Climate Chat is a channel where we discuss all things climate with scientists, technologists, authors, advocates, communicators and others helping us understand and fight climate change.
I was shocked at how rude you were to your guest. It would have been better to ask questions to draw out more about her topic than to pick at interpretable details.
Dan Miller is very tenacious in his belief that industrial technology will save us from our insoluble predicament (which was created by industrial technology).
Just regulating CO2 (outlawing it) would be socially unjust and would lead to mass unrest. Two reasons the carbon fee and dividend works 1) the *dividend* part makes it socially feasible - allows people to afford the higher prices in the short term. The fee part works by raising the price of carbon fuels and devices that use them. That creates an incentive to purchase green-related technologies, which will drive investment in renewables and spur innovation.
That's the theory and obviously correct. The practice is that situations vary all over the shop, it's far easier, better deal, for some persons to change than others. It just happened that previous owners replaced an old oil furnace with a spanking new high-efficiency propane 2 years before I bought it for retirement. I'm going to tear out an almost brand new propane furnace they had installed? I don't think so. Also, I wonder what the African countries' citizens use to avoid freezing to death since they are perpetually stated as needing & deserving to "match Western life styles" which means pretty much only being cozy in winter as far as I'm concerned.
No, the situation is much worse because of the intersection of all aspects of our modern lifestyle. We have to go beyond presenting information, because the desire for more research and information is infinite. For example think about the importance of fossil fuels in agriculture. There’s nothing much happening to address the transition from fossil fuels in agriculture, and to entice agribusiness to absorb losses in the transition. We haven’t scratched the surface yet of this situation. 😢 we’re on the way to pushing the economic developing South into hell.
Instead of subsidizing Earth-destroying fossil fuels for mean ol oil executives, we should pass legislation to funnel public money to Ken so him and his buddies can profit off exploiting poor countries and destroying the Earth in a new way. When asked about environmental justice, he brushes it off like, "That's not how it works sweetie". We know, Ken, it doesn't work like that because YOU and the fossil fuel companies must get a return on your investment. Then Ken has the audacity to feign morality? Ken, you're just as evil as the fossil fuel companies, you just have a new way of plundering Earth.
Why do you say that? *If* we use SRM to cool the Arctic (and Antarctic) it would stop - or at least slow - the melting of the Arctic. (The Antarctic is being mostly melted by warm ocean waters underneath ice sheets so SRM will not be as effective.)
When calculating CO2 absorbed by planting trees, is there any accounting for the CO2 absorbed by the grass or bushes or whatever was growing on that plot of land before the trees were planted? Whatever CO2 those other plants were absorbing should be subtracted from the figure of CO2 absorbed by the trees. There seems to be a lack of logical thinking.
@@StabilisingGlobalTemperature Yes, scientists would have looked at the antecedent forest conditions and it would be evaluated (if they're worth their mettle as scientists, that is). They're always looking at various sinks for, and sources of, greenhouse gases in ecological (and geologic) studies.
Carbon credit funds a project in Germany to turn arable land into peat bog. But peat bogs produce twice as much heating as cooling. Yes they absorb CO2, but turn some of it into methane. Not just useless, but worse than useless.
Pollution from human activities is main cause of planet’s problems! Plastic and chemicals (chem trails geoengineering outrageous and fact) killing all life. But the real cause for climate change is Magnetic Pole Shift, our protection from space weather energy is 40 per down since 1859 allowing so much energy in the atmosphere with crazy weather conditions everywhere. Before carbon is an issue we will have major crop failures and most likely a power grid collapse, from a CME and other health issues for all life on planet due to Ozone layer depleting and high level of UV radiation at ground level! If these climate experts told the truth we could prepare very well for the magnetic excursion and save many lives. Volks do your own research and prepare accordingly, the MSM and all these experts are hiding the Sun Cycles now in the 12000 cycle. Ask yourself why do they want to bankrupt countries and be in constant wars, they are getting ready for the terrible situation we are in.
1:03:51 the message needs to be " the conditions for this to happen will be locked in at X ppm" Predictions and timelines are misleading, but people understand conditions determimg results. Take an ice cube from the freezer and put it in the refrigerator. The conditions around it have changed. At that point you don't talk about predictions of when it will melt, you point out that it is 100 percent guaranteed to melt
There is no room in the atmosphere for allowing emissions by buying carbon credits. We need to protect forests and biodiversity without allowing more burning of fossil fuels - regardless of the high quality of the credits. Jurisdictional approach without credits could work if funded as UN HLEG Net Zero Commitments report says - above and beyond reaching climate emissions goals.
1:17:30 onwards. Agree with all this, except I would venture to say that the problem with the UN Security Council may be the domination of the US and its "When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck" imperial project. Whether through direct military intervention; engineering of coups; imposing economic sanctions on fully 1/3 of all nations (disproportionately affecting poor countries with over *60%* of countries classified as low-income by the World Bank under US sanctions of some kind); exporting more oil and gas than is *produced* by Saudi Arabia or Russia; and so far emitting more *total* CO2 than all of China, India and Japan combined, does not augur well for a fair and balanced approach to geo engineering, assuming such a thing were even possible. IMHO the US does not give a hoot about "the 3 billion people in the tropics" that you mention. The US, Europe, Africa, all of Asia and S America are going to have to work together. I'm not sure that is possible. Sorry, rant over, back to the (terrific, thank you!) video.
The David Keith interview was fascinating, and especially the concern of lower income countries to take action now to cool the planet; but to me it raised an important question. If sunlight reflection methods (SRM) and in particular SO2 injection into the stratosphere are proven to cool the earth as David Keith said, and is safe, then why is there so little preparation or urgent effort to implement it? I was pleased to hear that a more detailed Climate Chat on the topic is planned, and I would like Dan Miller to press David Keith on this point. The toll of deaths and destruction caused by extreme heat events attributable to climate change is now appalling, as Carbon Brief and other reliable climate monitors regularly report. I know Cornell climate scientist Doug MacMartin (interviewed on Climate Chat) is researching SRM. But urgent action is needed to cool the planet now, and there is no evidence there is a coordinated action to plan and undertake this work. I know Dan Miller often presses many expert Climate Chat guests to comment on SRM, but few (or none) appear to be aware of the need to use SRM to undertake urgent cooling, or are prepared to advocate for it.
One reason there is so little action on SRM is that no one wants to be responsible for small amounts of damage even if it prevents huge amounts of damage. See my program on the Trolley Problem: ru-vid.comsgs_tboPwvA
Thanks for the pipe dream, but we will not replace most things with solar, and he did admit that moist of the carbon removal to scale were theoretical. What else is he gonna when he sold a carbon removal company to an oil company? Good interview, but the guest is representative of all that is going in the wrong direction.
This chap is definitely not aware of reality. Full elec by 2030 or 80% overall . Just not happening. There aren’t enough materials by many times. Just a practical issue. Is the biggest problem. In uk we are looking at £5.5 trillion. Batteries will be more expensive when materials are running out. Death is due to pollution in Africa because they have no elec and burn wood etc in homes.
Not true. Extraction needed for 100% renewable energy is just a tiny fraction (<1%) of the fossil fuel material we extract every year. And prices go down as we scale up technologies like batteries & solar PV, even if there are temporary shortages during scale up. Batteries cost ~$800/kWh 10 years ago and now they are ~$60/kWh. Solar PV is similar.
Battery costs for USA is estimated at $ 350 trillion . For uk that would be £30 trillion. Is that realistic. Over building by 4 for wind is rediculous. $60 dollars per KWh. .This idiot is bonkers. Really pushing the sense is proving the impossibility
Don’t these people learn from what is goingwrong in other countries. .Germany, Australia, uk all prices are going up with more renewables. This is a civil engineer. Does he realises that we pay for elec when we don’t need it. Containment prices result in massive costs for reduced demand and shutdowns when the wind is too strong.
@@climatechat Brainwashijng is easy with people like you. Because they are intermittent you have to have backup at night and when the wind doesn’t blow. Add that and renewables are massively expensive. Don’t have backup and there will be blackouts 40% of the time. .if you look at the cost per KWh renewables are still more expensive and off shore floating is 5 times the cost of gas. Watch Paul Burges and educate yourself. You are living in a false. World or lying. Which is it.
When my wife first suggested that dark matter might be causing climate change I laughed. Dark matter after all should be a constant, I thought. When we began looking at the data I stopped laughing. Dark matter it seems is not a constant. Global Warming is happening but dark matter is the chicken and Co2 is the egg. Dark matter phase transitions appear to be a primary climate driver. If the solar system passes through an area of higher liquid dark matter content the planets cores would all receive more heat due to increased phase transitions thus heating the earth from the inside out. Heating of the planet from the inside out would result in : Increased ground temperatures Increased sea temperatures Increased nighttime temperatures Increased seismic activity Increased earthquakes We are currently passing through the S1 dark Matter stream which, as it is going the opposite direction around the galaxy was described as a dark matter hurricane. From spring to fall the earth is downstream from the sun. And from July to December the earth is traveling with the S1 stream and from January to June we get our maximum ongoing dark matter exposure as we travel into the S1stream. There have also been peer reviewed papers that discuss dark matter annihilation heating the earth from the inside, they did not mention any impact to climate change. We may also be subject to surges of dark matter June-July 2020 Earth Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn conjunctions. This means that the earth passed through several consecutive dark matter streams July 2020 Siberian heatwave and Antarctica temperature spike Jan 9 2022 Venus Earth conjunction this resulted in an increase in the amount of dark matter leaving the sun and Venus March 18 2022 Concordia Station spiked 39 C degrees due to unusual air patterns near Australia North Pole regions hit 30C above normal May 2022 mars crosses the dark matter stream to Saturn May 4, 2022 a 4.7 magnitude Marsquake occurs due to tectonic activity. March 26 2024 the Parker Solar Probe began its lap around the sun on April 4 it came out on the other side of the sun to start back towards Venus. In between it was actually inside of the Alfven Limit which is where I believe the surface of the dark matter sphere that surrounds the sun lies. This would be the equivalent of a speed boat sending a wake towards the earth. April 11 mercury and earth are in an inferior conjunction which would also send a bit of extra dark matter in earths direction. Mid June 2024 multiple heat waves. Venus atmospheric temperatures from 2009-2017 also were higher after conjunctions and the atmospheric wind speeds have increased by 33% probably due to the increase in incoming dark matter. Venus atmospheric temperatures from 2009-2017 also were higher after conjunctions Venus atmospheric tsunami If the dark matter spin off to the sun happens every 5 days on average and coincides with the wave facing the sun it may be proof of dark matter. During conjunctions if the tsunami is facing earth we get an extra surge of dark matter heading to the earth which also affects the time it takes for the tsunami to circle Venus. The gravity well fills up and dumps back to the sun but if it fills faster due to a conjunction it can spill toward the earth resulting in higher temperatures about 60 days later. The streams of liquid dark matter are constantly overflowing the suns dark matter sphere which extends to the Alfven radius. This distance varies dependant on how much dark matter reaches the point at which it vaporizes. (Velocity/gravity/temperature) NASA issued a climate change warning for Mars after Mariner 9 Neptune has been heating up since 2018
Nice theory, but no... it's not dark matter. It's CO2. If the Earth were heating up from the inside it would be fairly easy to measure and the top of the atmosphere would be getting warmer too, rather than getting cooler (which it is) because CO2 is blocking more heat from reaching the top of the atmosphere.
@@climatechat actually when the dark matter enters it is cold as space. More dark matter from stream cooler upper atmosphere. I haven’t been able to data that wasn’t behind a pay wall but it should be comparatively cooler in the spring when the earth encounters more dark matter.
Being a marine biologist with MSc & MBA and 40 years multicountry research/ work experience from 7 coutries including Japan, China, US and Brazil, I see global macroalgae (badnamed seaweed) trasocean producrtion with proportionally magnitudes cheaper investment, vastly, very fast implementation (quetion of 6-9 monthes to start up and 3-4 months "exponential" production natural muliplication cycle), up to 70% planet-wide free production scale, simple technology, disease resistent available strains, food-and medical-chain demand, labor-creation, powerful carbon sink capability etc It can be turned into "good-image building" to oil & gas muiti billion mutinational enterprises that will keenly be very happy to invest a few millios in fine tuning already developed simple technologies which can be anchored in large scale on their hun dreds of already built offshore plataform with few additional costs well refunded by carbon -credits Among all renewable energy sourve, macroalgae production (they only require free Sun and seawater to multiply, this simple arsenal to curtail CO2 should stand at fore front. If intetest please contac me: bluesky10x@aol.com If not keep on funeling long term money in slow and costly scale buildimg with many cross fronteir issues I will will be open for discussions
Fantastic discussion. I think the next guest should be an expert in economics, philosophy, or politics. It's clear we have had technical solutions to climate for a long time. The inability of societies to correctly put a price on carbon is much deeper than has been discussed so far on the show. What incentives do nation-states have to turn away "free growth now" at the expense of future generations? Isn't this the natural state of all superorganisms in nature to exploit their environment as much as possible? How can we transcend our biology and human nature?
Yes. The main barrier to Solar Radiation Management is political not technical. It would only take a few months to get it started - using re-purposed military jets.
Thank you very much for this very informative interview. To (1:01:30 - 1:05:00) A good overview of the current state of research, methods, potential, risks and costs of marine alkalinity enhancement (AE) can be obtained from the research consortium RETAKE of the European research mission CDRmare or one of their publications [1]. In their opinion, it is feasible and scalable in the gigaton range, but there are also critical problem areas (Conclusions of [1]). [1] Katarzyna A Kowalczyk et al 2024 Environ. Res. Lett. 19 074033 "Marine carbon dioxide removal by alkalinization should no longer be overlooked"
This moron tried to suggest that it's an "open question" that there has been more extreme weather, and we're just reporting it more, a climate denier statement, it's a fact that there has been more extreme weather and is actually underreported, it's a daily reality now that is almost normalised. Another shit guest
You have completely misunderstood him. You could listen to 8:22 - 9:30 again. Basically he is saying: Whether the impacts are worse than climate science has predicted so far is an open question. That is very different from: Whether there are bad impacts is an open question. If you can agree with that, then maybe you can take back the "moron" and "shit guest" labels.
@@flammungous3068 Thank you. unlike the previous videos on this channel that I have watched, which have all been relatively easy to follow, this one was loaded with terminology and concepts I was unfamiliar with, and the host didn't summarize for the non-specialists as much as he usually does.
Regarding rocket launches, see this 2023 article in "Astronomy": A rapidly growing rocket industry could undo decades of work to save the ozone layer Rocket emissions in the upper atmosphere can damage the ozone layer, but they are neither measured nor regulated. It’s a policy gap we have to close if the space industry is to grow sustainably.
StarLink is designed to be barely more space than high altitude. Not a long lifespan. Shredding into Stratosphere and replaced endlessly Page of last Montréal Protocol update about it. Worth a read for ozone fans
The 1971 short story "He-y, Come on Ou-t!" by Shinichi Hoshi provides great insight into the human tendency to think getting rid of wastes from modern industrial civilization by burying or injecting them deep underground is a good idea.
For perspective on this particular flavor of novel techno-solutionism, see the following National Public Radio segments which have aired over the past couple of years: ● "With The Expansion of CO2 Pipelines Come Safety Fears" ● "The U.S. is expanding CO2 pipelines. One poisoned town wants you to know its story" ● "A rupture that hospitalized 45 people raised questions about CO2 pipelines' safety" ● "‘A stark warning’: Latest carbon dioxide leak raises concerns about safety, regulation"
These risks, while they make good headlines, are minuscule compared to letting the CO2 stay in the atmosphere. It would be like publishing headlines: "Safety Fears Over Chemotherapy Patients Losing Their Hair"
@@climatechat You sound exactly like my late cousin, a nuclear power engineer, who made the same arguments (in the same belittling manner) when, as a teenager, I brought up the dangers of nuclear waste.
@@dbadagna I'm sorry that it sounds belittling, but the problem of CO2 leakage, while a risk that must be addressed and accounted for, pales in comparison to the risks of burning fossil fuels and the risks of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. About 8 million people/year die from fossil fuel burning pollution (not climate change). That's 1 in 5 deaths! www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/ And the risk of too much CO2 (climate change) is existential. Essentially no one has died from CO2 pipeline leaks though maybe a few will someday. Many more people will die from slipping in bathtubs. CO2 does not blow up and is not radioactive. It kills you by suffocating you if there is an extremely high concentration (not just a small leak from a pipeline). Again, safety of pipelines is a serious concern, but natural gas pipelines are far more dangerous and plentiful.
Whether it's SRM or a transition to renewables (and we gotta do both in tandem), it's all wunderwaffe if we don't move fast, like within the next 15 years. Fully deployed, at scale, and VIABLE.
David makes an excellent point about not coupling ecosystems with CO2 removal. For example, there s a carbon credits funded project in Germany, which is turning arable farmland into peat bog. Great for wildlife. Frogs and dragonflys etc. Wonderful. But to claim that it is good for the climate is absurd. Bogs are a means to turn CO2 into methane. Yes they do absorb CO2. But the methane they produce gives typically 2x as much heating as the cooling due to the CO2 they absorb. It is bizarre that it is funded by carbon credits money. Is there anybody auditing such projects? If there is, they are seriously failing to do so thoroughly.
Concorde was cooling the planet about 30 times more due to its sulphur aerosols, compared to warming it due to to its CO2 emissions. There was significantly more sulphur in aviation fuel when it was flying a couple of decades ago compared to modern aviation fuel.
"Christ sounds like Covid all over again" <- and that sounds like conspiratorial nonsense. As for planting things, the problem is that plants decay and thus CO2 returns to the atmosphere. The biome recycles carbon and only very, very slow reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.
The problem is that geologically-stored carbon has entered the biosphere. Storing it in plants doesn't help since those plants will release it back to the atmosphere over time (especially as climate change progresses... see the fires in Canada and California right now).
@@climatechat true but it will be distributed at different rates over times trees live for hundreds of years and can store tons of carbon both above and more so below ground in root and fungi that cover massive distance and are constantly storing carbon underground. And the grassland/meadows are quicker in death but also in growth. meaning the terrain will be store more carbon that releasing in. Else i don't see how these terrains would have withstood the test of time. Also with as many trees we have taken that should be there and millions of acres of grasses forest meadows that are now heat storing concrete jungles. The idea of using technology is not a bad one and can be an aid for sure, yet we also need to take into consideration that the Planet is the one that has to heal in a total way. not just carbon storing and a quick isolated fix. There is nothing in nature that is isolated or independent as a thing or a factor. The total restoration rebalancing of ecosystem, the end of 200 species being eradicated before their time because of our actions and lack of change. It a bit selfish to just think of our own when we have enslaved most of our own as well as the other species and even elements of this planet. Perhaps I'm missing a point where carbon storage via tech does address these issues as well?
@@logantauson789 The need is for permanent (geological) carbon storage. As climate scientist Kevin Anderson says: Plant trees for good tree reasons. Don't plant them for carbon reasons." To give a perspective, the dry weight of *all* life on Earth (about 600 billion tons) is less than the weight of the CO2 we have emitted (2.4 trillion tons). The CO2 locked up in trees will come out at the worst possible time as climate change kicks in due to fire, flood, drought, heat stress, bark beetle, disease, etc. Planting trees is great, just don't do it to count it as an offset to geologic emissions.
The slow ramp up of SRM seems strange. Why not ramp up as quickly as practically achievable? Just 30 re-purposed military jets can put enough sulphur aerosols into the stratosphere to completely halt the temperature rise. And if the political will to do it were to exist, it could be implemented in just a few months. And at far lower cost than trying to replace existing energy and transport infrastructure with green electric for example.
SRM without a global consensus through treaties, to which most nations have signed, is a formula for wars. Even if nations agree to do it, if something goes wrong the blame game could spiral out of control.
Just a guess on my part but as Kevin Anderson has stated before, it's necessarily the temperature that is the problem but the rate of change. If the planet warms 2 degrees over 4 million years that is no problem at all because everything will have time to adapt. Currently we are on track to do that in 200 years which is way to fast. Implementing SRM and going full bore will introduce the same problem but in the other direction. The rate of change will be to fast. You probably also want to introduce it slowly to see how the atmosphere and climate responds. At the first sign of trouble you can back off a bit. But that's just my guess.
@@flammungous3068 I guess that is a good point. Yes the rate of change. But according to Hansen we have had a rate change upwards in the last few years. Very probably because of the cut in sulphur from ship fuel in 2020.
@@StabilisingGlobalTemperature - Keith is scientifically humble enough to pre-concede SAI could go wrong. There are known-unknowns hence wanting field research -- the marine diesel is a regional effect due to now more sunshine reaching ground. Insufficient, per Zeke Hausfather and he's not alone, that the Global scale 2023-4 Temps Anomaly is too big to be explained by the reduced pollution aspect
@@flammungous3068 agree with main arc there but would point out -1 via SAI is not analog to +1 via GHG - optimistic side sees the models showing stagnated ozone recovery and pessimistic read of even Keith's papers is an 18% loss per 1C ¤ whereas GW is plausibly a net good for ozone (complex topic)
The ozone depletion due to stratospheric sulphur needs to be thought of in a different way than ozone depletion due to CFCs. I don't know if anyone else has made this point. It is something that occurred to me recently: The stratospheric sulphur absorbs some UV, which means there is less UV available to produce ozone. But the point is that overall UV is absorbed. Does it really matter in practice what gas is doing the absorbing? I would suggest it does not. In the case of ozone depletion due to CFCs: there is less ozone produced, and hence less UV absorbed. This does matter. Excess UV is harmful. My opinion is that we do not particularly need to worry about ozone depletion due to sulphur in the stratosphere. But we do need to worry about CFCs.
First I've heard of sulfur as a 'substitute for ozone' Ozone converts UVA and most of UVB into heat energy. It is a GHG UV if not blocked uses the energy on surface
Net zero, even if it is achieved, will not stop temperature rising. Because there is a large store of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. It will take a long time to draw that down, even once no more is being added. We are going to have to do Solar Radiation Management, at least as an interim measure. More details are on my RU-vid channel. Search on RU-vid for "Clive Matelas". Click on my RU-vid icon for a link to my book which details the required actions.
@@dbadagna The point is that the electricity could come from solar to power the mining machines. The commenter seems to think diesel is a necessity for mining.
The extraction needed for 100% renewable energy is a tiny fraction (<1%) of that needed for fossil fuel. So if you are concerned about the environmental impact of extraction, you should support a rapid phase out of fossil fuels. www.distilled.earth/p/a-fossil-fuel-economy-requires-535x
