What I'm going to talk about today is just in general terms. What is needed to address the<br>climate crisis, this is the thing that<br>if we do, what actions can we take that will accelerate the transition out of<br>the Fossil fuel era<br>there's a certain amount of carbon that is circulating through the environment<br>So it's going into the air being absorbed by plants and animals<br>And then getting back into the air, and this this carbon is just circulating on the surface<br>And this is fine, and it's been doing that for hundreds of millions of years<br>The thing that's changed is that we've added something to the mix<br>So this is what I would call the turd in the punchbowl<br>so we added all this extra carbon<br>to the carbon cycle and the net result is that<br>The carbon in the oceans and atmosphere is growing over time. It's much more than can be absorbed by the ecosystem<br>It's really quite simple. We're taking<br>billions of tons of carbon that's been buried for hundreds of millions of years<br>and is not part of the carbon cycle, taking it from deep underground and adding it to the carbon cycle<br>The result is a steady increase in the carbon in the atmosphere and in the oceans<br>which doesn't look like much if you look at it on this chart<br>But when looked at in the context of history it actually looks like this<br><br><br>The carbon parts per million has really been bouncing around the 300 level for around 10 million years<br>And in the last few hundred years it went into a vertical climb<br>This is the the essence of the problem. This is very unusual and<br>a very extreme threat as you can see from from this rate of growth. Then this is accompanied by<br>a temperature increase as one would expect<br>This temperature increase... people talk about two degrees or three degrees<br>It's important to appreciate just how sensitive the climate actually is<br>to temperature<br>And it's important to look at it in terms of absolute temperature,<br>not in degrees Celsius relative to zero. We need to say what is the temperature change relative to absolute zero, that's how the universe<br>thinks about temperature, it's how physics thinks about temperature, it's relative to absolute zero.<br><br>Small changes result in huge effects<br>So New York City under ice would be minus 5 degrees, New York City under water would be plus 5 degrees<br>But looked at as a percentage relative to absolute zero, it's only a plus minus 2 percent change<br>so the sensitivity of the climate is extremely, extremely high<br>We've amplified this sensitivity by building our cities right on the coastline.<br>And most people live very close to the ocean in some countries that are their very low-lying and would be completely<br>under water in a climate crisis.<br>We've essentially designed civilization to be super sensitive to climate change.<br>The important thing to appreciate is that we are going to exit the fossil fuels era.<br>It is inevitable that we will exit the fossil fuels era because at a certain point we will simply run out of<br>carbon to mine and burn. So the question is really "when" do we exit the era not not "if".<br>The goal is to exit the era as<br>quickly as possible.<br>That means we need to move from the old goal with a pre-industrial goal, which was to move from<br>chopping down forests and<br>killing lots of whales...<br>The old goal was to move from<br>chopping wood and killing whales to fossil fuels. Which actually in that context was a good thing.<br>But the new goal is to move to<br>sustainable energy future.<br>We want to use things like<br>Hydro, Solar, Wind, Geothermal. Nuclear is also a good option in<br>places like France which aren't subject to natural disasters.<br>And we want to use energy sources that will be good for a billion years.<br>So how do we accelerate this transition away from fossil fuels to a sustainable, era?<br>And what happens if we don't?<br>So if we wait,<br>and if we delay the change,<br>The best case is simply delaying that inevitable transition to sustainable energy.<br>So this is the best case if we don't take action now.<br>At the risk of being repetitive,<br>There's going to be no choice in the long term to move to sustainable energy. It's tautological.<br>We have to have sustainable energy or we'll simply run out of the other one.<br>So the only thing we gain by slowing down the transition is...<br>It is just slowing it down. It doesn't make it not occur. Just slows it down.<br>The worst case however,<br>is more displacement and destruction than all the wars in history combined<br>These are the best/worst-case scenarios.<br>We have about 3% of scientists that believe in the best case.<br>And about 97% that believe in the worst case.<br>This is why I call it the dumbest experiment in history - ever. Why would you do this?<br>So the reason that<br>the transition is delayed, or is happening slowly, is because there is a hidden subsidy on all carbon producing activity.<br>In a healthy market,<br>if you have 10€ benefit and 4€ of harm to society, the profit would be 6€.<br>It makes obvious sense. This is where the incentives are aligned with a good future.<br>This is not this is not the case today.<br>but if you have the incentives aligned, then the forcing function towards a<br>good future, a sustainable energy future, will be powerful.<br>In an unhealthy market you have<br>10€ of benefit, but the 4€ of harm isn't taxed so you have an untaxed negative externality.<br>This is basic economics 101.<br>So you have unreasonable profit and a forcing function<br>to do carbon-emitting activity because this cost to society is not being paid.<br>The net result is 35 gigatons of carbon per year into the atmosphere.<br>This is analogous to<br>not paying for garbage collection.<br>It's not as though we should say, in the case of garbage,<br>Have a garbage-free society. It's very difficult to have a garbage-free society, but it's just important that people pay for the garbage collection.<br>so we need to...<br>Go from having untaxed negative externality, which is effectively a hidden carbon subsidy<br>of enormous size,<br>5.3 Trillion dollars a year according to the IMF every year.<br>We need to move away from this,<br>and have a carbon tax.<br>This is being this is being fought quite hard by<br>The carbon producers, and they're using tactics that are very similar to what the<br>the Tobacco industry used for many years.<br>They would take the approach of... even though the overwhelming scientific consensus was that<br>smoking cigarettes was bad for you, they would find a few scientists that would disagree and then they would say "look, scientists disagree."<br>So that's essentially how they would try to trick the public<br>into thinking that smoking is not that bad.<br>The solution obviously is to remove the subsidy.<br>That means we need to have a carbon tax.<br><br>And to make it something which is neither a left nor right issue. We should make it probably a revenue-neutral carbon tax<br>So this would be a case of increasing taxes on carbon, but then reducing taxes in other places.<br>So maybe there would be a reduction in sales tax or VAT and an increase in carbon tax.<br>Only those using high levels of carbon would pay an increased tax.<br><br>Moreover, in order to give<br>the industry time to react, this could be a phased-in approach.<br>So that maybe it takes 5 years before<br>the carbon taxes are very high, so that only companies that don't take action today will suffer in five years.<br>But there needs to be a clear message from government in this regard.<br>because the fundamental problem is the rules today<br>incent people to create carbon, and this is madness! Whatever you incent will happen.<br>That's why<br>we're seeing very little effect thus far.<br>And depending upon what action we take<br>will drive the the carbon number to<br>either extreme or moderate levels.<br>I think it's pretty much a given that that the two-degree<br>increase will occur... the question is whether it's going to be much more than that...<br>not if there will be a 2 degree increase.<br>So then the question is what can you do?<br>I would say whenever you have the opportunity<br>talk to your politicians, ask them to enact a carbon tax. We have to fix the unpriced externality.<br>Talk to your friends about it and<br>fight the propaganda from the carbon industry.<br>So that's the basic message I have and I'm happy to take questions. What I'm going to talk about today is<br>just in general terms uh what is needed<br>to address the the climate crisis. Um<br>and this is the thing that if if if we<br>if we do what actions can we take that<br>that will accelerate the transition out<br>of uh the fossil fuel era. Um so there's<br>a certain amount of carbon that is<br>circulating through the environment. So<br>it's going into the air being absorbed<br>by and then getting absorbed by plants<br>and animals um and then going back into<br>the air. And this this carbon is just<br>circulating on the surface. U and this<br>this is fine and it's been doing that<br>for millions hundreds of millions of<br>years. Uh the the thing that's changed<br>is that we've added something to the<br>mix. So this is what I would call the<br>the sort of the turd in the punch bowl.<br>Um so the we added all this extra carbon<br>to to the carbon cycle and the net<br>result is that uh the the carbon in the<br>ocean's atmosphere is growing over time.<br>It's much more than can be absorbed by<br>the ecosystem.<br>It's it's really it's really quite<br>simple. We're taking uh billions of tons<br>of carbon that's been buried for<br>hundreds of millions of years um and is<br>not part of the carbon cycle. taking it<br>from deep underground and adding it to<br>the carbon cycle.<br>The result is that a steady increase in<br>the the carbon in the atmosphere and in<br>the ocean oceans which doesn't look like<br>much if you look at it on this chart but<br>when looked at in the context of of<br>history it actually looks like this.<br>So the the carbon parts per million has<br>really been bouncing around the 300<br>level for around 10 million years. Um<br>and then the last few hundred years it<br>went into a vertical climb. This this is<br>the the essence of the problem. This is<br>very unusual um and and a and a very<br>very extreme threat as you can see from<br>from this rate of growth. Then this is<br>accompanied by uh a temperature increase<br>as one would expect<br>and uh<br>and and this and this temperature<br>increase you people talk about 2° or or<br>3° it's important to appreciate just how<br>sensitive the the climate actually is to<br>uh to temperature and it's important to<br>look at it in terms of absolute<br>temperature not um in degrees Celsius<br>relative to zero. We need to say what is<br>the temperature change relative to<br>absolute zero. That's how the universe<br>thinks about temperature. It's how<br>physics thinks about temperature. It's<br>it's relative to absolute zero. So<br>for small changes result in in huge<br>effects. Uh so New York City under ice<br>would be minus5°. New York City<br>underwater would be plus 5°. but looked<br>at in in a as a percentage relative to<br>absolute zero. It's only a plus - 2%<br>change.<br>So the the sensitivity of the climate is<br>extremely extremely high. Um we've<br>amplified this sensitivity by building<br>our cities right on the on the coastline<br>and most<br>most people live very close to to the<br>ocean. some countries of course that are<br>that are very low-lying and would be<br>completely uh underwater in in a in a<br>climate crisis. So the the the the we've<br>essentially designed civilization to be<br>super sensitive to climate change.<br>The the the important thing to<br>appreciate is that we are going to exit<br>the fossil fuels era. So it is it is it<br>is inevitable that we will exit the<br>phosphoric era because at a certain<br>point we will simply run out of uh<br>carbon to mine and burn. So the question<br>is really when when do we exit the era<br>not not if<br>the goal is to exit the era as quickly<br>as possible.<br>That means we need to move from from the<br>old goal uh with the pre-industrial grow<br>goal which was to move from uh chopping<br>down forests and uh killing lots of<br>whales. Um that the old goal was to move<br>from from chopping wood and and killing<br>whales to uh fossil fuels which actually<br>in that context was a good thing. But<br>the new goal is to move to a sustainable<br>energy future.<br>And we want to use things like<br>uh hydro, solar, wind, geothermal,<br>nuclear is also a good option in um<br>places like France which don't aren't<br>subject to natural disasters.<br>Um and and we want to use energy sources<br>that will be good for for a billion<br>years.<br>So how do we accelerate this transition<br>away from fossil fuels to a sustainable<br>era<br>and and and and what happens if we<br>don't?<br>So if we if we wait uh and if we delay<br>the change um the best case the the best<br>case is is is simply delaying that<br>inevitable transition to sustainable<br>energy. So this is the this is the best<br>case if we don't take action now. Um at<br>the risk of being repetitive it's<br>there's going to be no choice in the<br>long term to move to sustainable energy.<br>It's it's total logical. We have to have<br>sustainable energy or we'll simply run<br>out of the other one. So the the only<br>thing we gain by slowing down the<br>transition is is is just slowing it<br>down. It doesn't doesn't make it not<br>occur. It just slows it down.<br>The worst case however is more<br>displacement and destruction than all<br>the wars in history combined. Okay, this<br>is these are these are the best worst<br>case scenarios. So then<br>we have you know about 3% of scientists<br>that believe in the best case and about<br>97% that believe in the worst case.<br>This is why I call it the dumbest<br>experiment in history<br>ever. Like why would you do this?<br>So the the reason that the the the<br>transition is delayed or or or is<br>happening slowly is because there is a<br>hidden subsidy on all carbon producing<br>activity.<br>In a healthy market, if you have say€ 10<br>of benefit and 4 of harm to society, the<br>profit would be €6. This sort of you<br>know makes obvious sense. This is where<br>the incentives are aligned with a good<br>future.<br>This is not this is not the case today.<br>Um but if you have the incentives<br>aligned then the forcing function<br>towards a a a good future towards a<br>sustainable energy future will be<br>powerful<br>in an unhealthy market. You have your 10<br>years of benefit. You have your four<br>years but the four years doesn't isn't<br>taxed. So you have untaxed negative<br>externality. This is basically economics<br>101<br>So you have basically unreasonable<br>profit and a forcing function to uh to<br>do carbon emitting activity because this<br>this this cost to society is not being<br>paid.<br>The net result is 35 gatons of carbon<br>per year into the atmosphere.<br>So this is analogous to not paying for<br>garbage collection. Um and it's it's not<br>as though we should we should say in the<br>case of garbage have a garbage free<br>society. It's very difficult to have a<br>garbage free society but it's just<br>important that people pay for garbage<br>collection.<br>So we need to go from having an untaxed<br>negative externality and which is<br>effectively a hidden carbon subsidy<br>of enormous size<br>uh 5.3 trillion a year according to the<br>IMF<br>every year. Um we need to move away from<br>this uh and and and and have a carbon<br>tax.<br>So, but this is being this is being<br>fought quite hard by the uh the carbon<br>producers. Um and they're using tactics<br>that are very similar to what the uh<br>cigarette industry or the tobacco<br>industry used for many years. Um they<br>would they would take the approach of<br>having of of even though the<br>overwhelming scientific consensus was<br>that uh smoking cigarettes was bad for<br>you. uh they would find a few scientists<br>that would disagree and then they would<br>say, "Look, scientists disagree." So<br>that that that's essentially how they<br>would try to trick the public into<br>thinking that smoking is not that bad.<br>The solution obviously is to remove the<br>subsidy.<br>Um so that means we need to have<br>a re a carbon tax and to make it sort of<br>something which is neither a left nor a<br>right issue we should make it probably a<br>revenue neutral carbon tax. So this<br>would be a case of increasing taxes on<br>carbon but then reducing taxes in in<br>other places. So maybe there would be a<br>reduction in sales tax or VAT and an<br>increase in carbon tax. So that uh only<br>those using high levels of carbon would<br>pay an increased tax<br>and moreover this I mean in order to<br>give uh industry time to react uh this<br>could be a phased in approach so that<br>maybe it takes five years before the the<br>carbon taxes are very high. So that<br>means that only companies that don't<br>take action today will suffer in five<br>years. But there needs to be a clear<br>message from from government in this<br>regard. The the because the fundamental<br>problem is the rules today incent people<br>to create carbon and this is madness and<br>whatever you incent will happen. that<br>that's why<br>you know we're we're seeing little very<br>little effect uh thus far<br>and depending upon how what what action<br>we take will will drive the the carbon<br>number to either extreme or or moderate<br>levels. Um I I think it's pretty much a<br>given that that the twoderee C increase<br>will occur. The question is whether it's<br>going to be much more than that not not<br>if there will be a twoderee increase.<br>Um so the then the question is so so<br>what can you do? I would say whenever<br>you have the opportunity talk to your<br>politicians ask them to enact a carbon<br>tax. We we have to fix the unpriced<br>externality. I would talk to your<br>friends about it and fight the<br>propaganda from the carbon industry.<br>So that that's the basic message I have<br>and I'm happy to take questions.<br>[Applause]