WEBVTT
00:00:26.879 --> 00:00:40.880
Welcome to episode 18 of the Spartan Spirit Season 3, titled Rescuing Reason, where we examine topical, political, and socioeconomic issues affecting Western liberal democracies, particularly Australia, Canada, and the USA.
00:00:41.280 --> 00:00:47.600
And today we are on the third episode of a three-part series on carbon and its relationship to climate change.
00:00:47.840 --> 00:00:49.520
I'm your host, Bill Carolakis.
00:00:49.600 --> 00:00:51.679
I'm a retired senior Air Force officer.
00:00:51.840 --> 00:01:06.400
I use history and research to baseline the topics on rescuing reason, and I'll be offering you a Spartan perspective about these topics, in other words, taking a pragmatic view that values the nation and broader Western society over individual interests.
00:01:06.719 --> 00:01:15.200
A few months ago, COP 30 concluded, and that's Conference of the Parties, and Australia is leading the agenda for COP31.
00:01:15.359 --> 00:01:24.560
So this is about the right time for Australians and close allies like Canada and the US to consider what approach Australia should be taking at COP 31.
00:01:24.719 --> 00:01:27.599
And that's why we're talking about climate change today.
00:01:27.920 --> 00:01:39.359
In the first episode of this three-part series, we covered much of the climate change terminology, like COP, climate change, global warming, carbon, and carbonization of the atmosphere.
00:01:39.599 --> 00:01:46.079
We also briefly mentioned some dire consequences of continuing to pollute the Earth with ever increasing carbon emissions.
00:01:46.319 --> 00:01:57.680
In the second episode of this three-part series, we looked at those dire predictions of climate change and discussed the urgent need for all countries to deliver on greenhouse gas emission reductions.
00:01:57.920 --> 00:02:21.360
We also noted that although greenhouse gas emissions are no longer increasing annually, or at least not by much, they are not reducing, and we're headed for a 2.4 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures, which, if the scientists are correct, is going to cause a lot of damage, including making parts of the planet uninhabitable due to rising sea levels and desertification.
00:02:21.599 --> 00:02:36.159
And we can expect stronger storms, more intense rainfalls, shifting flora and fauna habitats, and mass migration on a scale the likes of which we've never seen before as people move to avoid the consequences of this global warming.
00:02:36.479 --> 00:02:47.280
Now we looked at all of this in episode two through a risk lens and concluded that basically if we do nothing, the outcomes are probably going to be more catastrophic than if we do act.
00:02:47.439 --> 00:02:56.080
So just as most governments have concluded, action is needed to mitigate the consequences of carbon emissions and rising global temperatures.
00:02:56.319 --> 00:03:01.360
And last episode I made the point that it doesn't matter whether you believe or don't believe in climate change.
00:03:01.759 --> 00:03:14.719
If you take a risk management approach, in other words, look at likelihood based on what the experts are telling you, look at consequences and how bad those consequences might be, you come up with a risk assessment.
00:03:14.879 --> 00:03:18.639
And the risk assessment in this case doesn't look good.
00:03:19.199 --> 00:03:22.960
It looks like we will probably have a really bad outcome if we do nothing.
00:03:23.439 --> 00:03:30.240
So even if you don't believe in climate change, you have to ask yourself, is it worth taking the risk on these consequences?
00:03:30.400 --> 00:03:32.719
And the consequences are pretty severe.
00:03:33.360 --> 00:03:40.800
So my conclusion is we need to at least act to mitigate the consequences just in case it happens.
00:03:41.520 --> 00:03:55.520
So most countries have actually agreed to this concept of risk management, and today we'll look at the global response through the framework of the Conference of Parties, known by the acronym COP, which is the UN framework for addressing climate change.
00:03:55.759 --> 00:04:05.840
In particular, we'll look at what happened at COP 30, which was held in late 2025, and what is planned for COP 31, which is being led by Australia but being held in Turkey.
00:04:06.080 --> 00:04:12.879
And we'll conclude today's episode with some sobering thoughts about what this all means for Western liberal democracies.
00:04:17.839 --> 00:04:26.480
To give us all a refresh on the generally accepted situation, here is Nina Sega again espousing what the world is working towards.
00:04:27.120 --> 00:04:37.120
If we are to stay within the safe operating space for ourselves and for our planet, we really do need to limit the warming to one and a half degrees.
00:04:37.279 --> 00:04:47.360
And what that means is reducing and stop using all fossil fuels and rapidly increasing investment in renewable low carbon energies like wind and solar today.
00:04:47.519 --> 00:04:53.120
What that means is cutting greenhouse gas emissions by nearly half by 2030.
00:04:53.839 --> 00:04:57.759
So given that urgency, now let's look at COP 30.
00:04:57.920 --> 00:05:06.959
And just to remind you, the Conference of Parties refers to the nations that agreed to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was signed in 1992.
00:05:07.360 --> 00:05:12.639
This was basically a treaty amongst 195 of the world's nations to address global warming.
00:05:12.879 --> 00:05:19.839
The parties to that convention agreed to meet annually at events called the Conference of Parties, hence the term COP.
00:05:20.319 --> 00:05:28.800
And to give us a sense of what these COPs have achieved, and some comments on COP30, here is Akshat Rathi from Bloomberg giving us a rundown.
00:05:29.439 --> 00:05:34.160
We are going into COP 30, so there will have been 30 events by the end of this year.
00:05:34.399 --> 00:05:36.800
It is progress, but progress happens slowly.
00:05:36.959 --> 00:05:44.079
So perhaps the biggest COP is COP21, that happened in 2015, that gave us the Paris Agreement.
00:05:44.319 --> 00:06:00.720
And it was a remarkable COP because until that point, it hadn't been the case that all countries in the world agreed that climate change is a problem and that we must address it, and then set real hard targets on what level of warming should the world keep global warming below.
00:06:01.040 --> 00:06:04.000
There have been further events that have happened since.
00:06:04.160 --> 00:06:12.959
So the Paris Agreement itself was a 15-page PDF written in plain English, giving you a direction for where the world was going.
00:06:13.120 --> 00:06:25.199
But since then, until now, COP meetings were all about making sure that those words could be turned into rules and actions that would allow the world to keep global warming in check.
00:06:25.519 --> 00:06:36.240
So at COP26 in Glasgow, we had the first mention of coal and a goal that countries would start to phase out coal.
00:06:36.560 --> 00:06:44.879
At COP28 in Dubai, we had a first mention of fossil fuels and a commitment from all countries to transition away from fossil fuels.
00:06:45.199 --> 00:06:57.120
This is important to note because it might seem silly that after 25 years of talking, they finally mentioned fossil fuels, which are the primary cause of global warming.
00:06:57.439 --> 00:07:03.199
But at these negotiations, all countries are present, even the fossil fuel producers.
00:07:03.360 --> 00:07:14.000
And so you need to get them convinced to get them on board to actually have an agreement where people can then go back home and start to turn those agreements into actions.
00:07:14.160 --> 00:07:16.000
So it's taken a long time.
00:07:16.160 --> 00:07:27.600
And I suppose the biggest achievement is that the world was on track for about four degrees Celsius of warming compared to pre-industrial times before 2015, before the Paris Agreement was signed.
00:07:27.839 --> 00:07:33.040
And this year, we are looking at 2.5 to 2.7 degrees Celsius of warming.
00:07:33.279 --> 00:07:40.079
Still too much, but we've shaved up one to 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming from the worst-case scenarios.
00:07:40.240 --> 00:07:42.240
And that is the greatest achievement.
00:07:42.399 --> 00:07:55.759
And even if the progress seems slow, and it is slow, especially for the most vulnerable countries, the fact that countries meet every year is an indication that they are at least willing to work towards that problem.
00:07:56.240 --> 00:08:04.399
So that latest COP or COP 30 was held in Bellum, Brazil from the 6th to the 18th of November in 2025.
00:08:04.879 --> 00:08:20.560
COPS normally attract leaders from around the world, and COP30 was attended by leaders such as UK's Keir Stomer, France's Emmanuel Macron, Germany's Friedrich Merz, Brazil's Luis Inizio, Lula da Silva.
00:08:20.800 --> 00:08:25.519
But notably, China's President Z and US President Trump were absent.
00:08:25.680 --> 00:08:31.839
And the US didn't send any national officials to the conference, at least not any high-level representation.
00:08:32.159 --> 00:08:36.720
The reason the US didn't send a senior delegation is that under Donald Trump, the U.S.
00:08:36.879 --> 00:08:47.919
has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, which to remind you was the COP that set the benchmark for seeking to keep global temperature rise under 1.5 Celsius over pre-industrial levels.
00:08:48.240 --> 00:08:50.240
So what did COP 30 achieve?
00:08:50.480 --> 00:08:56.080
Let's start with some words from Alexandra Scott of the Italian Climate Think Tank Eco Climate.
00:08:56.799 --> 00:09:02.240
The purpose of these COPs is to reach compromise amongst 195 different countries.
00:09:02.399 --> 00:09:06.240
The US hasn't turned up here, so we have 194 different countries.
00:09:06.480 --> 00:09:10.399
They all come here with very different interests that they want to defend.
00:09:10.639 --> 00:09:20.320
We are seeing some of the more oil-dependent economies try to delay the action and the conversations that can be had here on how to reduce emissions faster.
00:09:20.559 --> 00:09:31.919
We've got, for example, Europe pushing strongly for the COP to agree how countries will reduce that gap in emissions reduction that the latest round of NBCs are showing we're going to be left with.
00:09:32.080 --> 00:09:39.200
And we're seeing other countries less inclined, for example, Saudi Arabia less inclined to agree with that approach.
00:09:39.440 --> 00:09:45.519
We're seeing vulnerable developing countries really wanting to have more discussions on climate finance.
00:09:45.679 --> 00:09:53.120
And that's where some of the developed countries are less inclined to agree on how to really accelerate those conversations.
00:09:53.919 --> 00:09:59.919
In addition to the points raised by Alexandra, COP30 was characterized by a few initiatives.
00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:04.559
And these include, at centre stage, the term adaptation.
00:10:05.120 --> 00:10:14.240
We'll start with a broad overview of some of the concepts being looked at as adaptation by listening to Professor Nick Brooks of the Imperial College of London.
00:10:14.720 --> 00:10:20.879
When we're thinking about adaptation, mostly people are, you know, at best adapting to climate as it is.
00:10:21.039 --> 00:10:29.120
Now the climate is evolving and changing, but there's very actually very little focus on how people adapt and prepare for the changes that may be coming.
00:10:29.360 --> 00:10:35.840
So there's very, very little ambition and very, very little attention to what could be large and even existential risks.
00:10:35.919 --> 00:10:45.519
You know, we have all these projections of wet bulb temperatures that may be unsurvived by human beings in the middle of the century and onwards in large parts of the world that home hundreds of millions of people.
00:10:45.759 --> 00:10:47.440
I think very few people are thinking about that.
00:10:47.519 --> 00:10:50.639
And that is an existential risk to these populations and areas.
00:10:50.879 --> 00:11:11.600
So we need a massive step up in ambition to go from this sort of incremental approach to adaptation where we're trying to sort of protect what we've got by doing measures that we are already familiar with, for example, a bit more irrigation, you know, changing planting times or whatever of crops, to really think about well, how do we sort of survive if we can't do what we're doing now in the future because of climate change?
00:11:11.759 --> 00:11:22.559
So that sort of transformational adaptation when you have to abandon or replace a current system or practice with something new because the novel climate conditions won't allow you to do what you're doing now.
00:11:22.720 --> 00:11:31.279
And that might also include abandoning certain areas, relocation, uh, resettlement, relocation of economic activity, infrastructure, populations, and so on.
00:11:31.360 --> 00:11:33.519
And this is really, really challenging stuff.
00:11:33.840 --> 00:11:37.039
Now, some of this comes under the umbrella of resilience.
00:11:37.200 --> 00:11:49.600
And the terms adaptation and resilience in a warming planet are sometimes mixed up, but basically, adapting to climate change is one of the resilience strategies being considered to deal with global warming.
00:11:49.840 --> 00:12:00.080
And now here we have Professor Paul O'Hare of Manchester Metropolitan University talking about resilience, much of which is that subset I mentioned of adaptation.
00:12:00.720 --> 00:12:11.039
Resilience refers to the ability of a system like a city, a community, or even an ecosystem to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from climate-related shocks and stresses.
00:12:11.600 --> 00:12:14.960
Sometimes people say resilience is about returning to a pre-shock state.
00:12:15.440 --> 00:12:16.159
Returning to normal.
00:12:16.720 --> 00:12:21.759
Resilience needs to be more than it's not just about surviving the next story, whatever it may be.
00:12:22.080 --> 00:12:26.480
It should be about adapting, evolving, and thriving in a change of the easy.
00:12:26.639 --> 00:12:33.200
Resilience means to be building smaller, it means designing homes to take cooler roads that don't use away and flow.
00:12:36.720 --> 00:12:46.720
It's also about truly resilience is accessable to ensures that everyone, regardless of income in your body, survives on the thrive in an uncertain way.
00:12:50.720 --> 00:12:57.679
It's about cleaning ahead and using science, local knowledge, and innovation to reduce recipe for disaster strike.
00:12:58.399 --> 00:13:06.720
From restoring wetlands to clean cities and absorbing floods to creating early warning systems for heat waves and alleviating poverty in some of our most vulnerable communities.
00:13:07.200 --> 00:13:11.440
Climate resilience is about weaving strength into the very fabric of our world.
00:13:12.240 --> 00:13:13.039
No doubt about it.
00:13:13.360 --> 00:13:14.240
The climate is changing.
00:13:21.600 --> 00:13:30.159
We should also note that adaptation strategies can also be considered risk mitigation, which we discussed in the second part of this series.
00:13:30.399 --> 00:13:37.120
In other words, doing things before and after we suffer a negative consequence like global warming.
00:13:37.360 --> 00:13:44.399
In support of adaptation, the nations agreed to set a target to triple adaptation financing by 2035.
00:13:44.639 --> 00:13:48.559
This is to help vulnerable nations to implement adaptation strategies.
00:13:48.960 --> 00:13:55.279
Here we have Professor Lisa Schipper of Bonn University talking about adaptation finances in COP30.
00:13:55.759 --> 00:14:01.200
We're still having these meetings because at the end of the day, it's the only place where we can discuss these issues.
00:14:01.360 --> 00:14:06.320
We're not going to give up, even if it's at 1.51, 1.52.
00:14:06.399 --> 00:14:07.200
We can't give up.
00:14:07.279 --> 00:14:08.399
There's too much at stake.
00:14:08.480 --> 00:14:12.080
It's thousands and millions of people whose lives would be lost.
00:14:12.320 --> 00:14:14.080
You can ask yourself, is it worth it?
00:14:14.159 --> 00:14:16.159
There's so many people, there's a lot of money.
00:14:16.480 --> 00:14:26.080
You know, the climate convention at its roots, it started about reducing emissions, but also compensation for the impacts to those countries in global south that are the most affected.
00:14:26.159 --> 00:14:29.759
So it is kind of a core tenant in the convention.
00:14:30.159 --> 00:14:34.720
Pass forward, we have so many climate impacts that we really need to think about adaptation.
00:14:34.879 --> 00:14:40.879
And one of the big discussions of every single COP is how much funding is going to be available for adaptation.
00:14:41.279 --> 00:14:43.679
This COLP is dubbed the adaptation call.
00:14:44.240 --> 00:14:56.240
And the idea here is that we can actually get some clear indicators so that we can see what is funding, is adaptation funding working, but also I think increased commitment for increased funding on adaptation.
00:14:57.840 --> 00:15:04.960
There was an agreement that developed countries would give developing countries$300 billion a year for climate finance.
00:15:05.120 --> 00:15:10.159
And this, you know, is just for everything, not just adaptation, it's also for mitigation.
00:15:10.480 --> 00:15:30.639
If you look at the latest report, the latest adaptation depth report, you see that just for adaptation, it's estimated that developing countries need an annual amount of$310 to$365 billion by 2035, which is about 12 to 14 times as much as the current finance.
00:15:31.039 --> 00:15:34.960
But actually, developing countries are demanding$1.3 trillion.
00:15:35.120 --> 00:15:46.000
So a far larger sum, which I think probably won't even that be enough because it really requires fundamental transformation of systems, which is going to cost a lot more.
00:15:46.480 --> 00:15:54.559
They did agree, and it's it's on record that they have this 1.3 trillion, that they're having the pathway to get toward that amount of money.
00:15:54.639 --> 00:16:05.120
And so they do have a little bit of leeway to be able to pressure the developed countries to provide funding, which I think is critical because it gives them the space to continue to demand for this money.
00:16:05.440 --> 00:16:18.000
I also want to note a recent report from ActionAid that pointed out that climate finance is not really being used for the things that the people on the ground really want it, that there are other people who are deciding what the finance is for.
00:16:18.159 --> 00:16:20.720
So even that part of it we need to look at critically.
00:16:21.279 --> 00:16:31.440
The financial commitments that Lisa just mentioned was embodied by COP30 in something called the Mutaro decision, which is an agreement that the cost should be borne across the planet.
00:16:31.600 --> 00:16:45.759
Specifically, it aims to scale up climate finance to at least US$1.3 trillion per year by 2035, and includes commitments to triple adaptation finance by that same year.
00:16:46.000 --> 00:16:54.960
However, the language used in the final report was very loose, and there was much resistance to setting firm targets for each nation.
00:16:55.360 --> 00:17:07.680
COP 30 also saw the launch of financial initiatives, including the establishment of a new tropical forest fund now at$6.6 billion to support conservation efforts.
00:17:08.000 --> 00:17:19.119
In addition to adaptation, there was some discussion at COP 30 about actually doing something, which the delegates framed as acceleration of implementation initiatives.
00:17:19.440 --> 00:17:26.319
In part, this refers to those nationally determined contributions I talked about in the last episode or NDCs.
00:17:26.640 --> 00:17:30.799
Basically, an NDC is a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
00:17:31.039 --> 00:17:36.240
At COP thirty, there was agreements on enhancing nationally determined contributions.
00:17:36.480 --> 00:17:46.480
And in the lead up to COP thirty, over 122 countries representing about 80% of global emissions updated their NDCs with more ambitious goals.
00:17:46.720 --> 00:17:54.480
Notably, the EU committed to cutting greenhouse gases by up to 72% by 2035 compared to 1990 levels.
00:17:54.640 --> 00:18:00.160
Countries like Brazil, Japan, and South Africa stepped up with strengthening their climate commitments.
00:18:00.480 --> 00:18:05.359
But we need to recognize two hard truths about these NDCs.
00:18:05.680 --> 00:18:19.039
Collectively, the commitments only add up to reducing carbon emissions by fifteen percent of the amount being sought by the UN to maintain global warming below one point five Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
00:18:19.599 --> 00:18:24.160
And we know that most nations will not meet those commitments.
00:18:24.480 --> 00:18:26.480
So what are we going to call it?
00:18:26.640 --> 00:18:28.400
Say ten percent at best?
00:18:29.039 --> 00:18:41.920
Even if all those countries achieve all of their commitments, the rise is still forecast to be around two point five Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which, if it comes to pass, is quite frankly woeful.
00:18:42.240 --> 00:18:46.799
And that is a catastrophic outcome that we need to be mitigating against.
00:18:47.519 --> 00:18:54.319
The cynical side of me thinks both of these concepts, so adaptation and the NDCs are just more lip service.
00:18:54.480 --> 00:18:55.759
Wah wah wah.
00:18:56.160 --> 00:19:06.640
Unfortunately, in addition to the recognition that we human beings are collectively failing to meet our targets, there are more glass half empty issues that came out of COP thirty.
00:19:06.960 --> 00:19:15.039
One of those is the perennial sticking points about fossil fuel nations and how hard they push back on these negotiations.
00:19:15.279 --> 00:19:21.519
And you have to wonder how much bias was introduced into COP thirty by the backers of green energy as well.
00:19:21.839 --> 00:19:29.839
So you've got competing demands based on which commercial sector you're talking about, and they're influencing our politicians.
00:19:30.319 --> 00:19:35.440
We can always lean back on the old adage, if you want to know what's going on, just follow the money.
00:19:35.680 --> 00:19:43.519
At least COP30 did continue the discussion about the risks associated with global warming and refined the numbers being thrown about.
00:19:49.200 --> 00:19:57.839
So our leaders are saying the right things by signing up to plans, education, and some changes to CO2 emission management.
00:19:58.079 --> 00:20:03.359
But of course, our politicians are pole driven, and businesses are profit driven.
00:20:03.519 --> 00:20:07.599
And what is in the media matters because it influences both of these.
00:20:07.839 --> 00:20:14.160
Here are a couple of examples of the type of misinformation that is distorting the discussion in this area.
00:20:14.400 --> 00:20:16.400
Let's start with a business focus.
00:20:16.559 --> 00:20:23.039
It relates to carbon capture technology called direct air capture, or DAC for short, that the U.S.
00:20:23.119 --> 00:20:24.880
Department of Energy is investing in.
00:20:25.119 --> 00:20:36.960
You can read about that in an MIT article by James Temple called The US Just Invested More Than a Billion Dollars to Kickstart the Carbon Removal Market, and that's in the MIT Technology Review.
00:20:37.200 --> 00:20:42.240
These DAC plants suck CO2 out of the air and store the carbon.
00:20:42.400 --> 00:20:51.119
There are several operating already, notably a huge one in Iceland, but they require government funding because they're expensive and they're not profitable.
00:20:51.359 --> 00:20:58.960
The US alone would need about 10,000 of them to remove their share of today's carbon footprint.
00:20:59.200 --> 00:21:06.319
And MIT's estimate says it would cost the US about a trillion dollars to remove its CO2 emissions this way.
00:21:06.480 --> 00:21:14.000
And that's only if they can get the cost down to below$100 a ton, and right now it's sitting around$140 a ton.
00:21:14.319 --> 00:21:18.319
DAC is part of the solution, but it's not the entire solution.
00:21:18.559 --> 00:21:24.400
Despite the fact that DAC isn't going to be the golden bullet, now get ready for this.
00:21:24.720 --> 00:21:30.319
Exxon's CEO, Darren Woods, totally supports this technology.
00:21:30.559 --> 00:21:39.920
In an interview he gave with CNBC, he freely admitted that he likes this technology because it would allow the oil industry to remain profitable.
00:21:40.160 --> 00:21:43.759
In other words, to keep burning fossil fuels.
00:21:44.079 --> 00:21:49.200
He said, quote, that to my mind is the holy grail, unquote.
00:21:49.519 --> 00:21:51.519
Well of course it is, Darren.
00:21:51.680 --> 00:21:54.400
Talk about a self centered approach.
00:21:54.720 --> 00:21:58.240
Be careful when you read about binary views like this.
00:21:58.480 --> 00:21:59.680
There is no holy grail.
00:22:00.319 --> 00:22:08.240
And carbon emission reduction, and always ask yourself about the person's motivation, which for Woods is clearly profit.
00:22:08.559 --> 00:22:13.440
There are also a number of websites around supporting climate change denial.
00:22:13.599 --> 00:22:34.000
Two examples Galileo in Australia, it's a terrible website, but it's there, whose patron is Alan Jones, and he's a sensationalist reporter, and co2science.org, which is run by a fellow named Craig Idso, who, by the way, gets paid by Exxon to write anti-climate change papers.
00:22:34.319 --> 00:22:41.920
ITSO also happens to be a member of Heartsland, which is an organization that denies the link between cigarette smoking and cancer.
00:22:42.240 --> 00:22:43.119
Enough said.
00:22:43.759 --> 00:22:45.599
Be careful what you read.
00:22:45.920 --> 00:22:50.880
And some of those climate change deniers can be quite influential.
00:22:51.119 --> 00:22:57.440
In the United Kingdom, there was the recently passed away Lord Lawson who was quite vocal on climate change denial.
00:22:57.680 --> 00:23:00.880
And here's the big one, Donald Trump in the US.
00:23:01.119 --> 00:23:02.960
He's got amazing reach.
00:23:03.200 --> 00:23:09.920
Again, ask yourself what their motivation is for quoting incorrect statistics, such as sea level rise numbers.
00:23:10.079 --> 00:23:17.440
For example, Trump has repeatedly said that it will take 300 years for sea levels to rise one eighth of an inch.
00:23:17.680 --> 00:23:22.079
Yet that's how much they're rising annually, which is three millimeters.
00:23:22.400 --> 00:23:28.400
He's using that incorrect statistic to argue against the need for reducing carbon emissions.
00:23:28.640 --> 00:23:38.799
In this way, he's able to support coal extraction and the burning of coal, which means jobs for poor areas of the United States, and therefore more votes.
00:23:39.119 --> 00:23:42.480
You can also find similar connections for other deniers.
00:23:42.720 --> 00:23:45.920
For example, Lawson was connected to Exxon.
00:23:46.240 --> 00:23:54.160
Fortunately, the claims of websites and high-profile people are often refuted in reputable sources, and let's just hope they keep doing that.
00:23:54.319 --> 00:24:04.720
One such example was in Scientific American, which directly challenged Galileo's claims in an article they published called Why Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
00:24:04.880 --> 00:24:05.920
It's a good read.
00:24:06.160 --> 00:24:11.680
I'm not passing judgment on the predictions about what might happen if we don't reduce carbon emissions.
00:24:11.920 --> 00:24:13.599
But I am a risk manager.
00:24:13.759 --> 00:24:20.240
I weigh up evidence, look at the likely outcomes, the mitigations available, and the consequences.
00:24:20.720 --> 00:24:23.680
And I hope you will also be a risk manager.
00:24:23.759 --> 00:24:36.160
And to remind you of the basics of that risk calculation, I'm going to replay a snippet from episode two of Professor Tim Polner of Oxford, in which he summarizes the risk calculation we are all facing.
00:24:36.720 --> 00:24:54.640
Now, the one thing that climate models are have been quite unequivocal about is actually that if we continue to emit CO2 as we are doing now, then by 2100, you know, the most likely amount of global warming might be three or four degrees.
00:24:54.880 --> 00:25:00.640
We know from these ensembles of integrations that there is a tail which goes out to more than that.
00:25:00.720 --> 00:25:03.920
It could go out to six or seven or even more than that degrees.
00:25:04.160 --> 00:25:08.400
Now, for anyone who knows their climatology, that really is catastrophic.
00:25:08.640 --> 00:25:13.440
So the politicians in principle have that, have enough information to make that decision.
00:25:13.519 --> 00:25:24.319
So the fact there is this threat, this risk, not only of very undesirable levels of climate change, but actually catastrophic levels of climate change, the risk is quite clear.
00:25:24.400 --> 00:25:28.240
And the only way to reduce that risk is to reduce our emissions.
00:25:28.559 --> 00:25:36.960
Even if we cut our emissions to zero tomorrow, we've already put into the climate system a certain amount of climate change that will continue.
00:25:37.119 --> 00:25:42.720
Now we're not going to cut our emissions tomorrow, but we're going to carry on for sure for many decades to come.
00:25:42.960 --> 00:25:46.079
And so we are faced with a changing climate.
00:25:46.400 --> 00:25:51.759
Do we have enough evidence to make a decision about cutting our carbon emissions?
00:25:52.160 --> 00:25:59.519
You know, it's like every decision you make in life, you don't necessarily have to know exactly what's going to happen to make that decision.
00:25:59.680 --> 00:26:06.559
You have to know the threat that you're facing and whether the decision is justified given that threat.
00:26:07.119 --> 00:26:34.319
If you agree with Professor Palmer, and I do when it comes to the notion of treating this like a risk, in fact, a risk that entails a catastrophic consequence that we do not want to realize, then you should be backing the notion that we, at the very least, need to put mitigation strategies in place to control the climate change risk because getting it wrong is just not something we want to live through.
00:26:39.279 --> 00:26:48.720
As a member of a liberal democracy, you have a vote, and you have the individual right to express your opinion, well, at least on most things.
00:26:49.039 --> 00:26:55.759
And that begs the question, what can you do to influence this climate change risk response?
00:26:56.000 --> 00:27:03.839
And in particular, if you're an Australian, how do you influence your leaders as they consider how to run COP 31?
00:27:04.079 --> 00:27:08.240
And I need to caution Australians here, you need to be wary.
00:27:08.480 --> 00:27:17.119
Your Albanese government will be looking to use COP31 to shore up regional support from Pacific Island nations for regional defense.
00:27:17.200 --> 00:27:21.440
And they're going to do that by supporting those islands in their climate change agenda.
00:27:21.599 --> 00:27:27.279
And yes, those Pacific Islands are going to be adversely impacted by climate change.
00:27:27.599 --> 00:27:40.319
But I think Australia is going to use this opportunity to pander to those Pacific Island climate change concerns, thereby expecting a little bit of payback in terms of aligning with Australia's defense.
00:27:40.480 --> 00:27:50.319
Now that's a good local regional strategy that Australia could implement, and it achieves another strategy that Australia needs to be concerned about, and that's regional defense.
00:27:50.640 --> 00:27:59.519
But I have to say it's misguided because COP31 needs to be about the bigger picture, and that's the health of the planet.
00:27:59.839 --> 00:28:08.880
I also expect Australia's government to pander to the climate concerns of its Aboriginal population, and this is even less relevant in relation to global warming.
00:28:09.119 --> 00:28:19.839
So both of these issues, the regional climate change agenda and Aboriginal concerns, are distractions from the global warming problem.
00:28:20.079 --> 00:28:27.119
And I sincerely hope that Australia doesn't squander its chance to be a global leader here so that it can chase votes for the next election.
00:28:27.359 --> 00:28:34.400
The same goes for key allies of Australia, like Canada and the US, in terms of getting their agenda on the table.
00:28:34.640 --> 00:28:41.599
They should work with Australia to address global concerns while considering Western liberal democratic ideals.
00:28:42.000 --> 00:28:45.279
And remember, we Western liberal democracies are under threat.
00:28:45.519 --> 00:28:54.559
COP thirty one represents an opportunity to influence the global south towards aligning with the global north more so than they have been in recent years.
00:28:54.880 --> 00:28:58.720
With all this in mind, I would like you to consider the following.
00:28:59.039 --> 00:29:08.400
I accept that there is a risk of catastrophic meltdown of ice on the planet, starvation, storm damage, flora and fauna extinctions, and mass migration.
00:29:08.720 --> 00:29:11.599
And yep, that's the doomsday scenario.
00:29:12.000 --> 00:29:14.880
But this is a risk I'm not willing to accept.
00:29:15.119 --> 00:29:18.079
There isn't consensus on exactly what to do.
00:29:18.319 --> 00:29:22.480
It's kind of like flying an airplane, thinking that the landing gear isn't working.
00:29:22.720 --> 00:29:26.400
You can't actually see if the landing gear is down or not.
00:29:26.880 --> 00:29:30.240
But we're going to try and land it normally anyway in the hope that it is.
00:29:30.480 --> 00:29:41.119
And if it isn't down, which is what the scientists are telling us is going to happen, the result would be almost certain death for a whole bunch of people on that airplane, and in our case on planet Earth.
00:29:41.440 --> 00:29:44.559
You just can't pretend that everything's okay.
00:29:44.720 --> 00:29:47.359
We have to do something to mitigate those risks.
00:29:47.519 --> 00:29:56.240
There isn't consensus on exactly what to do, nor are nations around the world doing everything they can, but you can do two things.
00:29:56.480 --> 00:30:00.480
Firstly, vote, and secondly, write to your politicians.
00:30:00.720 --> 00:30:02.720
And I for one intend to write.
00:30:02.960 --> 00:30:08.000
And I'll be addressing four general areas, which I think need a whole hell of a lot more effort.
00:30:08.240 --> 00:30:20.079
These are drawn from a paper written by American, Australian, and Chinese academics called Meet the Challenges in the Carbon Age, which you can find on the Springer Link website, which is a German research paper hosting website.
00:30:20.240 --> 00:30:21.680
Here we go, the four items.
00:30:21.839 --> 00:30:25.039
Number one, develop carbon based materials.
00:30:25.359 --> 00:30:31.519
In other words, let's use more carbon in our infrastructure instead of allowing it to be a waste product.
00:30:31.759 --> 00:30:43.119
Two, find ways to manipulate the carbon cycle to increase the carbon sink capacity of ecosystems and to find ways to recycle carbon resources.
00:30:43.359 --> 00:30:45.599
Planting trees is one such example.
00:30:45.759 --> 00:30:47.519
But it's not the only solution.
00:30:47.839 --> 00:30:51.839
Three, develop green energy and sustainable systems.
00:30:52.079 --> 00:30:54.880
We need to look at food and biomass.
00:30:55.119 --> 00:31:04.799
We need to look at carbon emission, we've got to reduce pollution, and we need to replace fossil energy and materials that create carbon waste.
00:31:05.039 --> 00:31:12.559
And lastly, we must create an economic and societal framework that supports carbon emission reductions.
00:31:12.799 --> 00:31:17.920
We need infrastructure and methods to manage the carbon, for example, by storing it.
00:31:18.079 --> 00:31:25.839
We need societal standards and policies that set limits on our carbon footprints, in other words, mandating electric vehicles.
00:31:26.079 --> 00:31:30.160
Although I drive a classic car and I wouldn't be a big fan of that.
00:31:30.400 --> 00:31:44.480
Additionally, a carbon tax or carbon emission trading and carbon accounting, all of these frameworks and policy settings will help set the stage for carbon emission reductions, and we haven't quite got there yet with the policy settings.
00:31:44.720 --> 00:31:48.880
It's time for you to get informed and play your part in this issue.
00:31:49.119 --> 00:31:55.599
Ask yourself, will you be part of the same problem or will you act to stem carbon emissions?
00:31:55.839 --> 00:31:57.440
Are you gonna buy an EV?
00:31:57.599 --> 00:31:59.599
Are you gonna eat everything you buy?
00:31:59.839 --> 00:32:01.279
Are you gonna turn your lights off?
00:32:01.440 --> 00:32:03.200
Are you gonna leave the air conditioner off?
00:32:03.359 --> 00:32:04.640
Are you gonna walk to work?
00:32:04.799 --> 00:32:09.200
Or better yet, are you gonna vote for policies that make meaningful change?
00:32:09.759 --> 00:32:12.000
Which brings me to the conclusion.
00:32:12.160 --> 00:32:21.039
I must say I'm at a loss as to what we in Western liberal democracies, or perhaps we should be talking about the global north in general, should do about global warming.
00:32:21.359 --> 00:32:33.680
We citizens in wealthier nations aren't going to give up our high power economies, our energy guzzling vehicles and electronic components, nor our house heating or cooling systems.
00:32:34.000 --> 00:32:52.319
Nor are we likely to see our Western Democratic governments mandate wholesale emissions reductions through 90% emission cuts, and that's what it would take, apparently, carbon taxes, nor curtailment of the trade in fossil fuels, and we aren't going to impact our economies by funding green solutions for other nations to any significant degree.
00:32:52.559 --> 00:33:05.519
At the same time, we in the global north, the wealthier Western nations, can hardly sit here and wag our fingers at the global south and tell them to cut emissions by 90% while we don't do the same.
00:33:05.759 --> 00:33:17.359
So long as the Earth's population is increasing in the global south, their way to prosperity and a higher standard of living is through increasing their energy consumption, not reducing it by 90%.
00:33:18.319 --> 00:33:22.960
Much of their increase will come from fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
00:33:23.200 --> 00:33:27.279
Putting all this back into risk language, it's all code for get ready.
00:33:27.680 --> 00:33:39.200
Global warming is the likely consequence of our actions, and in fact we're probably already there, and we are now probably going to suffer the catastrophic consequences of our collective inaction.
00:33:39.440 --> 00:33:47.200
We have not managed this risk properly, and if I was speaking to my team about managing risk, I'd summarize this in one simple phrase.
00:33:47.519 --> 00:33:48.960
This is a fail.
00:33:49.680 --> 00:33:53.279
And for you climate skeptics out there, sure.
00:33:53.519 --> 00:33:57.039
If we get really lucky, we won't realize the risk.
00:33:57.279 --> 00:34:03.519
But that is only a hope, especially in the face of all that science, and hope is not a strategy.
00:34:04.160 --> 00:34:20.000
As prudent pilots of planets Earth, we need to think about just how we are going to steer our planets to adapt to and mitigate the worst of the potential consequences while at the same time striving to correct the probable cause, which is greenhouse gas emissions.
00:34:20.400 --> 00:34:30.400
I see three overarching ways in which we liberal democratic societies can help our own cause and to promote our leadership on this planet in managing global warming.
00:34:30.639 --> 00:34:34.000
Firstly, we need corporate citizenship.
00:34:34.239 --> 00:34:48.000
I'd love to see a wholesale restructuring of our economic framework to force our commercial leaders and entities to become global citizens ahead of being beholden to profit making for their stockholders, but that's just not realistic.
00:34:48.239 --> 00:34:52.639
Instead, I'll speak to you, the owner or the employee.
00:34:52.960 --> 00:35:05.119
If you work at a company that emits fossil fuels or depends on a supply chain that adds to greenhouse gas emissions, and that's most of you, talk to your team about what you might do to reduce that dependency.
00:35:05.440 --> 00:35:06.719
Find a way.
00:35:07.840 --> 00:35:11.599
Secondly, your government's policies matter.
00:35:12.000 --> 00:35:29.920
I get that you probably don't want to cut your driving by ninety percent or limit your household non-renewable electrical access to two hours a day, or entirely sacrifice your high standard of living to pay for adaptation, but as a member of a democratic society, what you can do is influence your government.
00:35:30.159 --> 00:35:35.760
Don't suffer the malaise of the modern liberal democrats who feels their vote is next to useless.
00:35:36.000 --> 00:35:46.960
Sure, politicians are beholden to big business, but although they may not care too much about your individual vote, they do pay attention to voters' sentiments as portrayed in the media.
00:35:47.280 --> 00:35:57.440
So write to your politician and copy your letter to a journalist, particularly your local member, your environment minister, and your local newspaper.
00:35:57.760 --> 00:36:10.639
Figure out what you want your government to do, whether that's an aggressive decline in carbon emissions, curtailing the trade in fossil fuels, helping other nations, or something simpler like legislating the use of green energy.
00:36:10.880 --> 00:36:16.559
Whatever you want them to do, communicate this to your politician by writing letters.
00:36:16.880 --> 00:36:33.599
This communication matters because otherwise politicians will bend towards the other influences they have, which are big business and economic growth for the sake of votes, both of which are biased towards making a buck out of the situation instead of having the planet Earth as their motivation.
00:36:34.079 --> 00:36:37.199
And finally, consider your way of living.
00:36:37.440 --> 00:36:42.159
I, for one, drive a gas guzzling 1972 V8's classic car.
00:36:42.400 --> 00:36:47.440
I don't have solar panels on my roof, and I use heating and air conditioning whenever I want.
00:36:47.679 --> 00:36:51.039
Looking at my circumstances, I'm part of the problem.
00:36:51.440 --> 00:36:54.719
Perhaps an EV or solar panels could be my contribution.
00:36:54.960 --> 00:36:59.679
Maybe yours is similar, or maybe you'll switch to plant based meats instead of cow meat.
00:36:59.840 --> 00:37:03.119
Or maybe you'll get a solar hot water heater, whatever.
00:37:03.360 --> 00:37:06.719
Just do something because it all adds up.
00:37:07.199 --> 00:37:10.880
The other thing you need to do is consider adaptation.
00:37:11.440 --> 00:37:16.320
Do you live in a flood prone area, maybe near a forest that might burn one day?
00:37:16.639 --> 00:37:21.599
Or are you in an industry that will be affected by rising temperatures, say farming?
00:37:21.840 --> 00:37:27.039
If you are, I suggest you consider how your business or living conditions need to change.
00:37:27.280 --> 00:37:39.360
Don't wait until your beautiful beachfront home is being swallowed up by the sea, or your riverside home is gone under three times in the past five years, or your farm soil is turning to sand, move now.
00:37:40.239 --> 00:37:45.039
If you're thinking about a new car, maybe it's an EV, maybe you're thinking about solar.
00:37:45.199 --> 00:37:47.440
If so, change now.
00:37:48.239 --> 00:37:50.079
Do something now.
00:37:50.880 --> 00:38:02.480
If we in the Western liberal democracies make these sorts of changes, then we can stand up at COP thirty one led by Australia and prod our global South friends to do the same.
00:38:02.800 --> 00:38:07.119
That is the path to success in terms of mitigating the risk.
00:38:07.599 --> 00:38:11.920
It won't stop the catastrophe from happening, but we can at least slow it.
00:38:12.000 --> 00:38:15.519
And it's just prudent risk management to do that.
00:38:15.760 --> 00:38:25.360
And if I'm gonna rescue any reason in this podcast, I think the reason that needs rescuing is that all of us have got to face this reality.
00:38:25.599 --> 00:38:30.719
We cannot keep doing the same thing and expecting that things are gonna get better.
00:38:30.800 --> 00:38:32.159
They just aren't.
00:38:32.559 --> 00:38:36.960
Reason has been missing in climate change risk management.
00:38:37.199 --> 00:38:43.599
Everyone keeps identifying the problem, but the mitigation has been lackluster.
00:38:44.000 --> 00:38:47.920
Yeah, sure, a few solar panels here and there, some wind farms here and there.
00:38:48.000 --> 00:38:51.760
If you want to get serious about electrification, everybody needs to go nuclear.
00:38:52.000 --> 00:38:55.920
And I don't mean just a few, I mean a lot of nuclear power plants.
00:38:56.239 --> 00:38:57.440
Have a look at France.
00:38:57.519 --> 00:38:59.440
They are 80% powered by nuclear.
00:38:59.519 --> 00:39:02.639
They saw this coming a long time ago and they've done the right thing.
00:39:02.960 --> 00:39:13.360
Countries like Australia, who which they have their head in the sand over nuclear power, they need to wake up because wind farms and solar are not going to be the entire solution.
00:39:13.599 --> 00:39:17.519
And the same goes for many other wealthy countries.
00:39:17.760 --> 00:39:24.480
We need to act, we need to act fast so that we don't realize those catastrophic risks.
00:39:24.960 --> 00:39:29.199
So in summary, the reason that we need is action.
00:39:29.760 --> 00:39:32.559
Action to mitigate those risks.
00:39:33.199 --> 00:39:39.199
Thanks for listening to this three-part series on global warming, carbon carbon emissions, and climate change.
00:39:39.440 --> 00:39:47.280
Aside from the potential for World War III, climate change risks represent the defining issue of the next generation.
00:39:47.519 --> 00:39:48.960
It really matters.
00:39:49.199 --> 00:39:53.599
So spread the word, and if you enjoyed the podcast, please recommend it to a friend.
00:39:53.760 --> 00:39:56.320
Until next time, safe landings.
00:00:26.879 --> 00:00:40.880
Welcome to episode 18 of the Spartan Spirit Season 3, titled Rescuing Reason, where we examine topical, political, and socioeconomic issues affecting Western liberal democracies, particularly Australia, Canada, and the USA.
00:00:41.280 --> 00:00:47.600
And today we are on the third episode of a three-part series on carbon and its relationship to climate change.
00:00:47.840 --> 00:00:49.520
I'm your host, Bill Carolakis.
00:00:49.600 --> 00:00:51.679
I'm a retired senior Air Force officer.
00:00:51.840 --> 00:01:06.400
I use history and research to baseline the topics on rescuing reason, and I'll be offering you a Spartan perspective about these topics, in other words, taking a pragmatic view that values the nation and broader Western society over individual interests.
00:01:06.719 --> 00:01:15.200
A few months ago, COP 30 concluded, and that's Conference of the Parties, and Australia is leading the agenda for COP31.
00:01:15.359 --> 00:01:24.560
So this is about the right time for Australians and close allies like Canada and the US to consider what approach Australia should be taking at COP 31.
00:01:24.719 --> 00:01:27.599
And that's why we're talking about climate change today.
00:01:27.920 --> 00:01:39.359
In the first episode of this three-part series, we covered much of the climate change terminology, like COP, climate change, global warming, carbon, and carbonization of the atmosphere.
00:01:39.599 --> 00:01:46.079
We also briefly mentioned some dire consequences of continuing to pollute the Earth with ever increasing carbon emissions.
00:01:46.319 --> 00:01:57.680
In the second episode of this three-part series, we looked at those dire predictions of climate change and discussed the urgent need for all countries to deliver on greenhouse gas emission reductions.
00:01:57.920 --> 00:02:21.360
We also noted that although greenhouse gas emissions are no longer increasing annually, or at least not by much, they are not reducing, and we're headed for a 2.4 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures, which, if the scientists are correct, is going to cause a lot of damage, including making parts of the planet uninhabitable due to rising sea levels and desertification.
00:02:21.599 --> 00:02:36.159
And we can expect stronger storms, more intense rainfalls, shifting flora and fauna habitats, and mass migration on a scale the likes of which we've never seen before as people move to avoid the consequences of this global warming.
00:02:36.479 --> 00:02:47.280
Now we looked at all of this in episode two through a risk lens and concluded that basically if we do nothing, the outcomes are probably going to be more catastrophic than if we do act.
00:02:47.439 --> 00:02:56.080
So just as most governments have concluded, action is needed to mitigate the consequences of carbon emissions and rising global temperatures.
00:02:56.319 --> 00:03:01.360
And last episode I made the point that it doesn't matter whether you believe or don't believe in climate change.
00:03:01.759 --> 00:03:14.719
If you take a risk management approach, in other words, look at likelihood based on what the experts are telling you, look at consequences and how bad those consequences might be, you come up with a risk assessment.
00:03:14.879 --> 00:03:18.639
And the risk assessment in this case doesn't look good.
00:03:19.199 --> 00:03:22.960
It looks like we will probably have a really bad outcome if we do nothing.
00:03:23.439 --> 00:03:30.240
So even if you don't believe in climate change, you have to ask yourself, is it worth taking the risk on these consequences?
00:03:30.400 --> 00:03:32.719
And the consequences are pretty severe.
00:03:33.360 --> 00:03:40.800
So my conclusion is we need to at least act to mitigate the consequences just in case it happens.
00:03:41.520 --> 00:03:55.520
So most countries have actually agreed to this concept of risk management, and today we'll look at the global response through the framework of the Conference of Parties, known by the acronym COP, which is the UN framework for addressing climate change.
00:03:55.759 --> 00:04:05.840
In particular, we'll look at what happened at COP 30, which was held in late 2025, and what is planned for COP 31, which is being led by Australia but being held in Turkey.
00:04:06.080 --> 00:04:12.879
And we'll conclude today's episode with some sobering thoughts about what this all means for Western liberal democracies.
00:04:17.839 --> 00:04:26.480
To give us all a refresh on the generally accepted situation, here is Nina Sega again espousing what the world is working towards.
00:04:27.120 --> 00:04:37.120
If we are to stay within the safe operating space for ourselves and for our planet, we really do need to limit the warming to one and a half degrees.
00:04:37.279 --> 00:04:47.360
And what that means is reducing and stop using all fossil fuels and rapidly increasing investment in renewable low carbon energies like wind and solar today.
00:04:47.519 --> 00:04:53.120
What that means is cutting greenhouse gas emissions by nearly half by 2030.
00:04:53.839 --> 00:04:57.759
So given that urgency, now let's look at COP 30.
00:04:57.920 --> 00:05:06.959
And just to remind you, the Conference of Parties refers to the nations that agreed to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was signed in 1992.
00:05:07.360 --> 00:05:12.639
This was basically a treaty amongst 195 of the world's nations to address global warming.
00:05:12.879 --> 00:05:19.839
The parties to that convention agreed to meet annually at events called the Conference of Parties, hence the term COP.
00:05:20.319 --> 00:05:28.800
And to give us a sense of what these COPs have achieved, and some comments on COP30, here is Akshat Rathi from Bloomberg giving us a rundown.
00:05:29.439 --> 00:05:34.160
We are going into COP 30, so there will have been 30 events by the end of this year.
00:05:34.399 --> 00:05:36.800
It is progress, but progress happens slowly.
00:05:36.959 --> 00:05:44.079
So perhaps the biggest COP is COP21, that happened in 2015, that gave us the Paris Agreement.
00:05:44.319 --> 00:06:00.720
And it was a remarkable COP because until that point, it hadn't been the case that all countries in the world agreed that climate change is a problem and that we must address it, and then set real hard targets on what level of warming should the world keep global warming below.
00:06:01.040 --> 00:06:04.000
There have been further events that have happened since.
00:06:04.160 --> 00:06:12.959
So the Paris Agreement itself was a 15-page PDF written in plain English, giving you a direction for where the world was going.
00:06:13.120 --> 00:06:25.199
But since then, until now, COP meetings were all about making sure that those words could be turned into rules and actions that would allow the world to keep global warming in check.
00:06:25.519 --> 00:06:36.240
So at COP26 in Glasgow, we had the first mention of coal and a goal that countries would start to phase out coal.
00:06:36.560 --> 00:06:44.879
At COP28 in Dubai, we had a first mention of fossil fuels and a commitment from all countries to transition away from fossil fuels.
00:06:45.199 --> 00:06:57.120
This is important to note because it might seem silly that after 25 years of talking, they finally mentioned fossil fuels, which are the primary cause of global warming.
00:06:57.439 --> 00:07:03.199
But at these negotiations, all countries are present, even the fossil fuel producers.
00:07:03.360 --> 00:07:14.000
And so you need to get them convinced to get them on board to actually have an agreement where people can then go back home and start to turn those agreements into actions.
00:07:14.160 --> 00:07:16.000
So it's taken a long time.
00:07:16.160 --> 00:07:27.600
And I suppose the biggest achievement is that the world was on track for about four degrees Celsius of warming compared to pre-industrial times before 2015, before the Paris Agreement was signed.
00:07:27.839 --> 00:07:33.040
And this year, we are looking at 2.5 to 2.7 degrees Celsius of warming.
00:07:33.279 --> 00:07:40.079
Still too much, but we've shaved up one to 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming from the worst-case scenarios.
00:07:40.240 --> 00:07:42.240
And that is the greatest achievement.
00:07:42.399 --> 00:07:55.759
And even if the progress seems slow, and it is slow, especially for the most vulnerable countries, the fact that countries meet every year is an indication that they are at least willing to work towards that problem.
00:07:56.240 --> 00:08:04.399
So that latest COP or COP 30 was held in Bellum, Brazil from the 6th to the 18th of November in 2025.
00:08:04.879 --> 00:08:20.560
COPS normally attract leaders from around the world, and COP30 was attended by leaders such as UK's Keir Stomer, France's Emmanuel Macron, Germany's Friedrich Merz, Brazil's Luis Inizio, Lula da Silva.
00:08:20.800 --> 00:08:25.519
But notably, China's President Z and US President Trump were absent.
00:08:25.680 --> 00:08:31.839
And the US didn't send any national officials to the conference, at least not any high-level representation.
00:08:32.159 --> 00:08:36.720
The reason the US didn't send a senior delegation is that under Donald Trump, the U.S.
00:08:36.879 --> 00:08:47.919
has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, which to remind you was the COP that set the benchmark for seeking to keep global temperature rise under 1.5 Celsius over pre-industrial levels.
00:08:48.240 --> 00:08:50.240
So what did COP 30 achieve?
00:08:50.480 --> 00:08:56.080
Let's start with some words from Alexandra Scott of the Italian Climate Think Tank Eco Climate.
00:08:56.799 --> 00:09:02.240
The purpose of these COPs is to reach compromise amongst 195 different countries.
00:09:02.399 --> 00:09:06.240
The US hasn't turned up here, so we have 194 different countries.
00:09:06.480 --> 00:09:10.399
They all come here with very different interests that they want to defend.
00:09:10.639 --> 00:09:20.320
We are seeing some of the more oil-dependent economies try to delay the action and the conversations that can be had here on how to reduce emissions faster.
00:09:20.559 --> 00:09:31.919
We've got, for example, Europe pushing strongly for the COP to agree how countries will reduce that gap in emissions reduction that the latest round of NBCs are showing we're going to be left with.
00:09:32.080 --> 00:09:39.200
And we're seeing other countries less inclined, for example, Saudi Arabia less inclined to agree with that approach.
00:09:39.440 --> 00:09:45.519
We're seeing vulnerable developing countries really wanting to have more discussions on climate finance.
00:09:45.679 --> 00:09:53.120
And that's where some of the developed countries are less inclined to agree on how to really accelerate those conversations.
00:09:53.919 --> 00:09:59.919
In addition to the points raised by Alexandra, COP30 was characterized by a few initiatives.
00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:04.559
And these include, at centre stage, the term adaptation.
00:10:05.120 --> 00:10:14.240
We'll start with a broad overview of some of the concepts being looked at as adaptation by listening to Professor Nick Brooks of the Imperial College of London.
00:10:14.720 --> 00:10:20.879
When we're thinking about adaptation, mostly people are, you know, at best adapting to climate as it is.
00:10:21.039 --> 00:10:29.120
Now the climate is evolving and changing, but there's very actually very little focus on how people adapt and prepare for the changes that may be coming.
00:10:29.360 --> 00:10:35.840
So there's very, very little ambition and very, very little attention to what could be large and even existential risks.
00:10:35.919 --> 00:10:45.519
You know, we have all these projections of wet bulb temperatures that may be unsurvived by human beings in the middle of the century and onwards in large parts of the world that home hundreds of millions of people.
00:10:45.759 --> 00:10:47.440
I think very few people are thinking about that.
00:10:47.519 --> 00:10:50.639
And that is an existential risk to these populations and areas.
00:10:50.879 --> 00:11:11.600
So we need a massive step up in ambition to go from this sort of incremental approach to adaptation where we're trying to sort of protect what we've got by doing measures that we are already familiar with, for example, a bit more irrigation, you know, changing planting times or whatever of crops, to really think about well, how do we sort of survive if we can't do what we're doing now in the future because of climate change?
00:11:11.759 --> 00:11:22.559
So that sort of transformational adaptation when you have to abandon or replace a current system or practice with something new because the novel climate conditions won't allow you to do what you're doing now.
00:11:22.720 --> 00:11:31.279
And that might also include abandoning certain areas, relocation, uh, resettlement, relocation of economic activity, infrastructure, populations, and so on.
00:11:31.360 --> 00:11:33.519
And this is really, really challenging stuff.
00:11:33.840 --> 00:11:37.039
Now, some of this comes under the umbrella of resilience.
00:11:37.200 --> 00:11:49.600
And the terms adaptation and resilience in a warming planet are sometimes mixed up, but basically, adapting to climate change is one of the resilience strategies being considered to deal with global warming.
00:11:49.840 --> 00:12:00.080
And now here we have Professor Paul O'Hare of Manchester Metropolitan University talking about resilience, much of which is that subset I mentioned of adaptation.
00:12:00.720 --> 00:12:11.039
Resilience refers to the ability of a system like a city, a community, or even an ecosystem to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from climate-related shocks and stresses.
00:12:11.600 --> 00:12:14.960
Sometimes people say resilience is about returning to a pre-shock state.
00:12:15.440 --> 00:12:16.159
Returning to normal.
00:12:16.720 --> 00:12:21.759
Resilience needs to be more than it's not just about surviving the next story, whatever it may be.
00:12:22.080 --> 00:12:26.480
It should be about adapting, evolving, and thriving in a change of the easy.
00:12:26.639 --> 00:12:33.200
Resilience means to be building smaller, it means designing homes to take cooler roads that don't use away and flow.
00:12:36.720 --> 00:12:46.720
It's also about truly resilience is accessable to ensures that everyone, regardless of income in your body, survives on the thrive in an uncertain way.
00:12:50.720 --> 00:12:57.679
It's about cleaning ahead and using science, local knowledge, and innovation to reduce recipe for disaster strike.
00:12:58.399 --> 00:13:06.720
From restoring wetlands to clean cities and absorbing floods to creating early warning systems for heat waves and alleviating poverty in some of our most vulnerable communities.
00:13:07.200 --> 00:13:11.440
Climate resilience is about weaving strength into the very fabric of our world.
00:13:12.240 --> 00:13:13.039
No doubt about it.
00:13:13.360 --> 00:13:14.240
The climate is changing.
00:13:21.600 --> 00:13:30.159
We should also note that adaptation strategies can also be considered risk mitigation, which we discussed in the second part of this series.
00:13:30.399 --> 00:13:37.120
In other words, doing things before and after we suffer a negative consequence like global warming.
00:13:37.360 --> 00:13:44.399
In support of adaptation, the nations agreed to set a target to triple adaptation financing by 2035.
00:13:44.639 --> 00:13:48.559
This is to help vulnerable nations to implement adaptation strategies.
00:13:48.960 --> 00:13:55.279
Here we have Professor Lisa Schipper of Bonn University talking about adaptation finances in COP30.
00:13:55.759 --> 00:14:01.200
We're still having these meetings because at the end of the day, it's the only place where we can discuss these issues.
00:14:01.360 --> 00:14:06.320
We're not going to give up, even if it's at 1.51, 1.52.
00:14:06.399 --> 00:14:07.200
We can't give up.
00:14:07.279 --> 00:14:08.399
There's too much at stake.
00:14:08.480 --> 00:14:12.080
It's thousands and millions of people whose lives would be lost.
00:14:12.320 --> 00:14:14.080
You can ask yourself, is it worth it?
00:14:14.159 --> 00:14:16.159
There's so many people, there's a lot of money.
00:14:16.480 --> 00:14:26.080
You know, the climate convention at its roots, it started about reducing emissions, but also compensation for the impacts to those countries in global south that are the most affected.
00:14:26.159 --> 00:14:29.759
So it is kind of a core tenant in the convention.
00:14:30.159 --> 00:14:34.720
Pass forward, we have so many climate impacts that we really need to think about adaptation.
00:14:34.879 --> 00:14:40.879
And one of the big discussions of every single COP is how much funding is going to be available for adaptation.
00:14:41.279 --> 00:14:43.679
This COLP is dubbed the adaptation call.
00:14:44.240 --> 00:14:56.240
And the idea here is that we can actually get some clear indicators so that we can see what is funding, is adaptation funding working, but also I think increased commitment for increased funding on adaptation.
00:14:57.840 --> 00:15:04.960
There was an agreement that developed countries would give developing countries$300 billion a year for climate finance.
00:15:05.120 --> 00:15:10.159
And this, you know, is just for everything, not just adaptation, it's also for mitigation.
00:15:10.480 --> 00:15:30.639
If you look at the latest report, the latest adaptation depth report, you see that just for adaptation, it's estimated that developing countries need an annual amount of$310 to$365 billion by 2035, which is about 12 to 14 times as much as the current finance.
00:15:31.039 --> 00:15:34.960
But actually, developing countries are demanding$1.3 trillion.
00:15:35.120 --> 00:15:46.000
So a far larger sum, which I think probably won't even that be enough because it really requires fundamental transformation of systems, which is going to cost a lot more.
00:15:46.480 --> 00:15:54.559
They did agree, and it's it's on record that they have this 1.3 trillion, that they're having the pathway to get toward that amount of money.
00:15:54.639 --> 00:16:05.120
And so they do have a little bit of leeway to be able to pressure the developed countries to provide funding, which I think is critical because it gives them the space to continue to demand for this money.
00:16:05.440 --> 00:16:18.000
I also want to note a recent report from ActionAid that pointed out that climate finance is not really being used for the things that the people on the ground really want it, that there are other people who are deciding what the finance is for.
00:16:18.159 --> 00:16:20.720
So even that part of it we need to look at critically.
00:16:21.279 --> 00:16:31.440
The financial commitments that Lisa just mentioned was embodied by COP30 in something called the Mutaro decision, which is an agreement that the cost should be borne across the planet.
00:16:31.600 --> 00:16:45.759
Specifically, it aims to scale up climate finance to at least US$1.3 trillion per year by 2035, and includes commitments to triple adaptation finance by that same year.
00:16:46.000 --> 00:16:54.960
However, the language used in the final report was very loose, and there was much resistance to setting firm targets for each nation.
00:16:55.360 --> 00:17:07.680
COP 30 also saw the launch of financial initiatives, including the establishment of a new tropical forest fund now at$6.6 billion to support conservation efforts.
00:17:08.000 --> 00:17:19.119
In addition to adaptation, there was some discussion at COP 30 about actually doing something, which the delegates framed as acceleration of implementation initiatives.
00:17:19.440 --> 00:17:26.319
In part, this refers to those nationally determined contributions I talked about in the last episode or NDCs.
00:17:26.640 --> 00:17:30.799
Basically, an NDC is a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
00:17:31.039 --> 00:17:36.240
At COP thirty, there was agreements on enhancing nationally determined contributions.
00:17:36.480 --> 00:17:46.480
And in the lead up to COP thirty, over 122 countries representing about 80% of global emissions updated their NDCs with more ambitious goals.
00:17:46.720 --> 00:17:54.480
Notably, the EU committed to cutting greenhouse gases by up to 72% by 2035 compared to 1990 levels.
00:17:54.640 --> 00:18:00.160
Countries like Brazil, Japan, and South Africa stepped up with strengthening their climate commitments.
00:18:00.480 --> 00:18:05.359
But we need to recognize two hard truths about these NDCs.
00:18:05.680 --> 00:18:19.039
Collectively, the commitments only add up to reducing carbon emissions by fifteen percent of the amount being sought by the UN to maintain global warming below one point five Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
00:18:19.599 --> 00:18:24.160
And we know that most nations will not meet those commitments.
00:18:24.480 --> 00:18:26.480
So what are we going to call it?
00:18:26.640 --> 00:18:28.400
Say ten percent at best?
00:18:29.039 --> 00:18:41.920
Even if all those countries achieve all of their commitments, the rise is still forecast to be around two point five Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which, if it comes to pass, is quite frankly woeful.
00:18:42.240 --> 00:18:46.799
And that is a catastrophic outcome that we need to be mitigating against.
00:18:47.519 --> 00:18:54.319
The cynical side of me thinks both of these concepts, so adaptation and the NDCs are just more lip service.
00:18:54.480 --> 00:18:55.759
Wah wah wah.
00:18:56.160 --> 00:19:06.640
Unfortunately, in addition to the recognition that we human beings are collectively failing to meet our targets, there are more glass half empty issues that came out of COP thirty.
00:19:06.960 --> 00:19:15.039
One of those is the perennial sticking points about fossil fuel nations and how hard they push back on these negotiations.
00:19:15.279 --> 00:19:21.519
And you have to wonder how much bias was introduced into COP thirty by the backers of green energy as well.
00:19:21.839 --> 00:19:29.839
So you've got competing demands based on which commercial sector you're talking about, and they're influencing our politicians.
00:19:30.319 --> 00:19:35.440
We can always lean back on the old adage, if you want to know what's going on, just follow the money.
00:19:35.680 --> 00:19:43.519
At least COP30 did continue the discussion about the risks associated with global warming and refined the numbers being thrown about.
00:19:49.200 --> 00:19:57.839
So our leaders are saying the right things by signing up to plans, education, and some changes to CO2 emission management.
00:19:58.079 --> 00:20:03.359
But of course, our politicians are pole driven, and businesses are profit driven.
00:20:03.519 --> 00:20:07.599
And what is in the media matters because it influences both of these.
00:20:07.839 --> 00:20:14.160
Here are a couple of examples of the type of misinformation that is distorting the discussion in this area.
00:20:14.400 --> 00:20:16.400
Let's start with a business focus.
00:20:16.559 --> 00:20:23.039
It relates to carbon capture technology called direct air capture, or DAC for short, that the U.S.
00:20:23.119 --> 00:20:24.880
Department of Energy is investing in.
00:20:25.119 --> 00:20:36.960
You can read about that in an MIT article by James Temple called The US Just Invested More Than a Billion Dollars to Kickstart the Carbon Removal Market, and that's in the MIT Technology Review.
00:20:37.200 --> 00:20:42.240
These DAC plants suck CO2 out of the air and store the carbon.
00:20:42.400 --> 00:20:51.119
There are several operating already, notably a huge one in Iceland, but they require government funding because they're expensive and they're not profitable.
00:20:51.359 --> 00:20:58.960
The US alone would need about 10,000 of them to remove their share of today's carbon footprint.
00:20:59.200 --> 00:21:06.319
And MIT's estimate says it would cost the US about a trillion dollars to remove its CO2 emissions this way.
00:21:06.480 --> 00:21:14.000
And that's only if they can get the cost down to below$100 a ton, and right now it's sitting around$140 a ton.
00:21:14.319 --> 00:21:18.319
DAC is part of the solution, but it's not the entire solution.
00:21:18.559 --> 00:21:24.400
Despite the fact that DAC isn't going to be the golden bullet, now get ready for this.
00:21:24.720 --> 00:21:30.319
Exxon's CEO, Darren Woods, totally supports this technology.
00:21:30.559 --> 00:21:39.920
In an interview he gave with CNBC, he freely admitted that he likes this technology because it would allow the oil industry to remain profitable.
00:21:40.160 --> 00:21:43.759
In other words, to keep burning fossil fuels.
00:21:44.079 --> 00:21:49.200
He said, quote, that to my mind is the holy grail, unquote.
00:21:49.519 --> 00:21:51.519
Well of course it is, Darren.
00:21:51.680 --> 00:21:54.400
Talk about a self centered approach.
00:21:54.720 --> 00:21:58.240
Be careful when you read about binary views like this.
00:21:58.480 --> 00:21:59.680
There is no holy grail.
00:22:00.319 --> 00:22:08.240
And carbon emission reduction, and always ask yourself about the person's motivation, which for Woods is clearly profit.
00:22:08.559 --> 00:22:13.440
There are also a number of websites around supporting climate change denial.
00:22:13.599 --> 00:22:34.000
Two examples Galileo in Australia, it's a terrible website, but it's there, whose patron is Alan Jones, and he's a sensationalist reporter, and co2science.org, which is run by a fellow named Craig Idso, who, by the way, gets paid by Exxon to write anti-climate change papers.
00:22:34.319 --> 00:22:41.920
ITSO also happens to be a member of Heartsland, which is an organization that denies the link between cigarette smoking and cancer.
00:22:42.240 --> 00:22:43.119
Enough said.
00:22:43.759 --> 00:22:45.599
Be careful what you read.
00:22:45.920 --> 00:22:50.880
And some of those climate change deniers can be quite influential.
00:22:51.119 --> 00:22:57.440
In the United Kingdom, there was the recently passed away Lord Lawson who was quite vocal on climate change denial.
00:22:57.680 --> 00:23:00.880
And here's the big one, Donald Trump in the US.
00:23:01.119 --> 00:23:02.960
He's got amazing reach.
00:23:03.200 --> 00:23:09.920
Again, ask yourself what their motivation is for quoting incorrect statistics, such as sea level rise numbers.
00:23:10.079 --> 00:23:17.440
For example, Trump has repeatedly said that it will take 300 years for sea levels to rise one eighth of an inch.
00:23:17.680 --> 00:23:22.079
Yet that's how much they're rising annually, which is three millimeters.
00:23:22.400 --> 00:23:28.400
He's using that incorrect statistic to argue against the need for reducing carbon emissions.
00:23:28.640 --> 00:23:38.799
In this way, he's able to support coal extraction and the burning of coal, which means jobs for poor areas of the United States, and therefore more votes.
00:23:39.119 --> 00:23:42.480
You can also find similar connections for other deniers.
00:23:42.720 --> 00:23:45.920
For example, Lawson was connected to Exxon.
00:23:46.240 --> 00:23:54.160
Fortunately, the claims of websites and high-profile people are often refuted in reputable sources, and let's just hope they keep doing that.
00:23:54.319 --> 00:24:04.720
One such example was in Scientific American, which directly challenged Galileo's claims in an article they published called Why Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
00:24:04.880 --> 00:24:05.920
It's a good read.
00:24:06.160 --> 00:24:11.680
I'm not passing judgment on the predictions about what might happen if we don't reduce carbon emissions.
00:24:11.920 --> 00:24:13.599
But I am a risk manager.
00:24:13.759 --> 00:24:20.240
I weigh up evidence, look at the likely outcomes, the mitigations available, and the consequences.
00:24:20.720 --> 00:24:23.680
And I hope you will also be a risk manager.
00:24:23.759 --> 00:24:36.160
And to remind you of the basics of that risk calculation, I'm going to replay a snippet from episode two of Professor Tim Polner of Oxford, in which he summarizes the risk calculation we are all facing.
00:24:36.720 --> 00:24:54.640
Now, the one thing that climate models are have been quite unequivocal about is actually that if we continue to emit CO2 as we are doing now, then by 2100, you know, the most likely amount of global warming might be three or four degrees.
00:24:54.880 --> 00:25:00.640
We know from these ensembles of integrations that there is a tail which goes out to more than that.
00:25:00.720 --> 00:25:03.920
It could go out to six or seven or even more than that degrees.
00:25:04.160 --> 00:25:08.400
Now, for anyone who knows their climatology, that really is catastrophic.
00:25:08.640 --> 00:25:13.440
So the politicians in principle have that, have enough information to make that decision.
00:25:13.519 --> 00:25:24.319
So the fact there is this threat, this risk, not only of very undesirable levels of climate change, but actually catastrophic levels of climate change, the risk is quite clear.
00:25:24.400 --> 00:25:28.240
And the only way to reduce that risk is to reduce our emissions.
00:25:28.559 --> 00:25:36.960
Even if we cut our emissions to zero tomorrow, we've already put into the climate system a certain amount of climate change that will continue.
00:25:37.119 --> 00:25:42.720
Now we're not going to cut our emissions tomorrow, but we're going to carry on for sure for many decades to come.
00:25:42.960 --> 00:25:46.079
And so we are faced with a changing climate.
00:25:46.400 --> 00:25:51.759
Do we have enough evidence to make a decision about cutting our carbon emissions?
00:25:52.160 --> 00:25:59.519
You know, it's like every decision you make in life, you don't necessarily have to know exactly what's going to happen to make that decision.
00:25:59.680 --> 00:26:06.559
You have to know the threat that you're facing and whether the decision is justified given that threat.
00:26:07.119 --> 00:26:34.319
If you agree with Professor Palmer, and I do when it comes to the notion of treating this like a risk, in fact, a risk that entails a catastrophic consequence that we do not want to realize, then you should be backing the notion that we, at the very least, need to put mitigation strategies in place to control the climate change risk because getting it wrong is just not something we want to live through.
00:26:39.279 --> 00:26:48.720
As a member of a liberal democracy, you have a vote, and you have the individual right to express your opinion, well, at least on most things.
00:26:49.039 --> 00:26:55.759
And that begs the question, what can you do to influence this climate change risk response?
00:26:56.000 --> 00:27:03.839
And in particular, if you're an Australian, how do you influence your leaders as they consider how to run COP 31?
00:27:04.079 --> 00:27:08.240
And I need to caution Australians here, you need to be wary.
00:27:08.480 --> 00:27:17.119
Your Albanese government will be looking to use COP31 to shore up regional support from Pacific Island nations for regional defense.
00:27:17.200 --> 00:27:21.440
And they're going to do that by supporting those islands in their climate change agenda.
00:27:21.599 --> 00:27:27.279
And yes, those Pacific Islands are going to be adversely impacted by climate change.
00:27:27.599 --> 00:27:40.319
But I think Australia is going to use this opportunity to pander to those Pacific Island climate change concerns, thereby expecting a little bit of payback in terms of aligning with Australia's defense.
00:27:40.480 --> 00:27:50.319
Now that's a good local regional strategy that Australia could implement, and it achieves another strategy that Australia needs to be concerned about, and that's regional defense.
00:27:50.640 --> 00:27:59.519
But I have to say it's misguided because COP31 needs to be about the bigger picture, and that's the health of the planet.
00:27:59.839 --> 00:28:08.880
I also expect Australia's government to pander to the climate concerns of its Aboriginal population, and this is even less relevant in relation to global warming.
00:28:09.119 --> 00:28:19.839
So both of these issues, the regional climate change agenda and Aboriginal concerns, are distractions from the global warming problem.
00:28:20.079 --> 00:28:27.119
And I sincerely hope that Australia doesn't squander its chance to be a global leader here so that it can chase votes for the next election.
00:28:27.359 --> 00:28:34.400
The same goes for key allies of Australia, like Canada and the US, in terms of getting their agenda on the table.
00:28:34.640 --> 00:28:41.599
They should work with Australia to address global concerns while considering Western liberal democratic ideals.
00:28:42.000 --> 00:28:45.279
And remember, we Western liberal democracies are under threat.
00:28:45.519 --> 00:28:54.559
COP thirty one represents an opportunity to influence the global south towards aligning with the global north more so than they have been in recent years.
00:28:54.880 --> 00:28:58.720
With all this in mind, I would like you to consider the following.
00:28:59.039 --> 00:29:08.400
I accept that there is a risk of catastrophic meltdown of ice on the planet, starvation, storm damage, flora and fauna extinctions, and mass migration.
00:29:08.720 --> 00:29:11.599
And yep, that's the doomsday scenario.
00:29:12.000 --> 00:29:14.880
But this is a risk I'm not willing to accept.
00:29:15.119 --> 00:29:18.079
There isn't consensus on exactly what to do.
00:29:18.319 --> 00:29:22.480
It's kind of like flying an airplane, thinking that the landing gear isn't working.
00:29:22.720 --> 00:29:26.400
You can't actually see if the landing gear is down or not.
00:29:26.880 --> 00:29:30.240
But we're going to try and land it normally anyway in the hope that it is.
00:29:30.480 --> 00:29:41.119
And if it isn't down, which is what the scientists are telling us is going to happen, the result would be almost certain death for a whole bunch of people on that airplane, and in our case on planet Earth.
00:29:41.440 --> 00:29:44.559
You just can't pretend that everything's okay.
00:29:44.720 --> 00:29:47.359
We have to do something to mitigate those risks.
00:29:47.519 --> 00:29:56.240
There isn't consensus on exactly what to do, nor are nations around the world doing everything they can, but you can do two things.
00:29:56.480 --> 00:30:00.480
Firstly, vote, and secondly, write to your politicians.
00:30:00.720 --> 00:30:02.720
And I for one intend to write.
00:30:02.960 --> 00:30:08.000
And I'll be addressing four general areas, which I think need a whole hell of a lot more effort.
00:30:08.240 --> 00:30:20.079
These are drawn from a paper written by American, Australian, and Chinese academics called Meet the Challenges in the Carbon Age, which you can find on the Springer Link website, which is a German research paper hosting website.
00:30:20.240 --> 00:30:21.680
Here we go, the four items.
00:30:21.839 --> 00:30:25.039
Number one, develop carbon based materials.
00:30:25.359 --> 00:30:31.519
In other words, let's use more carbon in our infrastructure instead of allowing it to be a waste product.
00:30:31.759 --> 00:30:43.119
Two, find ways to manipulate the carbon cycle to increase the carbon sink capacity of ecosystems and to find ways to recycle carbon resources.
00:30:43.359 --> 00:30:45.599
Planting trees is one such example.
00:30:45.759 --> 00:30:47.519
But it's not the only solution.
00:30:47.839 --> 00:30:51.839
Three, develop green energy and sustainable systems.
00:30:52.079 --> 00:30:54.880
We need to look at food and biomass.
00:30:55.119 --> 00:31:04.799
We need to look at carbon emission, we've got to reduce pollution, and we need to replace fossil energy and materials that create carbon waste.
00:31:05.039 --> 00:31:12.559
And lastly, we must create an economic and societal framework that supports carbon emission reductions.
00:31:12.799 --> 00:31:17.920
We need infrastructure and methods to manage the carbon, for example, by storing it.
00:31:18.079 --> 00:31:25.839
We need societal standards and policies that set limits on our carbon footprints, in other words, mandating electric vehicles.
00:31:26.079 --> 00:31:30.160
Although I drive a classic car and I wouldn't be a big fan of that.
00:31:30.400 --> 00:31:44.480
Additionally, a carbon tax or carbon emission trading and carbon accounting, all of these frameworks and policy settings will help set the stage for carbon emission reductions, and we haven't quite got there yet with the policy settings.
00:31:44.720 --> 00:31:48.880
It's time for you to get informed and play your part in this issue.
00:31:49.119 --> 00:31:55.599
Ask yourself, will you be part of the same problem or will you act to stem carbon emissions?
00:31:55.839 --> 00:31:57.440
Are you gonna buy an EV?
00:31:57.599 --> 00:31:59.599
Are you gonna eat everything you buy?
00:31:59.839 --> 00:32:01.279
Are you gonna turn your lights off?
00:32:01.440 --> 00:32:03.200
Are you gonna leave the air conditioner off?
00:32:03.359 --> 00:32:04.640
Are you gonna walk to work?
00:32:04.799 --> 00:32:09.200
Or better yet, are you gonna vote for policies that make meaningful change?
00:32:09.759 --> 00:32:12.000
Which brings me to the conclusion.
00:32:12.160 --> 00:32:21.039
I must say I'm at a loss as to what we in Western liberal democracies, or perhaps we should be talking about the global north in general, should do about global warming.
00:32:21.359 --> 00:32:33.680
We citizens in wealthier nations aren't going to give up our high power economies, our energy guzzling vehicles and electronic components, nor our house heating or cooling systems.
00:32:34.000 --> 00:32:52.319
Nor are we likely to see our Western Democratic governments mandate wholesale emissions reductions through 90% emission cuts, and that's what it would take, apparently, carbon taxes, nor curtailment of the trade in fossil fuels, and we aren't going to impact our economies by funding green solutions for other nations to any significant degree.
00:32:52.559 --> 00:33:05.519
At the same time, we in the global north, the wealthier Western nations, can hardly sit here and wag our fingers at the global south and tell them to cut emissions by 90% while we don't do the same.
00:33:05.759 --> 00:33:17.359
So long as the Earth's population is increasing in the global south, their way to prosperity and a higher standard of living is through increasing their energy consumption, not reducing it by 90%.
00:33:18.319 --> 00:33:22.960
Much of their increase will come from fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
00:33:23.200 --> 00:33:27.279
Putting all this back into risk language, it's all code for get ready.
00:33:27.680 --> 00:33:39.200
Global warming is the likely consequence of our actions, and in fact we're probably already there, and we are now probably going to suffer the catastrophic consequences of our collective inaction.
00:33:39.440 --> 00:33:47.200
We have not managed this risk properly, and if I was speaking to my team about managing risk, I'd summarize this in one simple phrase.
00:33:47.519 --> 00:33:48.960
This is a fail.
00:33:49.680 --> 00:33:53.279
And for you climate skeptics out there, sure.
00:33:53.519 --> 00:33:57.039
If we get really lucky, we won't realize the risk.
00:33:57.279 --> 00:34:03.519
But that is only a hope, especially in the face of all that science, and hope is not a strategy.
00:34:04.160 --> 00:34:20.000
As prudent pilots of planets Earth, we need to think about just how we are going to steer our planets to adapt to and mitigate the worst of the potential consequences while at the same time striving to correct the probable cause, which is greenhouse gas emissions.
00:34:20.400 --> 00:34:30.400
I see three overarching ways in which we liberal democratic societies can help our own cause and to promote our leadership on this planet in managing global warming.
00:34:30.639 --> 00:34:34.000
Firstly, we need corporate citizenship.
00:34:34.239 --> 00:34:48.000
I'd love to see a wholesale restructuring of our economic framework to force our commercial leaders and entities to become global citizens ahead of being beholden to profit making for their stockholders, but that's just not realistic.
00:34:48.239 --> 00:34:52.639
Instead, I'll speak to you, the owner or the employee.
00:34:52.960 --> 00:35:05.119
If you work at a company that emits fossil fuels or depends on a supply chain that adds to greenhouse gas emissions, and that's most of you, talk to your team about what you might do to reduce that dependency.
00:35:05.440 --> 00:35:06.719
Find a way.
00:35:07.840 --> 00:35:11.599
Secondly, your government's policies matter.
00:35:12.000 --> 00:35:29.920
I get that you probably don't want to cut your driving by ninety percent or limit your household non-renewable electrical access to two hours a day, or entirely sacrifice your high standard of living to pay for adaptation, but as a member of a democratic society, what you can do is influence your government.
00:35:30.159 --> 00:35:35.760
Don't suffer the malaise of the modern liberal democrats who feels their vote is next to useless.
00:35:36.000 --> 00:35:46.960
Sure, politicians are beholden to big business, but although they may not care too much about your individual vote, they do pay attention to voters' sentiments as portrayed in the media.
00:35:47.280 --> 00:35:57.440
So write to your politician and copy your letter to a journalist, particularly your local member, your environment minister, and your local newspaper.
00:35:57.760 --> 00:36:10.639
Figure out what you want your government to do, whether that's an aggressive decline in carbon emissions, curtailing the trade in fossil fuels, helping other nations, or something simpler like legislating the use of green energy.
00:36:10.880 --> 00:36:16.559
Whatever you want them to do, communicate this to your politician by writing letters.
00:36:16.880 --> 00:36:33.599
This communication matters because otherwise politicians will bend towards the other influences they have, which are big business and economic growth for the sake of votes, both of which are biased towards making a buck out of the situation instead of having the planet Earth as their motivation.
00:36:34.079 --> 00:36:37.199
And finally, consider your way of living.
00:36:37.440 --> 00:36:42.159
I, for one, drive a gas guzzling 1972 V8's classic car.
00:36:42.400 --> 00:36:47.440
I don't have solar panels on my roof, and I use heating and air conditioning whenever I want.
00:36:47.679 --> 00:36:51.039
Looking at my circumstances, I'm part of the problem.
00:36:51.440 --> 00:36:54.719
Perhaps an EV or solar panels could be my contribution.
00:36:54.960 --> 00:36:59.679
Maybe yours is similar, or maybe you'll switch to plant based meats instead of cow meat.
00:36:59.840 --> 00:37:03.119
Or maybe you'll get a solar hot water heater, whatever.
00:37:03.360 --> 00:37:06.719
Just do something because it all adds up.
00:37:07.199 --> 00:37:10.880
The other thing you need to do is consider adaptation.
00:37:11.440 --> 00:37:16.320
Do you live in a flood prone area, maybe near a forest that might burn one day?
00:37:16.639 --> 00:37:21.599
Or are you in an industry that will be affected by rising temperatures, say farming?
00:37:21.840 --> 00:37:27.039
If you are, I suggest you consider how your business or living conditions need to change.
00:37:27.280 --> 00:37:39.360
Don't wait until your beautiful beachfront home is being swallowed up by the sea, or your riverside home is gone under three times in the past five years, or your farm soil is turning to sand, move now.
00:37:40.239 --> 00:37:45.039
If you're thinking about a new car, maybe it's an EV, maybe you're thinking about solar.
00:37:45.199 --> 00:37:47.440
If so, change now.
00:37:48.239 --> 00:37:50.079
Do something now.
00:37:50.880 --> 00:38:02.480
If we in the Western liberal democracies make these sorts of changes, then we can stand up at COP thirty one led by Australia and prod our global South friends to do the same.
00:38:02.800 --> 00:38:07.119
That is the path to success in terms of mitigating the risk.
00:38:07.599 --> 00:38:11.920
It won't stop the catastrophe from happening, but we can at least slow it.
00:38:12.000 --> 00:38:15.519
And it's just prudent risk management to do that.
00:38:15.760 --> 00:38:25.360
And if I'm gonna rescue any reason in this podcast, I think the reason that needs rescuing is that all of us have got to face this reality.
00:38:25.599 --> 00:38:30.719
We cannot keep doing the same thing and expecting that things are gonna get better.
00:38:30.800 --> 00:38:32.159
They just aren't.
00:38:32.559 --> 00:38:36.960
Reason has been missing in climate change risk management.
00:38:37.199 --> 00:38:43.599
Everyone keeps identifying the problem, but the mitigation has been lackluster.
00:38:44.000 --> 00:38:47.920
Yeah, sure, a few solar panels here and there, some wind farms here and there.
00:38:48.000 --> 00:38:51.760
If you want to get serious about electrification, everybody needs to go nuclear.
00:38:52.000 --> 00:38:55.920
And I don't mean just a few, I mean a lot of nuclear power plants.
00:38:56.239 --> 00:38:57.440
Have a look at France.
00:38:57.519 --> 00:38:59.440
They are 80% powered by nuclear.
00:38:59.519 --> 00:39:02.639
They saw this coming a long time ago and they've done the right thing.
00:39:02.960 --> 00:39:13.360
Countries like Australia, who which they have their head in the sand over nuclear power, they need to wake up because wind farms and solar are not going to be the entire solution.
00:39:13.599 --> 00:39:17.519
And the same goes for many other wealthy countries.
00:39:17.760 --> 00:39:24.480
We need to act, we need to act fast so that we don't realize those catastrophic risks.
00:39:24.960 --> 00:39:29.199
So in summary, the reason that we need is action.
00:39:29.760 --> 00:39:32.559
Action to mitigate those risks.
00:39:33.199 --> 00:39:39.199
Thanks for listening to this three-part series on global warming, carbon carbon emissions, and climate change.
00:39:39.440 --> 00:39:47.280
Aside from the potential for World War III, climate change risks represent the defining issue of the next generation.
00:39:47.519 --> 00:39:48.960
It really matters.
00:39:49.199 --> 00:39:53.599
So spread the word, and if you enjoyed the podcast, please recommend it to a friend.
00:39:53.760 --> 00:39:56.320
Until next time, safe landings.
