WEBVTT 00:00:06.990 --> 00:00:10.529 You're listening to the Decarbonisation Dialogue, 00:00:10.869 --> 00:00:14.890 a podcast from Salix. Welcome to the Decarbonisation 00:00:14.890 --> 00:00:17.489 Dialogue. I am Hannah Walker and I believe that 00:00:17.489 --> 00:00:19.929 the best way to communicate a message is by being 00:00:19.929 --> 00:00:21.870 passionate about what you are talking about. 00:00:22.269 --> 00:00:25.109 My guest today is Kevin Anderson who is Professor 00:00:25.109 --> 00:00:27.649 of Energy and Climate Change in the School of 00:00:27.649 --> 00:00:29.750 Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering at 00:00:29.750 --> 00:00:31.870 the University of Manchester and is a former 00:00:31.870 --> 00:00:34.369 Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change 00:00:34.369 --> 00:00:37.390 Research. He has recent publications in Climate 00:00:37.390 --> 00:00:40.429 Policy, Royal Society Journals, Nature and Science. 00:00:40.750 --> 00:00:43.609 He engages widely across all tiers of government 00:00:43.609 --> 00:00:46.609 from reporting on aviation related emissions 00:00:46.609 --> 00:00:50.850 to the EU Parliament advising the Prime Minister's 00:00:50.850 --> 00:00:53.390 Office on Carbon Trading and having contributed 00:00:53.390 --> 00:00:56.369 to the development of the UK's Climate Change 00:00:56.369 --> 00:00:59.369 Act. With his colleague Alice Larkin, Kevin's 00:00:59.369 --> 00:01:02.409 work on carbon budgets has been pivotal in revealing 00:01:02.409 --> 00:01:05.189 the reality of rapidly escalating emissions. 00:01:05.530 --> 00:01:07.989 His work makes clear that there is now little 00:01:07.989 --> 00:01:10.790 chance of maintaining the rise in global temperatures 00:01:10.790 --> 00:01:14.750 at below 2C and despite repeated high -level 00:01:14.750 --> 00:01:17.689 statements to the contrary. Moreover, Kevin's 00:01:17.689 --> 00:01:20.150 research demonstrates that avoiding even a 4C 00:01:20.150 --> 00:01:23.310 rise demands a radical reframing of both the 00:01:23.310 --> 00:01:26.370 climate change agenda and the economic characterisation 00:01:26.370 --> 00:01:29.689 of contemporary society. Kevin has a decade of 00:01:29.689 --> 00:01:32.150 industrial experience principally in the petrochemical 00:01:32.150 --> 00:01:34.750 industry and is a chartered engineer and fellow 00:01:34.750 --> 00:01:37.150 of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and 00:01:37.150 --> 00:01:40.349 is a director of Greenstone Carbon Management. 00:01:41.230 --> 00:01:44.430 That's an awful lot, Kevin. Thank you for joining 00:01:44.430 --> 00:01:48.090 me today. Thank you. It's my pleasure. Now, let's 00:01:48.090 --> 00:01:51.650 start with some of the basics. When people hear 00:01:51.650 --> 00:01:56.329 1 .5 degrees or 2C, it can sound rather abstract. 00:01:56.569 --> 00:01:59.769 So in simple terms what do these numbers actually 00:01:59.769 --> 00:02:03.430 mean for us? I think really if we were to start 00:02:03.430 --> 00:02:06.189 again we wouldn't use 1 .52 degrees centigrade 00:02:06.189 --> 00:02:08.889 to frame these things but given where we are 00:02:08.889 --> 00:02:10.949 we're sort of locked into them now. I think we 00:02:10.949 --> 00:02:14.370 have to remember these are just proxies for what 00:02:14.370 --> 00:02:16.930 really concerns us about climate change and what 00:02:16.930 --> 00:02:20.069 is important about climate change are the impacts. 00:02:20.810 --> 00:02:23.969 Now whether that's droughts or floods or more 00:02:23.969 --> 00:02:27.120 fires or extreme temperatures These are the things 00:02:27.120 --> 00:02:28.900 that really matter. And even there, it's the 00:02:28.900 --> 00:02:31.340 rate of change of impacts that matter. If those 00:02:31.340 --> 00:02:33.300 impacts occur over a million years or a thousand 00:02:33.300 --> 00:02:36.080 years, OK. But if those impacts occur over five 00:02:36.080 --> 00:02:38.240 years, ten years, or even a hundred years, then 00:02:38.240 --> 00:02:40.560 we as a species, as humans, we probably can't 00:02:40.560 --> 00:02:42.719 adapt to that. And certainly ecosystems can't 00:02:42.719 --> 00:02:46.000 evolve at that sort of rate. These temperatures 00:02:46.000 --> 00:02:49.159 are effectively like a proxy for collection of 00:02:49.159 --> 00:02:52.740 impacts. And then every so often, the international 00:02:52.740 --> 00:02:55.229 negotiations with the policymakers. determine 00:02:55.229 --> 00:02:58.509 what they think are dangerous levels of impacts. 00:02:58.849 --> 00:03:00.569 And they've used these temperatures to sort of 00:03:00.569 --> 00:03:03.729 package these sets of impacts. So 1 .5 degrees 00:03:03.729 --> 00:03:05.849 centigrade that came out of the Paris agreement 00:03:05.849 --> 00:03:07.629 was the sort of impact associated with that. 00:03:07.669 --> 00:03:09.849 We thought, well, these are bad, and two degrees 00:03:09.849 --> 00:03:13.030 centigrade, definitely dangerous. Since the Paris 00:03:13.030 --> 00:03:15.830 Agreement, which was in 2015, over a decade ago 00:03:15.830 --> 00:03:19.069 now, the research on the impacts has led us really 00:03:19.069 --> 00:03:21.889 to think that the 1 .5 degree C package of impacts 00:03:21.889 --> 00:03:24.629 are now probably what we should classify as dangerous. 00:03:24.810 --> 00:03:26.610 When we get to 2 degrees centigrade, we're already 00:03:26.610 --> 00:03:28.830 locking in lots of additional feedbacks, and 00:03:28.830 --> 00:03:31.590 that looks to be a very devastating future. And 00:03:31.590 --> 00:03:34.650 so these temperatures are just proxies. for the 00:03:34.650 --> 00:03:37.110 impacts and how dangerous we think those impacts 00:03:37.110 --> 00:03:39.129 will be. The other thing to bear in mind, I think, 00:03:39.129 --> 00:03:42.270 across all of modern human time, so really all 00:03:42.270 --> 00:03:44.990 the time that when, if we want to call it, civilization 00:03:44.990 --> 00:03:47.069 has developed, we've had a very, very stable 00:03:47.069 --> 00:03:49.229 climate, very stable level of carbon dioxide 00:03:49.229 --> 00:03:51.969 in the atmosphere. And then almost literally, 00:03:52.250 --> 00:03:54.969 almost overnight, we're seeing this rapid increase 00:03:54.969 --> 00:03:57.250 in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere going up 00:03:57.250 --> 00:04:00.330 at a phenomenally fast rate and changes in temperature 00:04:00.330 --> 00:04:03.500 that did not occur. during this very stable period 00:04:03.500 --> 00:04:05.819 when humans have flourished. So there's a real 00:04:05.819 --> 00:04:07.319 arrogance and sort of hubris that we somehow 00:04:07.319 --> 00:04:09.479 think we're the exception. We are the species 00:04:09.479 --> 00:04:11.919 that we're able to deal with this rapid change 00:04:11.919 --> 00:04:14.780 that's occurred literally overnight. And so this 00:04:14.780 --> 00:04:17.259 1 .5 and 2 degrees centigrade also very much 00:04:17.259 --> 00:04:19.680 relates to a timeframe. So we're now talking 00:04:19.680 --> 00:04:22.410 about just... But 1 .5, we're probably at that 00:04:22.410 --> 00:04:24.810 now or very near it. And even 2 degrees centigrade 00:04:24.810 --> 00:04:26.250 of warming is going to be by the middle of the 00:04:26.250 --> 00:04:28.509 century. And if we don't do something radically 00:04:28.509 --> 00:04:30.170 different, then we're heading towards 3 degrees 00:04:30.170 --> 00:04:32.430 centigrade and with additional feedbacks, possibly 00:04:32.430 --> 00:04:34.889 4 by the end of the century. But that's very 00:04:34.889 --> 00:04:37.110 well explained in terms of, and thank you for 00:04:37.110 --> 00:04:40.250 putting that quite plainly, actually. We talk 00:04:40.250 --> 00:04:42.310 about unless we do something radically different, 00:04:42.430 --> 00:04:45.490 and you've said that word, can you tell us a 00:04:45.490 --> 00:04:48.050 little bit about what the carbon, what is the 00:04:48.050 --> 00:04:50.740 carbon budget? So the carbon budget really is 00:04:50.740 --> 00:04:54.959 a way to take all the complicated stuff that's 00:04:54.959 --> 00:04:58.759 in the science and translate that into a useful 00:04:58.759 --> 00:05:02.500 numerical framing for policy. So it is a scientific 00:05:02.500 --> 00:05:05.040 framing. It tells us how much carbon dioxide 00:05:05.040 --> 00:05:07.779 we can dump in the atmosphere and other greenhouse 00:05:07.779 --> 00:05:10.939 gases as well if we want to stay below a certain 00:05:10.939 --> 00:05:13.560 chance of 1 .5 degrees centigrade or 2 degrees 00:05:13.560 --> 00:05:16.259 centigrade. So the carbon budget relates to a 00:05:16.259 --> 00:05:18.579 particular chance of a particular temperature. 00:05:18.839 --> 00:05:21.199 and it tells us how much we can put in the atmosphere 00:05:21.199 --> 00:05:25.740 from now out until eventually we've put that 00:05:25.740 --> 00:05:27.740 much in the atmosphere. So it's a bit like having 00:05:27.740 --> 00:05:30.300 a salary for life. If you had your salary for 00:05:30.300 --> 00:05:32.199 life and you used it all up in the first few 00:05:32.199 --> 00:05:34.079 years, then you'd be quite hungry not doing anything 00:05:34.079 --> 00:05:37.180 later on. And that's really what our carbon budget 00:05:37.180 --> 00:05:40.120 is. It's our carbon budget forever from now. 00:05:40.279 --> 00:05:43.439 For 1 .5, 2 degrees centigrade. And I know that 00:05:43.439 --> 00:05:47.199 you work very closely with governments and we've 00:05:47.199 --> 00:05:51.040 talked about the 1 .5 and the 2 and then I know 00:05:51.040 --> 00:05:53.019 that we'll talk about 4 in a minute and whether 00:05:53.019 --> 00:05:56.240 we're ever going to get to that point. But do 00:05:56.240 --> 00:05:59.540 you think that when you talk to governments, 00:05:59.980 --> 00:06:01.480 do you think politicians, do you think we're 00:06:01.480 --> 00:06:04.480 all, politicians in particular, do you think 00:06:04.480 --> 00:06:08.579 they're being plain enough with all of us? And 00:06:08.579 --> 00:06:11.399 how does that add up in terms of the maths of 00:06:11.399 --> 00:06:15.139 climate? With very few, if almost with any exceptions 00:06:15.139 --> 00:06:16.759 really, the politicians are not being honest 00:06:16.759 --> 00:06:18.480 with the public, with their citizens. But I think 00:06:18.480 --> 00:06:20.399 some of that is because they're, some of it's 00:06:20.399 --> 00:06:21.899 because they're being deliberately dishonest 00:06:21.899 --> 00:06:24.000 and it might be for good reasons. It might be, 00:06:24.120 --> 00:06:25.540 and I don't think these are reasons are valid, 00:06:25.740 --> 00:06:28.259 but it may be like white lies. We dare to tell 00:06:28.259 --> 00:06:29.980 people, I hear this language all the time, we 00:06:29.980 --> 00:06:32.100 mustn't scare people. Rather than being honest 00:06:32.100 --> 00:06:33.779 with people, we mustn't scare them, we must treat 00:06:33.779 --> 00:06:37.149 them like children. But I think so some policymakers 00:06:37.149 --> 00:06:39.490 are being deliberately dishonest about this for 00:06:39.490 --> 00:06:41.649 good reasons. Other ones for bad reasons. In 00:06:41.649 --> 00:06:43.089 other words, they're just doing it because it 00:06:43.089 --> 00:06:44.889 might help them from a queer point of view. They're 00:06:44.889 --> 00:06:46.930 only interested in the short -term economy from 00:06:46.930 --> 00:06:48.810 staying in power. They're not really interested 00:06:48.810 --> 00:06:50.610 in the long -term well -being of their citizens 00:06:50.610 --> 00:06:53.350 and those elsewhere in the world. Other policymakers 00:06:53.350 --> 00:06:56.050 are ignorant of the issues. They're simply not 00:06:56.050 --> 00:06:58.750 up to speed. And other ones, I think, have been 00:06:58.750 --> 00:07:01.009 misled. And I will go further. I would say deliberately 00:07:01.009 --> 00:07:04.759 misled by the expert community. I am very critical, 00:07:04.779 --> 00:07:07.279 a lot of my academic colleagues on climate change 00:07:07.279 --> 00:07:09.160 and many people in the expert community, that 00:07:09.160 --> 00:07:11.879 we should speak our conclusions clearly and bluntly 00:07:11.879 --> 00:07:14.220 and courteously. We should not sugarcoat them. 00:07:14.519 --> 00:07:17.040 And I would say with very few exceptions, I think 00:07:17.040 --> 00:07:19.279 people who look at what we need to do on climate 00:07:19.279 --> 00:07:21.959 change sugarcoat the issues. But as soon as they 00:07:21.959 --> 00:07:24.000 put a microphone in front of them, they'll tell 00:07:24.000 --> 00:07:26.259 you a cheery tale about technology is going to 00:07:26.259 --> 00:07:28.839 solve the problem for us. As an engineer, I would 00:07:28.839 --> 00:07:30.879 say technology is a really important part, but 00:07:30.879 --> 00:07:33.980 it's now too late. to solve the problem in isolation. 00:07:34.459 --> 00:07:36.920 Major social change is necessary. And whether 00:07:36.920 --> 00:07:38.819 it's the policymakers, the experts, or indeed 00:07:38.819 --> 00:07:41.560 the journalist community, we dare not raise that 00:07:41.560 --> 00:07:44.399 issue or we choose not to raise that issue. Because 00:07:44.399 --> 00:07:46.319 climate change is a cumulative problem, in other 00:07:46.319 --> 00:07:47.939 words, every time we put more carbon dioxide 00:07:47.939 --> 00:07:49.480 in the atmosphere, we're using up more of the 00:07:49.480 --> 00:07:52.300 budget. And so because it's this cumulative issue, 00:07:52.579 --> 00:07:54.800 every year we fail to deliver the rates of cuts 00:07:54.800 --> 00:07:57.120 that are necessary, the next year gets harder 00:07:57.120 --> 00:08:00.379 and harder again and harder again. And we have 00:08:00.379 --> 00:08:03.019 failed. Since the first big international agreement 00:08:03.019 --> 00:08:05.420 on climate change in 1992, we've failed now for 00:08:05.420 --> 00:08:08.600 over a third of a century to get any handle on 00:08:08.600 --> 00:08:10.560 emissions. And that is true of countries like 00:08:10.560 --> 00:08:13.040 the UK who pretend it's done a lot as much as 00:08:13.040 --> 00:08:14.899 it is globally. Global emissions are still going 00:08:14.899 --> 00:08:16.860 up. Places like the UK are coming down a little 00:08:16.860 --> 00:08:18.579 bit. But if you look at the full carbon footprint 00:08:18.579 --> 00:08:21.019 of the UK, including our imports and exports 00:08:21.019 --> 00:08:23.800 and our flying and our ships and so forth, then 00:08:23.800 --> 00:08:25.339 we've had nothing like the reduction that is 00:08:25.339 --> 00:08:28.420 often claimed by governments or indeed by, in 00:08:28.420 --> 00:08:31.500 my view, deeply co -opted experts on this. And 00:08:31.500 --> 00:08:34.519 that point about not wanting to scare people 00:08:34.519 --> 00:08:37.860 and making people feel more comfortable, so you're 00:08:37.860 --> 00:08:39.940 saying we need to be a lot more brutal because 00:08:39.940 --> 00:08:43.220 we, on the decarbonisation dialogue on our podcast, 00:08:43.779 --> 00:08:45.899 I get to speak to amazing people just like you. 00:08:46.539 --> 00:08:49.399 And most people talk about the balance of not 00:08:49.399 --> 00:08:52.960 wanting to scare people too much because you 00:08:52.960 --> 00:08:55.720 don't want to create this sense of inaction that... 00:08:55.440 --> 00:08:58.139 it's gone too far and our climate has gone too 00:08:58.139 --> 00:09:01.039 far and it's not repairable. So there's the danger 00:09:01.039 --> 00:09:04.100 of that happening. People can be frozen in fear. 00:09:05.620 --> 00:09:08.299 But you need the statistics and you need science 00:09:08.299 --> 00:09:13.720 to create action too. disagreement with people 00:09:13.720 --> 00:09:16.320 who take that view. You might be an expert on 00:09:16.320 --> 00:09:18.740 ocean circulation. You might be an expert on 00:09:18.740 --> 00:09:20.879 cloud condensation nuclear. Why do we think we 00:09:20.879 --> 00:09:23.179 are experts in psychology? Why do we think that 00:09:23.179 --> 00:09:26.480 we know how to inform the public? Surely our 00:09:26.480 --> 00:09:30.080 job is to appropriately inform the public of 00:09:30.080 --> 00:09:33.059 our research and our conclusions, not to sugarcoat 00:09:33.059 --> 00:09:35.899 it, not to overplay it. And then it's up to the 00:09:35.899 --> 00:09:38.899 public and other policy makers and others to 00:09:38.899 --> 00:09:41.159 interpret that in the way that they think is 00:09:41.159 --> 00:09:43.440 appropriate for driving action or for putting 00:09:43.440 --> 00:09:46.240 policies in place. If we deliberately manipulate 00:09:46.240 --> 00:09:48.379 our information and then pass it on to the next 00:09:48.379 --> 00:09:50.100 group who might manipulate it again in the next 00:09:50.100 --> 00:09:51.879 group, before you know it, you've got a whole 00:09:51.879 --> 00:09:54.759 story of delusion. And I would argue on what 00:09:54.759 --> 00:09:56.679 we need to do about climate change, not on the 00:09:56.679 --> 00:09:58.919 science on what we need to do about it. that 00:09:58.919 --> 00:10:01.080 almost collectively we swallowed the blue pill 00:10:01.080 --> 00:10:04.360 a long time ago and that we are now deeply delusional 00:10:04.360 --> 00:10:07.019 on this and I would say extends not just in the 00:10:07.019 --> 00:10:09.179 policy realm right through to what research is 00:10:09.179 --> 00:10:11.600 funded, how can the obsession is with technologies 00:10:11.600 --> 00:10:14.259 about the future, technologies for the future 00:10:14.259 --> 00:10:16.419 to avoid policies today, that's what they're 00:10:16.419 --> 00:10:18.360 there for, they're not really about the technology, 00:10:18.559 --> 00:10:21.220 they're avoidance technologies effectively. We've 00:10:21.220 --> 00:10:24.419 now locked in at a global level, a delusional 00:10:24.419 --> 00:10:26.960 framing around climate change, that we can somehow 00:10:26.960 --> 00:10:30.679 solve the problem simply with exotic technologies, 00:10:31.100 --> 00:10:34.019 rather than the fundamental reshaping that needs 00:10:34.019 --> 00:10:36.299 to now go on within our societies, within our 00:10:36.299 --> 00:10:39.240 economies, within our finance systems. That fundamental 00:10:39.240 --> 00:10:41.960 reshaping is because we have chosen, at a leader 00:10:41.960 --> 00:10:44.740 level, and indeed at an expert level, for 30 00:10:44.740 --> 00:10:47.539 years to fail on climate change. And every year 00:10:47.539 --> 00:10:50.549 we fail, the following year gets harder. And 00:10:50.549 --> 00:10:53.149 so we are now in a position where we've emitted 00:10:53.149 --> 00:10:56.450 not far off 0 .4 trillion tons of carbon dioxide 00:10:56.450 --> 00:10:59.110 now since the Paris Agreement. We've put out 00:10:59.110 --> 00:11:01.889 more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, primarily 00:11:01.889 --> 00:11:05.090 from burning fossil fuels, since the big 1992 00:11:05.090 --> 00:11:07.429 agreement on climate change than in all of human 00:11:07.429 --> 00:11:10.330 history before that. Every single reasonable 00:11:10.330 --> 00:11:12.809 metric on climate change, we have fundamentally 00:11:12.809 --> 00:11:16.440 failed. and we have spinning increasingly cheery 00:11:16.440 --> 00:11:19.240 yarns about what we can do about it. This is 00:11:19.240 --> 00:11:21.799 incredibly dangerous. This is our job to be honest 00:11:21.799 --> 00:11:24.700 to the policymakers, honest to the public, not 00:11:24.700 --> 00:11:27.200 care about the political sensibilities, not care 00:11:27.200 --> 00:11:29.440 about any of those things. Be courteous, but 00:11:29.440 --> 00:11:34.299 honest. Is the language that we use a huge part 00:11:34.299 --> 00:11:36.480 of that? So, for example, I'm dying to ask you 00:11:36.480 --> 00:11:38.559 the question about net zero has become a little 00:11:38.559 --> 00:11:42.080 bit of a no -go word in a way in many areas. 00:11:42.429 --> 00:11:45.649 Should we be using that phrase at all? I would 00:11:45.649 --> 00:11:47.029 say there are two problems there. One is the 00:11:47.029 --> 00:11:50.129 zero and the zero goes to a date. So we're typically 00:11:50.129 --> 00:11:52.309 in the UK, in many places, we talk about net 00:11:52.309 --> 00:11:55.909 zero 2050. That zero date, remember what I said 00:11:55.909 --> 00:11:57.889 earlier on, we have a carbon budget. For a particular 00:11:57.889 --> 00:12:00.490 temperature, we've got a carbon budget. Now, 00:12:00.669 --> 00:12:03.289 if you carry on emitting like we are today, we're 00:12:03.289 --> 00:12:05.730 going to use up the carbon budget for 1 .5 degrees 00:12:05.730 --> 00:12:08.409 centigrade in about two and a half years globally, 00:12:08.549 --> 00:12:11.159 two and a half years. For 2 degrees centigrade, 00:12:11.340 --> 00:12:14.440 we'll use it up in about 12 years. Remember, 00:12:14.679 --> 00:12:16.759 emissions are still going up. So globally, emissions 00:12:16.759 --> 00:12:19.460 went up last year by about 1 .1%. So emissions 00:12:19.460 --> 00:12:21.519 at the moment are either going up or possibly 00:12:21.519 --> 00:12:22.799 they're static this year. They're not coming 00:12:22.799 --> 00:12:25.799 down. And so we're using up the budget very rapidly. 00:12:26.139 --> 00:12:28.460 The date comes forward. Because we're failing 00:12:28.460 --> 00:12:30.639 to bring the emissions down, that date, the 2050 00:12:30.639 --> 00:12:34.559 date, comes to 2045, then to 2040. So for 1 .5 00:12:34.559 --> 00:12:36.279 degrees centigrade, it's only about 20. Even 00:12:36.279 --> 00:12:38.279 if we brought emissions down from today to zero, 00:12:38.379 --> 00:12:42.360 it'd be about 2030 to be zero carbon. 2030, just 00:12:42.360 --> 00:12:44.000 around the corner. Not possible. That's why I 00:12:44.000 --> 00:12:46.659 think 1 .5 isn't possible. Even for 2 degrees 00:12:46.659 --> 00:12:48.679 centigrade, for wealthy countries like the UK, 00:12:49.159 --> 00:12:53.259 we need to be zero emissions by about, say, about 00:12:53.259 --> 00:12:56.659 the late 2030s. Another way of looking at this 00:12:56.659 --> 00:13:00.019 is that if you take that carbon budget at a global 00:13:00.019 --> 00:13:02.279 level, for two degrees centigrade of warming, 00:13:02.639 --> 00:13:04.799 and simply said, what rate of reduction do we 00:13:04.799 --> 00:13:07.100 need every year globally? It comes out to almost 00:13:07.100 --> 00:13:10.220 8 % reduction in emissions. That's almost 8 % 00:13:10.220 --> 00:13:12.919 in carbon dioxide emissions every year. To put 00:13:12.919 --> 00:13:15.720 that in some sort of context, that's two to three 00:13:15.720 --> 00:13:18.659 percentage points higher than the reduction that 00:13:18.659 --> 00:13:22.399 occurred in the stringent year of the COVID epidemic. 00:13:23.080 --> 00:13:25.240 That was one year. We would have to do that every 00:13:25.240 --> 00:13:27.399 single year until we got to zero emissions. Where 00:13:27.399 --> 00:13:29.700 do we hear this? This is simply, take the science, 00:13:30.000 --> 00:13:32.960 Do the maths. Because that provides us now with 00:13:32.960 --> 00:13:36.919 two scary stories, we hide behind net zero. And 00:13:36.919 --> 00:13:38.919 the net part is another part of the zero story, 00:13:39.039 --> 00:13:41.080 which is dangerous. So the zero needs to go with 00:13:41.080 --> 00:13:44.559 a date and needs to go with a pathway. The net 00:13:44.559 --> 00:13:46.840 part is we're not really going to go to zero. 00:13:46.899 --> 00:13:48.700 That's what the net means. We're going to carry 00:13:48.700 --> 00:13:50.580 on because the wealthier of us want to carry 00:13:50.580 --> 00:13:52.980 on some activities which we can't decarbonize, 00:13:53.220 --> 00:13:56.240 like lots and lots of flying. And so we're going 00:13:56.240 --> 00:13:59.919 to pretend that not us, our children, will suck 00:13:59.919 --> 00:14:01.919 the carbon dioxide out in the atmosphere so we 00:14:01.919 --> 00:14:04.299 can carry on expanding the airports. So our Prime 00:14:04.299 --> 00:14:06.679 Minister goes to the last COP, the big international 00:14:06.679 --> 00:14:09.940 negotiation in Brazil, and says that the UK is 00:14:09.940 --> 00:14:12.299 on loan for 1 .5 degrees centigrade and yet is 00:14:12.299 --> 00:14:14.379 enthusiastically looking to expand our airports. 00:14:14.779 --> 00:14:17.100 That only holds together because he's relying 00:14:17.100 --> 00:14:19.399 on our grandchildren and our great -grandchildren 00:14:19.399 --> 00:14:21.840 to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. 00:14:22.200 --> 00:14:24.299 with fingers crossed that we don't get any tipping 00:14:24.299 --> 00:14:27.320 points or feedbacks in between. So I think that 00:14:27.320 --> 00:14:31.000 the net zero framing has, from a political and 00:14:31.000 --> 00:14:33.360 from a journalist's point of view, is incredibly 00:14:33.360 --> 00:14:36.019 unhelpful and I would say dangerous. Yes, okay. 00:14:36.259 --> 00:14:38.779 And you mention aviation because obviously you've 00:14:38.779 --> 00:14:42.720 done a lot of work on aviation and we are flying. 00:14:43.220 --> 00:14:45.519 For all of us, people who are listening, we might 00:14:45.519 --> 00:14:47.740 have relatives abroad, we're going on holiday, 00:14:47.840 --> 00:14:50.870 people are still flying all over the place. and 00:14:50.870 --> 00:14:52.549 you've just talked about expansion of airports, 00:14:52.789 --> 00:14:54.950 etc. And before that, you were talking about 00:14:54.950 --> 00:14:58.750 behavioral social change. Can we keep flying 00:14:58.750 --> 00:15:02.649 then? As much as we're flying, we're increasingly 00:15:02.649 --> 00:15:05.470 flying all over the world. And in fact, you mentioned 00:15:05.470 --> 00:15:07.870 our grandchildren, our children. I'll hold my 00:15:07.870 --> 00:15:11.669 hands up. My children fly a lot. I mean, they're 00:15:11.669 --> 00:15:14.370 young, they want to go exploring, and they're 00:15:14.370 --> 00:15:17.240 off all over the world. it's symbolic of the 00:15:17.240 --> 00:15:19.179 problems we face, which are broadly ones of equity. 00:15:19.220 --> 00:15:21.659 Remember, when we say do we have to stop flying, 00:15:21.779 --> 00:15:24.500 most people don't fly. Globally, most people 00:15:24.500 --> 00:15:27.019 don't fly. And even in the UK, these figures 00:15:27.019 --> 00:15:28.320 are a little bit out of date in the Department 00:15:28.320 --> 00:15:31.039 for Transport data. But broadly, half the population 00:15:31.039 --> 00:15:34.460 in the UK doesn't fly in any one year. And about 00:15:34.460 --> 00:15:37.399 70 to 75 % of all flights are just taken by 15 00:15:37.399 --> 00:15:40.440 % of the population. So I think flying is really 00:15:40.440 --> 00:15:42.820 emblematic of the deep inequality we have in 00:15:42.820 --> 00:15:44.879 our society, which we then pretend we're all 00:15:44.879 --> 00:15:46.879 in this together. This goes into one of my other 00:15:46.879 --> 00:15:49.000 issues here, that the climate change issue is 00:15:49.000 --> 00:15:51.779 deeply about equity. It wasn't originally because 00:15:51.779 --> 00:15:54.360 we solved it from a technical point of view, 00:15:54.379 --> 00:15:56.139 but the later we've left it, the more and more 00:15:56.139 --> 00:15:59.120 it becomes about social change and equity. You 00:15:59.120 --> 00:16:01.519 cannot squeeze emissions out of people that barely 00:16:01.519 --> 00:16:04.659 emit. Those of us that fly frequently, typically 00:16:04.659 --> 00:16:06.879 we're the ones who also have bigger houses, larger 00:16:06.879 --> 00:16:10.639 cars, buy more goods. So it's very much related 00:16:10.639 --> 00:16:12.659 to wealth and income. And so even if you look 00:16:12.659 --> 00:16:15.639 at someone like the UK, Most people in the UK, 00:16:15.799 --> 00:16:17.600 sort of middle to low -income people in the UK, 00:16:17.860 --> 00:16:20.000 they're structurally locked into a poor quality 00:16:20.000 --> 00:16:22.519 house, poor quality public transport, probably 00:16:22.519 --> 00:16:25.679 an old car. They can't afford solar panels. They 00:16:25.679 --> 00:16:27.700 can't afford to get an EV. They probably can't 00:16:27.700 --> 00:16:30.519 afford the insulation to really retrofit their 00:16:30.519 --> 00:16:33.019 houses. So they're structurally locked into their 00:16:33.019 --> 00:16:36.120 emissions. But most emissions in the UK are discretionary. 00:16:36.500 --> 00:16:38.960 The wealthier households in the UK emit somewhere, 00:16:39.200 --> 00:16:41.580 use somewhere between four, four and a half times 00:16:41.580 --> 00:16:43.850 more energy than the poorer households. Most 00:16:43.850 --> 00:16:45.870 of those emissions are discretionary. So the 00:16:45.870 --> 00:16:48.549 way is really important in this. In wealthy countries, 00:16:48.649 --> 00:16:50.230 it is the wealthy people in those countries. 00:16:50.370 --> 00:16:51.750 And this is true, of course, of poor countries, 00:16:51.889 --> 00:16:54.909 the wealthy people that dominate the emissions 00:16:54.909 --> 00:16:57.090 profile. And it's there that the big reductions 00:16:57.090 --> 00:16:59.769 can come about. But that is almost never discussed. 00:17:00.370 --> 00:17:02.389 Maybe discussed at a global level about fairness, 00:17:02.409 --> 00:17:04.390 but not within the country. And the reason we 00:17:04.390 --> 00:17:06.349 don't do that is because who is in that category? 00:17:06.910 --> 00:17:10.140 Professors? journalists, business leaders, policymakers. 00:17:10.839 --> 00:17:13.680 We have normalized our lifestyles. We pretend 00:17:13.680 --> 00:17:15.940 we all live like this. Of course, we don't at 00:17:15.940 --> 00:17:18.279 all. Most people don't live like this. There 00:17:18.279 --> 00:17:20.460 is no cost of living crisis in a very rich country 00:17:20.460 --> 00:17:24.240 like the UK. It's a deliberately manipulated 00:17:24.240 --> 00:17:27.059 affordability crisis for some. So when I'm interviewed 00:17:27.059 --> 00:17:29.839 in the Today program, the presenters in the Today 00:17:29.839 --> 00:17:32.460 program aren't changing their lives, aren't cutting 00:17:32.460 --> 00:17:35.400 back on the heating of their homes. It's the 00:17:35.400 --> 00:17:37.359 poorer people who are doing that and the average 00:17:37.359 --> 00:17:39.220 income people that are doing that, not the wealthier 00:17:39.220 --> 00:17:41.940 people. And so we are a very wealthy country 00:17:41.940 --> 00:17:44.480 and we have chosen to allocate out the resources 00:17:44.480 --> 00:17:47.200 and the productive capacity of our society to 00:17:47.200 --> 00:17:49.660 particular groups of people. And we have to open 00:17:49.660 --> 00:17:51.680 that dialogue up if we come to climate change 00:17:51.680 --> 00:17:54.809 because we need... the productive capacity, the 00:17:54.809 --> 00:17:57.230 labor, the resources, the political capital, 00:17:57.670 --> 00:18:00.109 to be retrofitting our homes, to be putting in 00:18:00.109 --> 00:18:01.849 the public transport infrastructure, to be building 00:18:01.849 --> 00:18:03.869 the renewables. Instead, they're not doing that. 00:18:03.970 --> 00:18:06.230 These people are facilitating those of us who 00:18:06.230 --> 00:18:09.769 live in nice houses, the extensions, improve 00:18:09.769 --> 00:18:12.400 our bathrooms, bigger kitchens. all the rest 00:18:12.400 --> 00:18:14.960 of it. So the flying is emblematic, I think, 00:18:15.019 --> 00:18:17.299 of that deep inequality. Not that many people 00:18:17.299 --> 00:18:19.819 fly. We often blame the people who fly occasionally 00:18:19.819 --> 00:18:22.579 to Benidorm every second or third year. And we've 00:18:22.579 --> 00:18:24.339 normalized that we're all in this together. We're 00:18:24.339 --> 00:18:26.480 not, because we've left it so late. And that 00:18:26.480 --> 00:18:29.200 comes out of the maths, not out of a moral argument. 00:18:29.680 --> 00:18:31.720 So regardless of your moral argument, if you 00:18:31.720 --> 00:18:34.059 want to stick to 1 .5 or say 2 degrees centigrade, 00:18:34.579 --> 00:18:37.500 equity is a key component, along with technical 00:18:37.500 --> 00:18:40.460 change. For most of us, we're heading towards 00:18:40.460 --> 00:18:43.960 this global warming. We're heading towards the 00:18:43.960 --> 00:18:47.059 three and four degrees that you've talked about. 00:18:47.319 --> 00:18:51.279 You want, obviously, a greater honesty and transparency 00:18:51.279 --> 00:18:54.279 in what is happening to our climate. To a large 00:18:54.279 --> 00:18:59.319 extent, we look at climate news every day, whether 00:18:59.319 --> 00:19:02.500 it's seen as this is what's happening to a planet 00:19:02.500 --> 00:19:04.039 or whether it's seen as there's just flooding, 00:19:04.279 --> 00:19:07.460 there's just wildfires. We're seeing climate 00:19:07.460 --> 00:19:10.940 migrants, people shifting out of their homes. 00:19:11.119 --> 00:19:14.480 And as you say, it's often there's a great sense 00:19:14.480 --> 00:19:16.700 of inequality and it's often the poorest people 00:19:16.700 --> 00:19:20.220 who are affected the most by these impacts. But 00:19:20.220 --> 00:19:23.160 we do see it on our news. But we are heading 00:19:23.160 --> 00:19:27.259 towards a warmer climate. What does that really 00:19:27.259 --> 00:19:32.200 look like for us? I use the term now that there 00:19:32.200 --> 00:19:35.440 are no non -radical futures. The future is radically 00:19:35.440 --> 00:19:37.319 different to the present, either because we do 00:19:37.319 --> 00:19:39.119 something about climate change, which will ask 00:19:39.119 --> 00:19:41.619 some fundamental questions about our norms and 00:19:41.619 --> 00:19:44.500 our values and our structures, or we just carry 00:19:44.500 --> 00:19:46.440 on with the lies and delusion and the climate 00:19:46.440 --> 00:19:48.960 change will get worse and worse. And then I think 00:19:48.960 --> 00:19:51.259 there's a sort of a belief amongst some, and 00:19:51.259 --> 00:19:53.539 certainly I've heard that, pontificated by some 00:19:53.539 --> 00:19:56.519 of the very, very wealthy. tech bros and so forth, 00:19:56.700 --> 00:19:58.599 that they somehow think we're going to technically 00:19:58.599 --> 00:20:00.200 get away out of this. And what they mean by that, 00:20:00.200 --> 00:20:02.200 of course, is they think that they can build 00:20:02.200 --> 00:20:04.880 big enough walls around themselves that they 00:20:04.880 --> 00:20:07.980 will survive. So they think there's small enclaves 00:20:07.980 --> 00:20:10.079 of human society and may well be able to just 00:20:10.079 --> 00:20:12.619 carry on business as usual. I think that completely 00:20:12.619 --> 00:20:14.660 misunderstands the systemic nature of climate 00:20:14.660 --> 00:20:17.660 change. Climate change, well, first it goes along 00:20:17.660 --> 00:20:19.579 with all the other ecological damage and some 00:20:19.579 --> 00:20:21.880 of the social challenges as well. But climate 00:20:21.880 --> 00:20:24.740 change means things like rapidly changing or 00:20:24.740 --> 00:20:27.119 reducing or changing pollinating insects, which 00:20:27.119 --> 00:20:29.420 means that rapidly changes our food production. 00:20:29.819 --> 00:20:31.700 It might reduce food production or move it very 00:20:31.700 --> 00:20:35.960 significantly. If we significantly weaken the 00:20:35.960 --> 00:20:38.430 Atlantic... really of overturning circulation. 00:20:38.650 --> 00:20:40.349 In other words, what we would call the Gulf Stream, 00:20:40.470 --> 00:20:41.970 which is part of this, the big conveyor belt 00:20:41.970 --> 00:20:44.329 of warmth that moves around our oceans, that 00:20:44.329 --> 00:20:47.410 is fundamental in giving us the current global 00:20:47.410 --> 00:20:49.309 climate we have. If that changes, there's quite 00:20:49.309 --> 00:20:51.089 a lot of evidence suggesting it will do, that 00:20:51.089 --> 00:20:53.309 will massively shift in monsoon patterns and 00:20:53.309 --> 00:20:55.670 change agricultural patterns. So what we're talking 00:20:55.670 --> 00:20:58.289 about here is a world where no one would be isolated 00:20:58.289 --> 00:21:02.170 from this. And I think we will almost certainly 00:21:02.170 --> 00:21:04.589 be heading towards a period of significant geo 00:21:04.589 --> 00:21:07.309 instability. in a world where we're going to 00:21:07.309 --> 00:21:09.650 have eight and a half to nine billion people, 00:21:09.869 --> 00:21:11.990 lots of people will be well -armed, have good 00:21:11.990 --> 00:21:14.529 maps. They're not going to sit still and suffer 00:21:14.529 --> 00:21:17.589 at home. They're going to move. And that means 00:21:17.589 --> 00:21:20.549 you exacerbate existing tensions. And eventually, 00:21:20.690 --> 00:21:22.309 the climate change will cause more tensions, 00:21:22.430 --> 00:21:25.029 whether that's from food or drought, migration. 00:21:25.650 --> 00:21:28.869 Where we're heading is utterly disastrous, but 00:21:28.869 --> 00:21:32.609 we're so locked up. into somehow thinking that 00:21:32.609 --> 00:21:35.589 the ephemeral political norms we have today haven't 00:21:35.589 --> 00:21:37.569 existed forever. They haven't. They're very, 00:21:37.569 --> 00:21:39.930 very short -lived, and we think we can't change 00:21:39.930 --> 00:21:42.269 them. We can chart the evidence that we're going 00:21:42.269 --> 00:21:44.769 to hell in a handcart very quickly, but we appear 00:21:44.769 --> 00:21:47.490 to be unable to do anything about it. We're coming 00:21:47.490 --> 00:21:49.829 to the end of the interview. I would like to 00:21:49.829 --> 00:21:52.289 end the interview asking you whether you're an 00:21:52.289 --> 00:21:57.349 optimist or a pessimist, but the messages that 00:21:57.349 --> 00:21:59.950 you're giving are quite bleak, aren't they? Obviously. 00:21:59.950 --> 00:22:01.869 very bleak, you're giving a very real picture 00:22:01.869 --> 00:22:03.549 of what is happening to our climate, what is 00:22:03.549 --> 00:22:06.109 happening to our future, and no one being, actually 00:22:06.109 --> 00:22:08.470 very strong words there, no one being isolated 00:22:08.470 --> 00:22:12.690 by what's happening. We all share this one amazing 00:22:12.690 --> 00:22:15.930 planet that we live on. How do you feel about 00:22:15.930 --> 00:22:19.170 your contribution? The final question is you're 00:22:19.170 --> 00:22:21.759 working. in this arena, you're talking to governments, 00:22:21.940 --> 00:22:23.720 you're advising governments, you're speaking 00:22:23.720 --> 00:22:26.099 to people like me, you're spreading, you know, 00:22:26.720 --> 00:22:30.539 you're communicating a very clear picture backed 00:22:30.539 --> 00:22:34.579 up by science. How does that make your job feel 00:22:34.579 --> 00:22:37.099 when you're talking to people like me and you're 00:22:37.099 --> 00:22:38.640 trying to communicate what's happening to our 00:22:38.640 --> 00:22:42.339 planet? I try to, in my own head, and even when 00:22:42.339 --> 00:22:43.960 I talk to other people, I try not to say I'm 00:22:43.960 --> 00:22:47.180 an optimist or a pessimist. I try to take the 00:22:47.180 --> 00:22:49.720 data and be what? I might call a realist in my 00:22:49.720 --> 00:22:52.079 own head. I'm not hopeful, but I don't think 00:22:52.079 --> 00:22:55.279 it's hopeless. I quite like, and I often use 00:22:55.279 --> 00:22:58.660 it to end some of my talks, the Antonio Gramsci 00:22:58.660 --> 00:23:01.839 quote, pessimism of the intellect and optimism 00:23:01.839 --> 00:23:04.799 for the will. Everything I do from my work point 00:23:04.799 --> 00:23:06.839 of view, okay, we're doing well on renewables, 00:23:06.859 --> 00:23:08.640 but we're still burning more fossil fuels. And 00:23:08.640 --> 00:23:10.339 the climate only cares about the fossil fuels. 00:23:10.359 --> 00:23:13.160 It doesn't care about the renewables. And other 00:23:13.160 --> 00:23:15.480 agricultural things do with diets and so forth. 00:23:16.180 --> 00:23:18.400 All the analysis tells me things are looking 00:23:18.400 --> 00:23:21.359 dire. But we're not locked into that future. 00:23:22.079 --> 00:23:24.099 If I'm not a betting person, if I was, I think 00:23:24.099 --> 00:23:26.259 we're going to go, it's going to be a terrible 00:23:26.259 --> 00:23:29.480 future. I think if you look at our children from 00:23:29.480 --> 00:23:32.920 2050 to 2100, I really despair for what future 00:23:32.920 --> 00:23:35.099 they're very likely to have. But that's not locked 00:23:35.099 --> 00:23:38.079 in stone yet. And so the optimism is in the will 00:23:38.079 --> 00:23:40.119 is can we change things? Yes, we can change things. 00:23:40.559 --> 00:23:43.099 Do I think we'll change things? No, I think we 00:23:43.099 --> 00:23:45.180 will probably choose not to. And they say the 00:23:45.180 --> 00:23:47.740 we, that's generally the wealthy in our society. 00:23:47.859 --> 00:23:49.799 Our policymakers, indeed, obviously, our journalists 00:23:49.799 --> 00:23:52.160 and a lot of the experts, we won't choose to. 00:23:52.220 --> 00:23:54.220 But we could do. We could change things very 00:23:54.220 --> 00:23:56.200 rapidly. That has happened throughout. History 00:23:56.200 --> 00:23:58.980 is punctuated with very significant changes. 00:23:59.180 --> 00:24:03.460 Even the 19th and 20th centuries have been punctuated 00:24:03.460 --> 00:24:07.299 by some very big changes. So we have the capacity 00:24:07.299 --> 00:24:10.059 to do that, I think, whether we will or not. 00:24:10.119 --> 00:24:13.299 The jury's out. The science aren't looking particularly 00:24:13.299 --> 00:24:15.680 good. But we have everything at our fingertips. 00:24:15.880 --> 00:24:17.859 We have the technologies at our fingertips that 00:24:17.859 --> 00:24:20.480 we know how to deploy today. We know the social 00:24:20.480 --> 00:24:22.539 changes that are necessary. We know how fast 00:24:22.539 --> 00:24:25.640 we need to do this. We have lots and lots of 00:24:25.640 --> 00:24:28.319 material. Productivity in our society and productive 00:24:28.319 --> 00:24:30.839 capacity. We have very educated populations. 00:24:31.420 --> 00:24:34.059 We have everything there to do this. Potentially, 00:24:34.279 --> 00:24:36.980 we can make this rapid change. We can. And as 00:24:36.980 --> 00:24:41.440 you say, not locked in stone. So we could change, 00:24:41.500 --> 00:24:43.819 but it's whether the will is there. Thank you 00:24:43.819 --> 00:24:46.779 very much to Kevin Anderson. Thank you for providing 00:24:46.779 --> 00:24:49.420 such incredible insight. Thank you very much. 00:24:49.640 --> 00:24:51.960 Don't forget to subscribe to our podcast channels 00:24:51.960 --> 00:24:55.740 and please do email us with your views and ideas 00:24:55.740 --> 00:25:00.519 at podcast at salixfinance .co .uk. Big thanks 00:25:00.519 --> 00:25:03.579 to Kevin. You've been listening to the Decarbonisation 00:25:03.579 --> 00:25:07.599 Dialogue, a podcast from Salix. For more information 00:25:07.599 --> 00:25:10.880 about our work and to find more content, please 00:25:10.880 --> 00:25:15.640 visit salixfinance .co .uk forward slash podcasts.