly we have.

470
00:51:04,200 --> 00:51:13,620
Let's say we haven't been involved in it myself, but the people working on this have achieved these vaccines,

471
00:51:13,620 --> 00:51:18,570
but there was no guarantee at the outset that a vaccine would be deliverable.

472
00:51:18,570 --> 00:51:28,990
And I think that there's no guarantee whatsoever that any of these proposed techniques can deliver at anything like the scale that's required.

473
00:51:28,990 --> 00:51:41,470
But I think that we shouldn't it's not an either or it's not saying we need to focus more on removal techniques and less on reductions in emissions.

474
00:51:41,470 --> 00:51:50,530
We need to focus very hard on both, but we're not going to be able to achieve the one and a half degree or the two degree or frankly,

475
00:51:50,530 --> 00:52:01,870
two and a half degrees without doing everything we can on both reducing emissions and proposed techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

476
00:52:01,870 --> 00:52:08,800
So I think it's a false dichotomy to say we need to focus more on this and not on that.

477
00:52:08,800 --> 00:52:14,440
I think we need to do both. So yeah, that's how I would respond to that.

478
00:52:14,440 --> 00:52:17,750
That question, just the needle you a bit more on that one.

479
00:52:17,750 --> 00:52:26,820
I mean, I agree with your point, Tim. And the way I would phrase it, I think, is that exploring these options is part of a sensible.

480
00:52:26,820 --> 00:52:33,690
Sensible risk management of a portfolio of all your options to try and get to net zero and stabilise climate.

481
00:52:33,690 --> 00:52:39,690
But in the reality of governments and companies making investment decisions, they don't have infinite pots of money.

482
00:52:39,690 --> 00:52:46,950
So it could be argued that whenever you're making a decision to to to invest in scaling up removals, that's money.

483
00:52:46,950 --> 00:52:51,150
There's an opportunity cost. That's money that could have been spent on emissions reductions.

484
00:52:51,150 --> 00:52:56,520
So do you have any practical thoughts on how how that decision could be made in practise?

485
00:52:56,520 --> 00:53:00,720
Does it come down to, you know, looking at technology readiness,

486
00:53:00,720 --> 00:53:06,510
levels of technologies and costs of capital and kind of standard financial management?

487
00:53:06,510 --> 00:53:10,180
Or would you approach it slightly differently? I'd approach it slightly differently.

488
00:53:10,180 --> 00:53:18,540
I think first of all, I would say, you know, back in the early 2000s, there was a similar sort of debate about mitigation and adaptation,

489
00:53:18,540 --> 00:53:25,590
and there were people who were vociferously opposed to putting resources into adaptation because it was defeatist.

490
00:53:25,590 --> 00:53:29,760
We really needed to mitigate. If we mitigated enough, we wouldn't need an application.

491
00:53:29,760 --> 00:53:36,120
And there was a recognition that actually people are suffering now and would continue to suffer unless we did more on adaptation.

492
00:53:36,120 --> 00:53:39,780
And it wasn't a matter of mitigation or adaptation. It's both.

493
00:53:39,780 --> 00:53:48,150
But I take your point about allocation of resources, and I think that the efficient way to allocate resources is not actually say,

494
00:53:48,150 --> 00:53:52,650
OK, what's the technology readiness level of this technique or that technique?

495
00:53:52,650 --> 00:54:02,790
Because we really do not know. I've been working in this field for 10 years, and I've tried to get a very broad view of the proposed techniques.

496
00:54:02,790 --> 00:54:10,380
And what I'm constantly aware of is how much I don't know about these techniques.

497
00:54:10,380 --> 00:54:20,040
Yes, there are positive aspects of them, but then there are all sorts of side effects which could be countervailing to these proposed techniques.

498
00:54:20,040 --> 00:54:32,190
And so what I think is is actually needed is not to pick winners, but instead to create an environment from which winners can emerge.

499
00:54:32,190 --> 00:54:39,750
And I think that is not done by saying, well, these techniques are capital intensive, so we need to have some sort of model that supports them.

500
00:54:39,750 --> 00:54:42,930
And this technique is has this particular, he said.

501
00:54:42,930 --> 00:54:45,600
We need to create a mechanism for that.

502
00:54:45,600 --> 00:54:54,360
What we need to do is we need to create a mechanism similar, as I say, to how we did with wind and solar, where with that it was,

503
00:54:54,360 --> 00:55:00,030
we're going to pay you this much per kilowatt hour of electricity, a megawatt hour of electricity that you generate.

504
00:55:00,030 --> 00:55:03,000
That's that's the unit for electricity,

505
00:55:03,000 --> 00:55:13,290
for carbon removal techniques that metric should be and a certain amount of money per tonne of CO2 removed from the atmosphere.

506
00:55:13,290 --> 00:55:16,350
And then you apply that across all the techniques.

507
00:55:16,350 --> 00:55:28,650
And then what you get is you get people investing because they can see that there is a way of actually making these things real.

508
00:55:28,650 --> 00:55:35,080
Making a business out of it, you got people investing and developing these techniques, but you're not favouring one technique over another.

509
00:55:35,080 --> 00:55:40,740
You set the success parameter in the parallel case of of the pandemic.

510
00:55:40,740 --> 00:55:43,920
You're not saying how the vaccine should work.

511
00:55:43,920 --> 00:55:50,610
You are saying that the vaccine should prevent people getting ill, prevent transmission or whatever your goal is.

512
00:55:50,610 --> 00:55:57,540
And so I think it isn't actually about when is at this point it is about.

513
00:55:57,540 --> 00:56:06,480
Providing the incentives to allow the whole field to grow, and I think it's really important to do that because otherwise you will get

514
00:56:06,480 --> 00:56:11,190
people who are incumbent industry players who will be pushing their technique,

515
00:56:11,190 --> 00:56:13,440
building the regulation in their favour.

516
00:56:13,440 --> 00:56:22,560
And actually, what you want is you want to have a diversity of ideas out there competing for what the its right to left thinking.

517
00:56:22,560 --> 00:56:31,460
You need to decide where it is you want to get to and then you need to bring people on to actually deliver on that.

518
00:56:31,460 --> 00:56:38,120
OK, so another question here, we're starting to come to the end, so if you if you're good and brief on this one,

519
00:56:38,120 --> 00:56:42,050
Tim, even though it's a very complex question, I reward you with one final one.

520
00:56:42,050 --> 00:56:47,000
So Ollie Stedman asks a great question who is the way in this discussion?

521
00:56:47,000 --> 00:56:51,800
So are we talking about actions that a single country can take and actually other

522
00:56:51,800 --> 00:56:56,010
countries that might need to go negative in order to achieve global net zero?

523
00:56:56,010 --> 00:57:03,330
So I'm going to break that into two parts. Actually, there's both the country question and you might have to go to net zero or beyond net zero.

524
00:57:03,330 --> 00:57:07,430
So it's a net negative, but also where it where are the exciting developments?

525
00:57:07,430 --> 00:57:14,630
Which countries or which organisations do you think will be the ones that that can that can be the front runners in this space?

526
00:57:14,630 --> 00:57:21,160
Okay. So the way I'm immediately thinking of policymakers in the UK, sensible is situated.

527
00:57:21,160 --> 00:57:23,690
And this needs to be done in many different countries.

528
00:57:23,690 --> 00:57:33,620
Going back to the example of solar, you saw the impact of one country, Germany, providing subsidies for solar,

529
00:57:33,620 --> 00:57:38,030
which led to a massive increase in solar panels being produced in a driving down of price.

530
00:57:38,030 --> 00:57:42,770
And then that lower price was able to break into markets around the world.

531
00:57:42,770 --> 00:57:48,980
So it's very possible for one country to have an impact which then can be rolled out everywhere.

532
00:57:48,980 --> 00:57:53,990
At the moment, the people who are leading in this space in the United States are incentives from California

533
00:57:53,990 --> 00:57:59,150
and also federal incentives that incentivise removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

534
00:57:59,150 --> 00:58:05,240
And if other countries don't respond with similar sorts of mechanisms regulations,

535
00:58:05,240 --> 00:58:14,780
they're going to run away with this industry as a whole to come to the the point about historic emissions.

536
00:58:14,780 --> 00:58:22,790
Yes, I think that the UK, as a pioneer in the industrial revolution, has got a long legacy of CO2.

537
00:58:22,790 --> 00:58:27,710
So it's not just about getting to net zero emissions in 2050.

538
00:58:27,710 --> 00:58:35,760
We also have to examine the historic emissions that we have, so I think it's very possible for it to be equitable.

539
00:58:35,760 --> 00:58:44,020
The UK may actually have to go carbon negative to a large extent in the latter half of this century in order to counteract the emissions,

540
00:58:44,020 --> 00:58:51,620
and they previously tried to replace it with it, right?

541
00:58:51,620 --> 00:58:58,250
That leaves me with a tough choice as to which question I'm going to give you because there are so many very good ones.

542
00:58:58,250 --> 00:59:03,920
I think we've got strong support for you approach to the idea that the polluter should pay.

543
00:59:03,920 --> 00:59:08,840
That's definitely the ethical answer in several people's views.

544
00:59:08,840 --> 00:59:14,360
We have a brief question, which I'll tackle from Daniel Schorr asking Is there a reliable estimate of

545
00:59:14,360 --> 00:59:19,730
concentration of CO2 equivalent in 2050 and when will we be approaching 300?

546
00:59:19,730 --> 00:59:26,130
I can tell you, Daniel, that in terms of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we're already at about 410 parts per million now, I think.

547
00:59:26,130 --> 00:59:31,400
And when you add on the other planet warming greenhouse gases you get,

548
00:59:31,400 --> 00:59:36,980
if you measure it in carbon dioxide equivalent to something like 500 people at the moment, parts per million.

549
00:59:36,980 --> 00:59:41,720
That's some offsetting from the poor air quality we have. So the other athletes and some CO2,

550
00:59:41,720 --> 00:59:47,930
that underlines the fact that we have probably a long way past what's the widely accepted view about the long term level we should be at.

551
00:59:47,930 --> 00:59:52,760
And that's partly why carbon removal is a hot topic these days.

552
00:59:52,760 --> 00:59:55,850
I'm going to ask you very briefly about this.

553
00:59:55,850 --> 01:00:04,940
There are a few other questions about this distinction between sort of natural carbon removal, restoring natural sinks and more engineered methods.

554
01:00:04,940 --> 01:00:09,860
Do you have a preference, Tim? How would you go about thinking about distinguishing between those tubes?

555
01:00:09,860 --> 01:00:15,820
Is that a helpful distinction and where where would you put your emphasis if you had to put it on one?

556
01:00:15,820 --> 01:00:22,480
So I'm, as I mentioned earlier, I'm the advocate of right to that thinking, which is where we want to end up.

557
01:00:22,480 --> 01:00:28,700
And okay, what is going to allow us to actually get to where we want to end up?

558
01:00:28,700 --> 01:00:37,640
And I think that there are many benefits of nature based solutions beyond the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere so done in the right way,

559
01:00:37,640 --> 01:00:39,620
we can restore ecosystems,

560
01:00:39,620 --> 01:00:51,180
increase biodiversity, livelihoods, amenity value, watershed catchment, all sorts of different things that we can do if we do it in the right way.

561
01:00:51,180 --> 01:00:58,640
We've said that you could do it in the wrong way as well. There are some very large plantations of Sitka Spruce in in in Ireland,

562
01:00:58,640 --> 01:01:09,560
which certainly the locals are not very happy about producing dark forests, which are a very non biodiverse.

563
01:01:09,560 --> 01:01:14,180
And so it's about planting the right trees in the right place.

564
01:01:14,180 --> 01:01:25,040
I think one of the advantages of nature based solutions is that they have broad appeal and public supports, and nobody's nobody's down on the trees.

565
01:01:25,040 --> 01:01:30,110
You know, the trees are good, and that's great because we are going to need public support.

566
01:01:30,110 --> 01:01:33,500
It's going to cost money. People are going to need to pay for it.

567
01:01:33,500 --> 01:01:42,830
And I think at the 2019 election in the UK, every every large party was campaigning that we needed to plant more trees.

568
01:01:42,830 --> 01:01:50,390
And there was almost the kind of planting trees, arms race. And I think it got up to about two billion trees with the highest bid, which,

569
01:01:50,390 --> 01:01:54,830
by the way, would have been an area of the size of Wales to plant with trees.

570
01:01:54,830 --> 01:02:00,020
And we don't actually have that large an area to play with at the moment.

571
01:02:00,020 --> 01:02:07,070
And so I think there is some sense in saying, OK, let's use nature based solutions,

572
01:02:07,070 --> 01:02:11,390
but we have to recognise that if we don't sort everything else out along the way,

573
01:02:11,390 --> 01:02:19,700
then what you're doing with putting carbon into trees and into soil is you're basically creating a pile of kindling that if

574
01:02:19,700 --> 01:02:27,710
the temperatures should rise because other things in our political system don't deliver the reductions in emissions required,

575
01:02:27,710 --> 01:02:34,820
then that carbon is going to go up in smoke, quite literally, and it's just going to return the CO2 into the atmosphere.

576
01:02:34,820 --> 01:02:39,200
So I think it's a good start, but I don't think we should rely on it exclusively.

577
01:02:39,200 --> 01:02:43,430
We can't hope to balance the carbon based budget on the backs of nature.

578
01:02:43,430 --> 01:02:52,400
We have pumped trillions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere through the extraction of fossil fuels over the last few centuries.

579
01:02:52,400 --> 01:02:59,150
And yes, some of that can be taken up by by plants, but not all of it by any means.

580
01:02:59,150 --> 01:03:05,270
We are over time, I'm afraid, Tim, so I'm going to have to leave it there and just say thank you very much for that

581
01:03:05,270 --> 01:03:09,950
fascinating talk and thank you to all of you in the audience for joining us too.

582
01:03:09,950 --> 01:03:12,830
If you're interested in thinking about this further, as I mentioned,

583
01:03:12,830 --> 01:03:18,720
you can find on the Oxford Martin School YouTube channel the previous talks, including one focussing on nature based solutions.

584
01:03:18,720 --> 01:03:26,870
So you may find some of the answers to your questions there. And also in a couple of weeks time, we'll be talking about geological carbon storage.

585
01:03:26,870 --> 01:03:34,580
But join us again next Monday, when I'll be discussing climate justice, ethics and governance in the context of net zero.

586
01:03:34,580 --> 01:03:39,710
And that will be me with Lavanya Raj Yamani, Henry Q, Tom Vatsa and Harvey Alisan.

587
01:03:39,710 --> 01:03:43,700
So proper conversations be happier if you're interested in that to join us,

588
01:03:43,700 --> 01:03:47,510
and you can register by clicking on the green button under the video screen.

589
01:03:47,510 --> 01:03:52,190
Right now, all that remains for me to do is wish you all a very good week.

590
01:03:52,190 --> 01:03:55,077
So goodbye and see. See.