Here is the transcript of this geoengineering interview - from https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-science-show/14091532
Robyn Williams: This is The Science Show, … as the awful weather persists, we ask whether some of those climatic tipping points have already been reached and what they mean. Robert Tulip: The reality is that climate politics has been pitched as a war between emission reduction and the fossil fuel industry, and the view is that geoengineering is on the side of the fossil fuel industries. So what it has meant is that within the climate science community there is this moral hazard concept that people say if you take action to geo-engineer the climate, then you are just failing to address the real issue which is our emissions. Let me explain. Our annual emissions are about 15 billion tonnes of carbon or 50 billion tonnes of CO2, but the historic emissions is more like 670, pushing a trillion tonnes. So our annual emissions only worsen the problem… Robyn Williams: They add up. Robert Tulip: They add up, it's cumulative, this concept of committed warming from past emissions is really central, that we have to see that this 670 billion tonnes of CO2 is what's causing the warming, it's what's causing the risk of sea level rise. And until we work out technologies that will remove this vast quantity of past emissions, then cutting our new emissions is really too small, too slow, to really make a difference. So it will take us years, decades potentially, to work out how to remove all of that committed warming, but we have to do it. And in the meantime, the only thing that will stop us going over the edge…there's a great paper from a few years ago by Will Steffen and colleagues from the ANU called 'Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene', and it points out that we face the risk of going over a threshold into a hothouse. And the thing is that the only thing that will stop us from going over that threshold is brightening the planet through geoengineering. Robyn Williams: Yes, geoengineering, schemes like shooting particles into the sky that block heat from the Sun. Robyn Williams: Robert Tulip from Canberra. He is a convener of the Planetary Restoration Action Group. Robert Tulip: We take the view that climate change is so urgent that we need to take what we call a three-legged stool, that is: emission reduction, greenhouse gas removal, and geoengineering or planetary brightening, direct cooling technologies. Robyn Williams: And I saw something you wrote suggesting that CO2 removal is not the highest priority, if you like, but one other of your stool's legs. Robert Tulip: Yes, CO2 removal is part of greenhouse gas removal, which includes methane, and now methane is actually causing more immediate warming than CO2. But the issue is that the risk of tipping points that has been identified in recent climate science is such that even if we did cut our emissions as fast as we possibly could, even if we did remove CO2 and methane as fast as possible, we still face enormous risk of climate tipping points, which is why the most urgent climate problem is to increase planetary albedo, that is make the planet brighter, reflect more sunlight in order to directly cool the planetary system. Robyn Williams: How would we do that on the surface before going into the sky, and doing something up there with the clouds and so on? Robert Tulip: There are many technologies that have been identified to directly cool the planet. And what is needed is a large-scale research program to determine which are the safest, the most effective, the cheapest, most acceptable. Now, the one that's best known, as you allude, is stratospheric aerosol injection. And, highly controversial, there was last year an effort to do some minimal preliminary field trials, which were scotched due to political opposition. Now, there are surface-based technologies, such as brightening the Arctic, and that means restoring sea ice in the Arctic is a major concern, because ice is reflective, it's white, and water is absorptive, it's dark, and each year we're getting closer to what we call a blue ocean event. That is, it's quite likely that there'll be no sea ice at all in a few years. And at that time…this is one of these tipping points that I mentioned, that when you do have this blue ocean event, it creates accelerating feedbacks, and that just means that the whole planetary system starts to get warmer. So if we can restore sea ice, both in the Arctic and the Antarctic, then that's possibly one of the best immediate climate solutions. Robyn Williams: I've also heard of having white roofs. Was that serious? Robert Tulip: Look, it's a good thing. But in terms of the scale that is required to prevent the dangerous tipping points that are looming for climate change, we really need to be thinking on a global basis. We need international cooperation between governments to identify and invest in the best forms of solar radiation management as the most urgent climate priority, while we develop the ability to remove the trillion tonnes of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Robyn Williams: It's actually a trillion tonnes, is it? That's a lot. Robert Tulip: It will be a trillion by the end of this century. Oxford has an excellent website on the trillionth tonne, and it's currently sitting at 670 billion tonnes, increasing by about 15 billion tonnes per year. So that means by the end of this century, a trillion tonnes, but that doesn't include the level of methane, which is far worse than has been properly recognised. Robyn Williams: Yeah, and when the permafrost goes, Siberia and so on, there'll be more even of it. Robert Tulip: Well, what this illustrates is that the IPCC has been negligent in failing to recognise the urgency of solar radiation management. And it illustrates the really difficult politics that we have around climate change because the problem that we have with geoengineering is people just say, oh, you're just working for the fossil fuel industry, you're just giving extra time for more emissions. But the reality is emissions will continue whatever climate activists do. So the reality is we need to take action to stop the dangerous tipping points by investing in effective solutions. Now, there was a great paper published this year by Harvard's solar geoengineering group, David Keith and colleagues, and they calculated that an investment of $2 billion in assessing all of the different technologies that are out there to brighten the planet would prevent damage that could cost us $10 trillion. Now, that's 5,000 to one. So that's a really good benefit–cost ratio, which we really should be considering. What I'd like to see Australia do is work with other governments to focus on marine cloud brightening. Now, this is a wonderful technology, that if we take seawater and can turn into mist and send it up into the clouds, then it will be a very cheap, large-scale way to brighten the planet and re-freeze the poles. So there's really good ideas out there, and we just need to do the research. And at the moment there's really strong blockage against just conducting research, and it reflects the difficult politics around climate change. And that's what our group is trying to address, we're just saying this research is essential for planetary security, planetary stability, they are big issues that we really need to engage with as the big medium-term security priorities for our planet. Robyn Williams: Well, we were introduced to each other by Professor Herbert Huppert, who's a Professor of Maths at Cambridge, and has been a fellow of King's for 50 years. But what was his opinion of some of your suggestions? Robert Tulip: Herbert is a brilliant mathematician, and he has recognised the need to take a scientific approach to cooling. There are a number of groups. For example, Sir David King, who you may have met at Cambridge University, has… Robyn Williams: Chief Scientist in Britain. Robert Tulip: Former Chief Scientist, has established the Cambridge Centre for Climate Repair. And Herbert works very closely with Sir David King, and they're doing some magnificent work at Cambridge to identify methods to address global warming. And that's been our contact. Robyn Williams: A final question, do you think we'll reach a point where there are so many violent, extreme weather events that we'll simply have to do something, and that's when people will take up these suggestions you've made? And will there be time when we reach that point? Robert Tulip: Well, I think we've reached the point now. If you look at the floods in Lismore, if we took action with a technology like marine cloud brightening, then it would be possible to help to reduce hurricanes and cyclones, to reduce extreme flooding events. And so this is technology that we can implement immediately that will enable us to prevent the sort of catastrophic risks that people are so worried about. Robyn Williams: Robert Tulip, he's a convener of the Planetary Restoration Action Group, and there's a link on our Science Show website. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2022 6:55 PM To: 'Daniel Kieve' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <[email protected]>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Geoengineering Interview on ABC Science Show Hi Daniel Glad you liked the interview. Robyn Williams is very highly regarded in the Australian science community as the most longstanding balanced and informed expert on science in the media. I was very pleased to get such a prominent run on his program with a viewpoint that so severely attacks the prevailing failing political consensus on climate change, and especially in the leadup to COP27. I am sure many influential people in Australia will have heard the interview. My experience is that advocacy for solar radiation management prompts severe cognitive dissonance among climate activists. On the Gandhian scale <https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/08/13/stages/> of political engagement, it is still largely at the ‘ignore’ point, and has not yet even reached insult or attack, but I am sure we will win. I have several friends who have responded positively, and I have been invited to do a few more interviews, but in general there is little interest in dialogue. Some seem to be saying yes we know SRM is the only way to save the world, but we prefer to be liked than to be right. That is not a morally coherent view, so I hope it will be debated more. I observe climate politics with growing dismay about the pervasive inability to see that if we do not brighten the planet asap all the efforts we put into our future will come to nought. This is especially the case regarding Arctic methane, which could totally swamp all efforts at CDR and emission reduction in the absence of SRM. Albedo is our only tractable climate lever. The indefatigably prolific Andrew Lockley kindly shared the link on twitter <https://twitter.com/geoengineering1/status/1586545152444833794> , but so far my like is the only reaction to his post. If any Twitter experts are reading this I would welcome a Zoom call about the best way to promote it. People do tend to be exhausted with the volume of material on climate change, so I hope my simple advocacy can make a difference. I have never heard anyone on mass media state we should geoengineer urgently, so I am pleased to try to break new ground in this regard. In my observation many scientists tend to be cowards, lacking the courage to engage in politics and at best just supporting research on whether brightening is needed. My view is that it is obvious brightening is needed, so the research problem is how we do it, both politically and technically, not if we should. Regards Robert Tulip From: Daniel Kieve <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2022 10:32 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Planetary Restoration <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; healthy-planet-action-coalition <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Geoengineering Interview on ABC Science Show Hi Robert, Thanks for sharing the link - excellent interview with you and initially Gaia Vince too. You addressed a lot of key points thoughtfully and clearly..hopefully it raises the level interest and support for R&D into all forms of SRM - have you had much of a response yet (via ABC)? Best regards, Daniel On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 at 05:00, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) Science Show today broadcast an interview with me titled <https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/geoengineering-now-urgent/101589282> Geoengineering Now Urgent (9 minutes), and further comments from my interview at the start of the program (2 minutes). The Science Show has been presented weekly by Robyn Williams on ABC Radio National for 47 years. This is timely as COP27 prepares to convene next week. I hope the geoengineering analysis here can be discussed at COP. Today’s program (one hour) is titled Storms changing our coasts, plastic in the ocean, and a call for geoengineering. Link is <https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-science-show/14091532> https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-science-show/14091532. Here is a transcript of my comments used as the program introduction. “The reality is that climate politics has been pitched as a war between emission reduction and the fossil fuel industry, and the view is that geoengineering is on the side of the fossil fuel industries. So what it has meant is that within the climate science community there is this moral hazard concept, that people say if you take action to geoengineer the climate then you are just failing to address the real issue, which is our emissions. But let me explain. Our annual emissions are about 15 billion tonnes of carbon or 50 billion tonnes of CO2 [equivalent], but the historic emissions are more like 670 billion tonnes of carbon, pushing a trillion tonnes. So our annual emissions only worsen the problem, they add up, it is cumulative. This concept of committed warming from past emissions is really central. We have to see that this 670 billion tonnes of CO2 is what is causing the warming, its what’s causing the risk of sea level rise, and until we work out technologies that will remove this vast quantity of past emissions, then cutting our new emissions is really too small, too slow, to really make a difference. It will take us years, decades potentially, to work out how to remove all that committed warming, but we have to do it. The only thing that will stop us going over the edge – there is a great paper from a few years ago by Will Steffen and colleagues from the ANU called Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene, and it points out that we face the risk of going over a threshold into a hothouse - the only thing that will stop us from going over that threshold is brightening the planet through geoengineering.” [Note – I don’t suggest Steffen et al support geoengineering, only that in my opinion brightening the planet is the only action that can prevent a hothouse phase shift.] My earlier comments that Robyn Williams refers to in the interview are at this video - Why Increasing Albedo is More Urgent than Cutting Emissions <https://youtu.be/MzZDDjHYAnk> (16 minutes) Robert Tulip Planetary Restoration Action Group https://planetaryrestoration.net/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/024401d8eb4b%2403558340%240a0089c0%24%40rtulip.net <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/024401d8eb4b%2403558340%240a0089c0%24%40rtulip.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/3e5b01d8ee74%24049f5ec0%240dde1c40%24%40rtulip.net.
