Skip to content
Modern WisdomModern Wisdom

Why Is Climate Science So Disputed? - Richard Betts

Richard Betts MBE is Head of the Climate Impacts strategic area at the MET Office, the lead author on several reports from the IPCC and a Professor at the University of Exeter. There are few areas of science as contested as the climate. I wanted to speak to someone who has been researching this area for more than 3 decades to discover out why there is so much disagreement over fundamental questions like whether the earth's warming is actually caused by humans? Can we stop it? How accurate are climate models? Should we switch to renewables? What does Richard think of Extinction Rebellion? How much are China to blame? And much more... Sponsors: Join the Modern Wisdom Community to connect with me & other listeners - https://modernwisdom.locals.com/ Get 20% discount on the highest quality CBD Products from Pure Sport at https://bit.ly/cbdwisdom (use code: MW20) Reclaim your fitness and book a Free Consultation Call with ActiveLifeRX at http://bit.ly/rxwisdom Extra Stuff: Follow Richard on Twitter - https://twitter.com/richardabetts Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → https://chriswillx.com/books/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom #climate #science #physics - Join the Modern Wisdom Community on Locals - https://modernwisdom.locals.com/ Listen to all episodes on audio: Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2MNqIgw Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2LSimPn - Get in touch in the comments below or head to... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact/

Richard BettsguestChris Williamsonhost
Nov 27, 202159mWatch on YouTube ↗

EVERY SPOKEN WORD

  1. 0:00 – 0:45

    Intro

    1. RB

      We want to have a good and happy and fulfilling and comfortable life for everybody on Earth. That requires certain level of living standards, which we have historically relied on fossil fuels and the use of the land to achieve. But now we're recognizing that the way we've done that in the past is ultimately not sustainable in the long term. But, at the same time, you can't rip that away immediately because we rely on it so much. (wind blowing)

    2. CW

      I wanted to try and have a conversation with you to work out how there is so much disagreement about climate science. Just people are prepared to accept that eating too much makes you fat. Well, not everyone, but most people that are sane do. Uh, smoking causes cancer. But climate science seems to probably be one of the most contested areas that I've seen.

  2. 0:45 – 1:29

    Who is Richard Betts

    1. CW

      So for the people that aren't familiar with you and your background, what are your credentials and what do you do?

    2. RB

      So I'm a climate scientist at the Met Office, which is the UK's National Weather Service and Climate Service, and I'm also a professor at the University of Exeter. Uh, so I trained as a physicist. Uh, I have, uh, a master's in meteorology and a PhD in meteorology. Uh, and I've worked in the Met Office's Climate Research Department, the Hadley Centre, uh, for nearly, nearly 30 years. So I've been working on the climate modeling and then bringing in observations and these days applying it to risk assessments to, to understand what we might have to do in response to climate change.

    3. CW

      And

  3. 1:29 – 2:47

    The role of the IPCC

    1. CW

      the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, what is the role of that? What's the duty of that?

    2. RB

      So, uh, yeah, so I'm a lead author on one of the, well, several of the reports by the, uh, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. The role of that, uh, is to, uh, produce authoritative assessments of the science, uh, of climate change in many different aspects. Uh, so the, the physical science, understanding the changes that are occurring, what we're expecting for the future, but also the, uh, the implications for human impacts, uh, biodiversity impacts and so on. And, um, and the, uh, perhaps more challen- even more challenging than all that, the, the different options, um, for reducing climate change in terms of mitigation. Uh, the IPCC is, uh, is somewhat unique and it also links very closely to, uh, to government. It's not a government document, but it is, it's designed to inform government policy. So part of the process at the end is to work very closely with representatives of the world's governments, uh, to, to make sure that they are bought into the, uh, the, the, the, the science of it. And that's where it gets particularly interesting at the end, the, uh, the end of the process. But it is a scientific document ultimately.

  4. 2:47 – 4:19

    Why is climate science so contested

    1. RB

    2. CW

      Talk to me about this tension that I brought up earlier on then. Why is it the case that there can be so much contested about something that to me sounds like a science?

    3. RB

      So I think what is more contested is actually, uh, what the responses are and what does, what the science is th- taken to imply rather than the science itself. I mean, with any science that there's, there's then always, uh, somewhat different views. Uh, you can interpret, uh, things in somewhat, uh, different ways, especially when it's a big and complicated subject. But there's very few people, if any, that contest the basic fundamental, uh, science of, uh, climate change in terms of greenhouse gases exist. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases keep the Earth warmer than it would've been. Um, there's other gases like methane, water vapor, they're also greenhouse gases. Hardly anybody disputes that. Uh, where the controversy comes in, some of it is in terms of what we are expecting for the future in terms of how severe the future impacts will be if we keep building up more greenhouse gases into the, in the atmosphere, particularly carbon dioxide. There's a wide range of possible outcomes of that. So people will tend to focus on either the, the worst case or the best case scenarios. But even beyond that, there's, uh, the, the deepest controversy is about what this really means, how urgent it is to, to reduce, uh, emissions. Should we just live with the changes that we've put into place? How severe will those be? So it's when you get further down that chain that the real controversies come in, I think.

  5. 4:19 – 6:44

    How accurate are climate models

    1. RB

    2. CW

      Mm. How accurate are the climate models now? Because even I know that the weather guys get it wrong sometimes.

    3. RB

      (laughs) .

    4. CW

      And if they can't predict what Newcastle or Austin, Texas is going to see tomorrow, whether it's going to rain or not, I imagine that all of the complexities rolled forward over 10 years globally must be kind of difficult.

    5. RB

      Yes. Uh, work- working in the Met Office, uh, o- obviously the, the main, uh, a main role of the Met Office is to do the weather forecast day-to-day and week, week by week and so on. Uh, uh, uh, and yes, you can't always predict a few days ahead exactly what's gonna happen. We actually are pretty good now with it, with it within a few days. Uh, perhaps even a, a weekend in, in some cases. But it, yeah, the atmosphere is very complex. So, uh, you're trying to predict individual weather day-to-day and hour to hour. You can't do that more than a few days ahead. Beyond that, you're looking at trends. So you can look at general trends of whether it's gonna be, you know, a generally warmer or milder winter, for example. But then you're looking kind of more about, you know, the balance of likelihoods. When you go beyond that, you can't predict day by day, year by year, because there's so much complexity. But what you can successfully, uh, uh, look at is the longer term trends, uh, of warming and general patterns of rainfall change. And actually the, uh, the early climate models that were produced in the 1960s and early 1970s, they made, uh, predictions which have now been shown to be accurate. So it was predicted in the early 1970s that by the year 2000, the world would warm by 0.6 of a degree Celsius. That turned out to be reasonably accurate. The, the truth, it was about half a degree. So it was a slight overestimate, but not too bad. Uh, and the warming, uh, has continued since then. So, so we, we are now in a state where we are a- able to see that the early predictions of climate science are broadly coming true. We're now also seeing more extreme weather of some kinds. So, uh, more extreme heat waves, uh, in some areas, more extreme, uh, rainfall, uh, more increased drought in other areas.... uh, that gets more difficult to tease out particular signals, but we are seeing those starting to change now. So broadly speaking, we, we know that we, we were saying the right things 30 or 50 years ago, uh, but there's, we still can't really, yes, predict perfectly, uh, for many years in the future because the sy- the system is so complex and chaotic. So then it becomes a con- a, a task of risk assessment rather than trying to make perfect predictions, you see.

    6. CW

      Is

  6. 6:44 – 8:12

    What is CO2

    1. CW

      CO2 the sort of fundamental underpinning or one of the main pillars of what you guys are, are looking at with regards to climate change?

    2. RB

      CO2 is very important. It's not the most important greenhouse gas in term of its effect on the climate at the moment, because the most important g- gas is water vapor, um, we're not directly changing water vapor in terms of human activity except for very small, uh, uh, amounts in areas where we're irrigating. Uh, so we're concerned about CO2 because that's the one that we're increasing the most in the atmosphere and it stays in the atmosphere a very long time, uh, decades to centuries if you, uh, consider the... If you, if you, if you increase the amount of CO2, that increase will, will be there for, for decades or centuries, uh, uh, ahead, because it, it doesn't break down chemically in the atmosphere. So that's why the focus is on, um, uh, is on C- CO2. But there's other gases like methane, uh, and nitrous oxide as well are also greenhouse gases that we are increasing.

    3. CW

      What's happening with water vapor?

    4. RB

      So water vapor also changes, uh, and that changes in response to climate change. Uh, so as the world warms, uh, uh, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water, so water vapor can be a feedback mechanism, uh, on climate change. So it can, it can actually increase the impact o- of, o- of CO2 and other, other greenhouse gases, you see.

    5. CW

      So it's like a catalyst. Let's say that there is a warming on the Earth that increases the water vapor which permits more of a warming.

    6. RB

      Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Yes. Yeah.

    7. CW

      Interesting.

  7. 8:12 – 10:48

    Increased greening from CO2

    1. CW

      What about the increased greening from CO2 because this is something that I've heard about, that the parts per million that you can get if you have greenhouses where farmers and horticulturalists are growing particular things, that they want their PPM to be through the ceiling and that we're nowhere near that amount. Increased greening presumably would mean more plants, more plants would mean that they absorb more CO2, which would then bring the CO2 level down. So talk to me about how all of that pieces together.

    2. RB

      Yeah. So that's something which I've worked on, uh, myself and I've published on, uh, several times and that, in fact, sort of my PhD was on that exact issue actually. So yes, uh, when you put more CO2 in the atmosphere, that enhances photosynthesis, the process through which plants grow. So plants, uh, will take up some of the CO2 from the atmosphere, uh, through photosynthesis. That's a negative feedback. So actually if that didn't happen, we would've warmed the Earth even more because we, th- the CO2 rise would have been even greater than it has been. So we'd have seen probably double the amount of, uh, uh, uh, warming than we had seen. CO2 is also taken up in the ocean to some extent, uh, a- as well. So that is a extremely important, uh, process. And, uh, so it is part, a large part of the reason of why we're seeing greening of the Earth where you can see from satellite that some areas of the Earth have denser vegetation cover, especially kind of semi-arid regions where, uh, there's, there's, you know, limited water. So higher CO2 means plants need less water, um, so they can, they can green up more. There's other reasons for the greening that we're seeing change in land use. Also the warming of the climate itself, uh, in the very cold regions. Simply warmer temperatures mean you get longer growing seasons. So there's many factors behind the greening, but CO2, uh, is one of them. The reason that's also important for the future is we, we, we don't know for sure whether that will continue to the same extent in the future. Uh, you know from laboratory studies that this, uh, the, the impact of CO2 on, on photosynthesis, it kind of, it kind of flattens off i- at high levels of CO2. Um, but we also know that higher temperatures, as well as leading to longer growing season in cold regions, that can have a detrimental effect in hot regions. Uh, so the key question is, will this beneficial effect of CO2 continue into the future? Uh, we need to do more large-scale experiments in real ecosystems with high levels of CO2 to really be sure about that. So again, it's an open question. So when you're con- considering risk assessments, you need to account for a range of possibilities of how CO2 will affect, will affect greening in the future.

  8. 10:48 – 11:46

    Industrial CO2

    1. RB

    2. CW

      How have you been able to tease apart the industrial impact on CO2 in the atmosphere?

    3. RB

      So, uh, we know for sure that the, uh, that the CO2 rise is entirely manmade because the, uh, the amount that we're putting in the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning is way more than the amount that we're seeing, uh, building up i- in the atmosphere. Uh, about double, uh, in fact. So simply by conservation en masse, you know, we're, we're putting 10 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year from, from burning fossil fuels, another one or two billion from deforestation. The amount built up in the atmosphere is only equivalent to about five or so billion tons of carbon per year. So simply by the, by, by, by the arithmetic there, uh, it, uh, we, we know that what the increase is due to the, uh, i- industrial impacts, it's been offset by the natural, uh, impacts of, uh, uh, uptake of CO2 by natural vegetation.

  9. 11:46 – 12:55

    Natural CO2 uptake

    1. RB

    2. CW

      How do you know that that wasn't just a, a trend that was occurring and that's now being continued?

    3. RB

      Well, we, we've, we've, you can look back, uh, in, in, in time over from getting data from ice cores. Uh, if you, if you drill down into, into ice layers on the layers of ice that have been built over thousands of years and examining the bubbles of air trapped in the ice as the snow fell, uh, and trapped air within it and then turned to ice, uh, you've got a record of the atmosphere going back thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years. So you can analyze that and see what, see what the CO2 concentration was. And before we started burning fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution, the CO2 levels were-... hovering round about 280 parts per million for many, many thousands of years. Uh, and they did go up and down in the, in the more distant past. You can infer it from fossil records. It did change naturally in the past in response to very large-scale changes in global ecosystems, but in a much slower rate than what we've seen in recent, recent decades. The rate of CO2 increase is just way more than anything's been seen in the previous, uh, paleoclimate record.

  10. 12:55 – 14:23

    Milankovitch cycle

    1. RB

    2. CW

      I heard something about the Milankovitch cycle, which is this sort of climate wobbling up and down in temperature, we're going up and down, and this is part of-

    3. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    4. CW

      ... a small uptrend before we then go further down. How much legitimacy do you see in that?

    5. RB

      Yeah, so that, uh, that, that, again, that's, that's perfectly, uh, a good piece of climate science that, uh, uh, that, uh, colleagues of mine have, have worked on for many, many decades or more. Uh, so the, uh, so yeah, this, the, the, the ice ages are generally linked to these Milankovitch cycles, the change in the Earth's orbit and the, and the, the tilt of the Earth. Um, so that, that's, uh, yeah, an external forcing on the climate system, we, we, we call it. It's a change in the Earth's energy balance or the patterns of where, how the energy from the sun is reaching the Earth occur due to these changes in the Earth's orbit and the, and the tilt of the Earth. That can then lead to these kind of feedback processes, like with the carbon cycle, which mean that, yeah, as vegetation changes over the world, it can take up more CO2 for some periods or release more CO2 as you come back out of the cycle. And this is all, all part of our understanding of how, uh, a feedback process in the climate system. So, the rea- the reason that this is important is 'cause that then lets us see when we're looking at how we're warming the worth- Earth, other forcings, like human-caused increase in CO2, how feedbacks may then amplify or dampen that, uh, in the future. So, it all links together as our understanding of the climate system.

  11. 14:23 – 15:13

    Current projections

    1. RB

    2. CW

      What's the current projections that you guys have got with regards to temperature and CO2? Uh, no. Let's say that we don't make too many changes and kind of things were to continue as they are at the moment, what happens to-

    3. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    4. CW

      ... temperature and CO2 concentrations?

    5. RB

      So, if we carried on, um, as, as we are, uh, we would, we would see global warming of anywhere between two and possibly up to four degrees Celsius by the end of this century. It's very hard to be precise because we don't know the strength of all the feedback, so the best guess is probably somewhere below three degrees warming by the end of the century if, if we carry on, uh, a- as we are with currently implemented policies on energy and, and land use. Uh, uh-

    6. CW

      Just to interject there, Richard.

    7. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    8. CW

      What... When you say, "On average," when, when a climate scientist says, "On average, an increase in this," w-

  12. 15:13 – 16:41

    Climate models

    1. CW

      w-

    2. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    3. CW

      How is that figure worked out? Is that an aggregate across all areas around the globe? Because presumably, certain areas will increase by more, certain areas will increase by less. How, how do you come to that figure?

    4. RB

      Yeah, exactly. So, so this, this, this is all done, uh, with climate models which are essentially the same models that we use for the weather forecasts. So, these are models, uh, based on mathematical equations which represent our understanding of the physics of the climate system. Uh, so, uh, we, we understand the workings of the atmosphere pretty well, uh, so we're able to, uh, make these calculations which can explain past changes in climate and make predictions of the future. As I said earlier, you can't make perfect predictions. Uh, there's a certain amount of uncertainty. But if you compare the models with what they've done in the past and compare with what we've observed in the past in terms of past warming, you can actually narrow the uncertainties to some extent. Uh, so, so these projections I've just talked about are based on, uh, a- an assumption of, uh, carrying on emitting as we currently are, as you, you posed the question, but also how that plays out in terms of the response of the climate system linked to what we understand from past changes.

    5. CW

      Yeah, so we've got this water vapor as one of the examples. You have-

    6. RB

      Exactly.

    7. CW

      ... this feedback mechanism, so you have a first-order effect, which is an increase of CO2, then you have a second-order effect-

    8. RB

      Yeah.

    9. CW

      ... which is an increase of water vapor, then a third-order effect, which is CO2 in response to the water vapor and so on and so on. And, yeah, so I mean-

    10. RB

      Yeah.

  13. 16:41 – 17:55

    Computer models

    1. RB

    2. CW

      ... that, the computers that you've got running these models must be pretty big and pretty sophisticated because you can already begin to see how when you put that across an entire globe just how many degrees of separation you are away from what you're trying to do in, what, 80 years' time to try and arrive at these sort of figures.

    3. RB

      Yes. Yeah, I mean, so th- th- these models are, are vast. Uh, they're, uh, it's two million lines of Fortran code. We still use Fortran, which a lot of computer scientists, uh, uh, fi- find amusing 'cause it's a very old computer language, but it is actually, it's a very well-used language in, in, in climate science because one of the important things is many people work on these models o- over years and decades, uh, so it's gotta be, uh, a particular computer language which, which helps with collaboration. It's gotta be very clear and structured. Uh, so there's dozens, maybe even hundreds of people have worked on the Met Office model, uh, over the years. So, so it's, yeah, two million lines of Fortran which represent the mathematical, mathematical equations which represent the physics of the climate system. These calculations are done for ten thous- tens of thousands of points across the Earth's surface and many, many layers of the atmosphere. So, yeah, huge models which take weeks to actually do the calculations, in fact.

    4. CW

      That's

  14. 17:55 – 20:08

    Where temperatures are detected

    1. CW

      crazy. I had heard something, uh, to do with where temperatures are detected, temperature changes. How do you ensure that there isn't a, um, discrimination with regards to where temperature changes are measured? Let's say that y- you take them from particular areas and not from others or areas are more-

    2. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    3. CW

      ... represented. I'm gonna guess that this is something you guys have to account for as well.

    4. RB

      Yes, exactly. S- so, uh, colleagues of mine, uh, in the Met Office and in other institutions across the world have done a lot of work on this, um, because th- th- there's-... thousands, tens of thousands of data points of weather information taken across the world every hour, probably even every minute these days actually, uh, and bringing that together i- is, is done routinely for monitoring weather and helping with the weather forecasts. Uh, and it's now done very systematically across the world and there's quite high standards for that. If you want to look at climate change in the past, if you go back a few decades, the quality is very good, we've got satellite data as well which also helps give a big picture. But if you go back, you know, the '80s and '70s, you don't got satellite data. If you go back before that, the, uh, the network of weather stations across the world is less systematic. Um, we've got measurements taken from aircraft and ships and weather balloons as well, but, uh, once you go back to the start of the early 20th century, you've got much more sparse data and then beyond that, you're much more limited. And, uh, sometimes, uh, in many cases, you have to be very careful about whether this data is reliable, especially if weather stations have, have perhaps even shifted, uh, like a particular town has moved its weather station from one side of town to the other. You've got local effects like an urban area will generate, uh, its own temperature impacts and so on. You might have had a forest cut down, a wind, that kind of thing. So you have to account for these by cross-checking, uh, the weather stations in, in certain areas. Uh, and a lot of quality control goes into that now, um, and, uh, so it's not, it's not a trivial matter. You can't just look at the raw station data because you will get a very misleading, uh, picture. You have to do this kind of, uh, cross-checking, uh, to make sure you get a, a clear and accurate, uh, picture of change over time.

  15. 20:08 – 21:56

    What happens if we get to 2 degrees

    1. RB

    2. CW

      What happens if we get to the end of the century and we're less than three degrees but more than two degrees warmer?

    3. RB

      So, uh, I would say w- we would probably have initiated, uh, some, uh, s- some severe long-term sea level rise impacts at the very least because, uh, it seems that mountain glaciers are already melting because we've, we've warmed the world already. So we're already locking ourselves into, uh, putting more meltwater into the oceans and therefore more sea level rise. We're seeing sea level rise happening already. Uh, we may well have ish- initiated, uh, some further long-term, uh, impacts of melting of part of ice sheets in Greenland, uh, and Ant- Antarctica. Uh, if we keep warming below three degrees, perhaps we won't, uh, kick off the worst of these, but I think exceeding two degrees does risk, uh, some major impacts like that. And also, we will have changed weather patterns, uh, in many parts of the world. Uh, some of the hotter parts of the world, which are already kind of almost on, on the edge, uh, of what humans can live with day-to-day will be going past areas, uh, past, uh, times of extreme heat stress for humans as well. So places like the Indian subcontinent, parts of Africa, uh, a two-degree world would probably expose about a billion people, uh, to extreme heat stress for more than 10 days, uh, a year, w- we've calculated. So the hotter parts of the world would be seeing severe impacts and then we'd be seeing impacts on biodiversity. The colder regions of the world where a lot of the ecosystems and species of animals and plants are adapted to, uh, to cold, uh, temperatures, they won't be seeing the cold temperatures they're used to, so we'd be seeing massive impacts on biodiversity and human life there as well actually-

    4. CW

      Mm-hmm.

    5. RB

      ... in terms of, again, ways of life which, you know, cultures which are adapted to cold temperatures, you see.

  16. 21:56 – 23:15

    What if we get to 4 degrees

    1. RB

    2. CW

      What about if we get closer toward four degrees? Is there a step change that occurs there or is it just more of the same horrors?

    3. RB

      It's very hard to say whether there's any kind of particular step change. You often hear, you know, uh, about, you know, critical thresholds and so on. You can't really put this-

    4. CW

      Yeah, like runaway cyclical natures of stuff.

    5. RB

      Yeah. So, so you can't put your finger on any particular level of global warming that would, that would, that would definitely, uh, kick off any kind of, uh, chain reaction. But the more, uh, warming we put into the system, the more we risk these large-scale changes like i- irreversible, uh, melting of the Greenland ice sheet, for example, which would take centuries to millennia to completely melt away but you can reach a point of no return with the Greenland ice sheet where as it melts, the surface of the ice sheet comes down to warmer temperatures in the lower atmosphere and that sort of feeds on itself.

    6. CW

      Just, just explain that to me.

    7. RB

      So the Greenland ice sheet is very thick, it's miles thick. Uh, so as the surface of that, uh, melts under higher temperatures, the surface comes down lower into the atmosphere and the lower part of the atmosphere is warmer than the higher atmosphere. So you could bring the surface of the Greenland ice sheet into an area of warmer, uh, temperatures and that could mean the warming and the melting could, could feed on itself, you see.

    8. CW

      Oh, yeah.

    9. RB

      So that's one of the irreversible changes.

  17. 23:15 – 24:33

    Amazon rainforest

    1. RB

    2. CW

      So by being high, you're actually protected and refrigerated and you have a, a frozen area which covers over an area that perhaps would be even now prone to melting but it's kind of-

    3. RB

      Yeah.

    4. CW

      ... it's almost protected over the top.

    5. RB

      Yeah. Yeah. Uh, exactly. That's right. So, and there's other potential kind of tipping points in the climate system which, which, which may exist but we don't know exactly where. So one very famous one, uh, is the Amazon rainforest tipping point where some early models of ours projected a very severe warming and drying in the Amazon region. Most models don't project such severe drying now, it has to be said. So that's actually something of a relief to some extent. However, most models do project something of a drying and warming in that region and that means that, uh, the other impact on the Amazon is from deforestation. So the real threat from, uh, to the Amazon probably comes from a combination of deforestation and climate change. So this kind of milder drying of the Amazon means that any impacts of deforestation would, would be worse, uh, because de- deforesting the Amazon means that the edges of the forest dry out and become more susceptible to fire. So it's more complex than simply a climate-driven dieback that the older models showed. It's more a link between deforestation and climate.

  18. 24:33 – 25:25

    Will the Amazon rainforest remain resilient

    1. RB

    2. CW

      Is the Amazon benefiting from increased greening from CO2? Is that helping it to grow back more quickly?

    3. RB

      Uh, large parts of it at the moment, yes. Uh, some parts of it, no. Some parts of it are, are now so, uh, s- so warm and, and getting drier and are becoming impacted by f- deforestation and degradation that they're not benefiting, uh, but large parts of it are. So a key question for us, uh, is how long will that continue in the future? Uh, we- we- we recently initiated, uh... Well, I say we, colleagues of mine in Brazil are setting up a major experiment in the Amazon rainforest to look at exactly this. Uh, will the rainforest remain resilient and will it take, take up more CO2 as CO2 levels, uh, are increased? So that's a big piece of science th- that needs to be done to help us, uh, you know, narrow down the uncertainty in our models.

  19. 25:25 – 28:21

    What is climate conservation

    1. RB

    2. CW

      Talk to me for a second, I wanna try and get into the, um, philosophical underpinning of what climate... not necessarily climate science, but what, um, having a climate-conscious, um, (smacks lips) worldview is actually trying to achieve, whether or not it's trying to keep the planet the same, whether it's trying to make it as hospitable for humans as possible, whether it's trying to, um, keep ahold of biodiversity, whether it's, as my friend and past guest Charles Eisenstein said-

    3. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    4. CW

      ... just trying to retain the beauty of the planet as much as we can. What do you see as the goal of whatever you would refer to as climate conservation perhaps? Um, what, what's the actual outcome that we're aiming for?

    5. RB

      So, I mean, th- that probably comes down to something of a personal view, so I can only offer my personal view on this and others will have a diff- different view. But for, but for me, uh, it's, it's, uh, from a, from the point of view of humans, it's about making sure that we, we don't make our environment, uh, you know, uncomfortable and therefore... and ul- and ultimately impossible for ourselves in, in certain places. Uh, it stands to reason that we have evolved, uh, under a certain range of climates in the past. We've adapted our societies to certain local climates. Uh, we are actually fairly adaptable. Humans live in a wide range of, of places across the world. Uh, so to some extent it's, uh, it can be about keeping the climate what we're used to in a particular location 'cause we a- we've built cities based on our own local climates. Um, we... Uh, but, but in, in other cases it, it's about making sure that we don't go beyond what is actually tolerable for people in the v- in the very, very hot, uh, uh, parts of the world, where there's a- there's an upper limit to what we can cope with as, as, as humans, or at least what we can kind of function within. So that, that, that, that's part of it, it's about making sure that we don't make things inconvenient or impossible (laughs) for ourselves. But also I think there's, there's more of a, a... you can, you can imagine there's a, a moral, uh, uh, view on, uh, on our responsibility to other species as well. Other species on the Earth are adapted to certain, uh, local climates, uh, we're changing that, uh, so a lot of people, including myself, would, would regard it as unethical to, uh, to, to make life impossible for, for o- other species, uh, and ecosystems. And, uh, and there is some, uh, beauty in the Earth that you can appreciate, you know, in cold regions, glaciers, uh, w- we love a cold... I'll ever cold winters, um, morning, for example. Uh, I- I do feel sad that the, uh, the, the, the cold weather we used to see in the 1980s happens much less frequently now. Although it's, it's inconvenient, but I did like a nice cold winter, you know? It's like... uh, so those kind of changes, they can... it's an emotional aspect to that, uh, as well as cultural aspects, as well as also, you know, human practical and survival aspects and survival aspects for other species, so a whole range of things.

  20. 28:21 – 32:21

    Is there a price to be paid

    1. RB

    2. CW

      Yeah, it's an interesting one. I definitely see us-

    3. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    4. CW

      ... as stewards of the Earth. I think that as the only ones aboard spaceship Earth that aren't just cargo but we're crew as well-

    5. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    6. CW

      ... we have some sort of moral obligation, I think, to, you know, act well a- as guardians of, of the other creatures and the diversity that we've kind of inherited. Um, I wonder whether... I wonder how much there is a price that needs to be paid, if you could almost see it as a balancing act between having an advanced civilization that is able to bring people out of poverty, that is able to raise living standards, that is able to access degrees of health and wellness and flourishing and economic value and so on and so forth, whether... Well, presumable- I'll put it to you, is there a sacrifice that needs to be made in order for us to get that? Presumably by trying to restrict carbon emissions, what we're aiming to do is have our cake and eat it too. It's we want to be able to live in a technologically advanced world, but we also don't want these negative externalities that we have from, uh, the climate being wrecked.

    7. RB

      Yeah. And, and, this, this is why this gets so con- uh, controversial because people have different views about where this balance, uh, should lie. Uh, so yes, we, we want to, uh, have, you know, a, a, a good and happy and fulfilling and comfortable life for everybody on Earth. Uh, and, uh, that requires, uh, yeah, a certain level of living standards which, which we have historically relied on fossil fuels, uh, and the use of the land, uh, to achieve. But now we're recognizing that the way we've done that in the past is ultimately not sustainable in the long term. But at the same time, you can't rip that away immediately because we rely on it so much. So the phrase just transition gets used, so it's about how, uh, where, uh, people, uh, individuals, societies, uh, you know, towns and cities and even countries that rely on the old way of doing things, uh, how they can transition to a more sustainable way of doing things without disadvantaging people. So if you... say, for example, there's, there's whole communities who rely on coal mining. Um, if we just shut down coal mining, as happened in the UK in the '80s, it has devastating effects on the local community. So you have to find ways to, to get, get through that and make sure that people have other...... uh, the sources of employment. Uh, and you don't just rip, rip the heart out of a community and replace it with nothing else. So it's not a tri- trivial problem to deal with.

    8. CW

      I learned that cheap energy is one of the best ways to raise people in developing countries out of poverty, and that fossil fuels are one of the best ways to get them that. Is there a, a tension between trying to reduce fossil fuel use and also still trying to get developing countries up to an acceptable living standard?

    9. RB

      So there is a tension there, and the o- the other tension, of course, is the- the other effects of, of, of, uh, fossil fuels such as local air pollution and so on. Uh, so again, from the- for in the, uh, in the UK, uh, we experienced in the s- you know, in the '50s and '60s incredible, uh, air pollution incidents. My dad, uh, uh, who is from the Black Country would remember horrendous smogs, uh, where it was just desperately unhealthy to be outside. Uh, and, uh, and a lot of people died of, you know, respiratory, uh, related problems and so on. Uh, so that was all to do with local air pollution. The UK has sort of, you know, b- uh, by getting out of so much coal burning has reduced those problems. Those problems still exist in other parts of the world as well. Um, so yes, there is this tension, uh, as, as you said, but there's also the other effects of air, a- a- air quality and so on you need, need to take into account as well.

    10. CW

      Yeah, I think-

    11. RB

      That's why we talk about, like, kind of co-benefits is actually the phrase that gets used is that co-, is that there's other benefits of reducing fossil fuel use beyond the climate impact, like improving air quality and so

  21. 32:21 – 34:41

    Reducing access to energy

    1. RB

      on.

    2. CW

      Yeah, but then there would also be kind of co-costs which is-

    3. RB

      Yeah.

    4. CW

      ... the reduction of access to energy. It's, it's... One of the things that strikes me is that we're kind of fortunate that the planet is as small as it is. I know the Earth's massive. I know that it's big.

    5. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    6. CW

      But we can fly around it in the space of 24 hours pretty much now if you're on the right plane. And if the planet was even bigger, you would have so many different interest groups, so many different nation states. I mean, it's already hard to coordinate stuff at the moment with different actors and different agendas and so on. But let's say that Earth was able to sustain itself at the way that it was but it was maybe twice as big, which would be an awful lot more land mass, an awful lot more humans, an awful lot more nation states, even wider varieties in terms of the, uh, climates and the countries and so on and so forth. Um, trying to get, trying to find a middle ground where you have every different nation's interests aligned... You know, we've recently had COP26 in Glasgow and, you know, f- for all that countries can go there and say that, "We want to do this," each country has its own different agenda about where it is, what its desires are for growth, for, uh, economic policy, for everything. So yeah-

    7. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    8. CW

      ... I think, um, we, we're probably quite fortunate that we have, although it's massive, as small a sample size of planet to work with.

    9. RB

      Yeah. That's got, that's a very interesting point which I, I, I'd never heard before. Yeah. So you're, you're, uh, uh, yeah. Things could be even worse is what you're, what you're saying. (laughs)

    10. CW

      It could be even more complex, yeah. You, you could need-

    11. RB

      Yeah, yeah, yeah.

    12. CW

      ... 50 million lines of code in order to be able to work out what's going on.

    13. RB

      Yes. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's an interesting one. But the, but the complexity of the, of the issue and, you know, and the negotiations at COP and so on, it, it is a huge, uh, a huge problem because, uh, yeah governments have responsibilities to their own people and economies and so on. And, and yes, they, they want to, on the one hand keep, protect their populations from the worst impacts of climate change but they don't want to, uh, just radically change everything, uh, especially, uh, the developing world whi- which is seeing that we in the developed world have benefited from all this stuff historically. They, uh, are, are... they want, they want some support from us, uh, at least making, making this transition, this just transition I was talking about earlier.

    14. CW

      Well

  22. 34:41 – 36:29

    Developing countries

    1. CW

      yeah, because they're still playing catch up to try and get their living standards to where they see the West already benefiting from it, whether that be because we got there first or we have slightly preferable climates or whatever economic policies.

    2. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    3. CW

      And because of the current state of the climate, you could see it as these bourgeois Western bastards coming in and telling you that... wagging their finger at you and saying, "No, no, no, you need to be along with us." And you say, "Well, we're, we're not in the same boat here. We have completely different living standards and, uh, economic structure than you do." So making developing countries sing to the same hymn sheet as a developed country is going to cause even more disparity.

    4. RB

      Yeah. And that's ex- that's exactly at the heart of, uh, a lot of the negotions that were ha- negotiations that were happening in the last couple of weeks, uh, in Glasgow at COP26. And the other aspect, of course, is the fact that, uh, uh, these countries along with everywhere else are living with the effects of climate change that are already happening. So they've already warmed the world by over a degree Celsius, we're already seeing some changes in extreme weather, we're already seeing an increase in sea levels in some cases. So the more vulnerable parts of the world which, which, uh, happen to be, uh, often the countries which have contributed less to the issue are now asking for support in dealing with that, putting in place adaptation measures because there's a strong argument comes from some quarters, "Oh, we should just adapt our way out of climate change or at least adapt our way through it." Uh, but you need to actually put things in place to do that adaptation and again, it's the same countries that, that need support on, uh, you know, getting away from fossil fuels and deforestation that need support in adaptation, uh, because they happen to be in the hotter parts of the world and perhaps low lying countries and so on. So again, this is another big issue that was addressed at, at COP26 but not fully resolved.

  23. 36:29 – 38:58

    COP26 summary

    1. RB

    2. CW

      Did you... What was your... what's your synopsis? What was your sort of summary of that? I mean, I'm, I'm gonna guess this is kind of like you've got a, uh, illustration of Glastonbury behind you. COP26 must be a little bit like the Glastonbury for, uh, for climate scientists but just maybe a little bit less fun. Um, what's your... how did you feel that that went based on sort of what you know and what you can tell us?

    3. RB

      Well, the, uh, the, uh, that's a very, another very good analogy actually. The, the, the, these climate conferences are huge. There's so many things going on. Uh, the, at the heart of it, yeah, to the pyramid stage if you, if you like, is, is the negotiations. That's what everyone, the, the rest of the world sees, uh, where this, the countries are negotiating about which, what emissions they will, uh, they will, they will cut, uh, and how and will they support each other in adaptation. Then around that, the rest of the festival, the other stages in the festival, there's also this many different even more delegates are, are having conversations amongst themselves linking to the negotiations, updating, uh, ourselves on each other's work on climate science, what this means for policy, hearing from policymakers about what they need. So it's a big kind of meeting of minds around this negotiations. So it, there's two different levels to it. The, the outcome of the negotiations, uh, I would probably say, uh, it's not as good as we would have hoped. Uh, well, not as good as we needed to keep ourselves on track to meet the Paris Agreement targets of limiting warming well below two degrees. It didn't achieve that yet, but it was a good step along the way. A lot of positive did, uh, things did happen. There were some good agreements on, uh, reducing deforestation, uh, actually specifically identifying coal, uh, as an issue that needs to be addressed. There was an aim to get countries to, uh, commit to getting out of coal completely. That wasn't achieved, but there was a, uh, commitment to reduce coal use. There were other things on adaptation, again, not going as far as was hoped, but, uh, more than was feared. So it's a halfway house really. Uh, beyond that, the, uh, the, I think having this, this, the, the, the opportunity for networking and sharing the information, sharing the science, um, that was reasonably positive. I think there's a good shared understanding building as well, which I think that will help inform the next COP in a year's time where more needs to be done on the negotiations.

    4. CW

      Is it annual?

    5. RB

      It is, yes. There's one every year except for last year, uh, when there wasn't one because of, uh, uh, the pandemic. So the one from last year, Glasgow was supposed to happen last year, basically. Yeah.

  24. 38:58 – 40:05

    Has there ever been a COP which has attracted as much media attention

    1. RB

    2. CW

      Has there ever been one which has attracted as much media attention as the one that we've just seen? Because I, you could have told me that this happened once every five years and I would have believed you.

    3. RB

      Yeah. So thi- this was, this was particularly prominent, uh, especially in the UK, uh, because we were the host nation. Um, but because also it was, it's been five years since the, the last prominent one which was in Paris. So the Paris Agreement, which I mentioned a few minutes ago, was at a previous COP, which was, uh, very prominent because that was the first time where there was an actual agreement between all countries, uh, to take action on climate change. That had never been achieved before in previous COPs. So that was very prominent. And also the, the ambition which had been, uh, uh, talked about in previous COPs before Paris was to limit warming to two degrees global warming. The ambition became to try to limit that warm- to 1.5 degrees. That was another key thing in Paris. So the Paris one was as, probably as prominent or almost as prominent as the, as, as, as the Glasgow one, but they're not always as prominent as this is, that's for sure. Yeah.

  25. 40:05 – 42:52

    Whats the enforcement mechanism

    1. RB

    2. CW

      What's the enforcement mechanism if some nation state doesn't abide by what they're doing? If China just tells you what you want to hear, but then decides to just crack on spunking loads of CO2 out?

    3. RB

      So the, so, uh, the, the, the commitments can be monitored. There's, there's, there's processes in place to sort of check on how emissions are actually, uh, progressing. That can be, uh, that, that, that can be, uh, uh, that can be audited, that, uh, the deforestation can be monitored by satellite. So the data, uh, is there. You can, you can measure how much the CO2 is, uh, building up in the atmosphere. You can see where, uh, where emissions are, are, are coming from. Um, but in terms of actual enforcement, like with any international, uh, agreements, uh, it's actually fundamentally it's down to almost peer pressure between the countries, uh, essentially. Uh, you know, there's, there's no international law as such. It's basically countries, uh, shaming each other-

    4. CW

      Gentlemen's agreement.

    5. RB

      Exactly. Yes. Yeah. So it's, so, so it's like, like any of these things, it's about the, you know, the, the community, uh, you know, uh, encouraging its- itself and policing itself really.

    6. CW

      There's another thing to consider, uh, I want to start talking about China in a second, but we're at least not in open disputes with most of the countries on the planet. Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be if we were seeing some of the, uh, nation divides, uh, in terms of territories from the 1900s, World War I, World War II, Cold War, lack of communication between different countries, and we had some climate challenges to overcome because you would, there's no way that you're getting coordination. In fact, it's perhaps because of the tragedy of the commons, it's maybe even in the interests of particular countries that might be able to weather the storm of climate change better to be able to utilize their, uh, industrial machinery to just try and get themselves as far ahead because they're still in conflict with whoever else it might be. Kind of fortunate that we're not at war at the moment.

    7. RB

      Yes, it is. Uh, I mean, although another aspect of this is the, you know, climate change being an extra stress on, on, on certain countries and so on. So we're, again, this is one of the particularly controversial issues is about the role of, uh, climate change and int- international security and wars and so on. You can't, you can't really pin any specific wars on climate change as such, but, but, uh, uh, you can start to see that, um, it doesn't help when you get more extreme weather in a region which is already, uh, under tension, uh, then an, an additional natural disaster such as crop failures and, and that kind of thing. It's, it's not helping at all, you know. So it's a further thing to, to bear in mind in the

  26. 42:52 – 43:59

    Chinas contribution

    1. RB

      future.

    2. CW

      I saw a stat saying that China contributes 30% of the entire world's CO2. Do you know how true that is?

    3. RB

      Uh, in terms of emissions, it's, uh, it's the largest, um, uh, emitter, uh, so, uh, they, they, they, they do have a hu- hu- huge population and they have, uh, you know, ramped up their energy, uh, production in the last 20 years, uh, as they've gone, undergone a rapid, uh, development. So, uh, so yes, it's, uh, Ch- China is the biggest, uh, emitter, uh, as a country. It's not the biggest emitter per person, uh, because they have a very large, uh, population. The emissions per person are still smaller than the USA, for example. Uh-

    4. CW

      Oh, that's interesting.

    5. RB

      Uh, yeah, but in terms of the actual emissions, they're the, they're the largest, yeah.

    6. CW

      Yeah, that's interesting. So I had, um, a conversation the other day which really opened my eyes to this, so I- I'm quite concerned about China, um, I, I think that sort of globally, it's, it's a threat that we need to be taking far more seriously, and I started talking about this particular statistic that it's the largest single contributor of CO2

  27. 43:59 – 45:50

    Offshoring

    1. CW

      on the planet, and one of, uh, the, the person that I was speaking to, uh, Richard, decided to say, "Well, yeah, that may be true, but you have to also think that one of the benefits that we've seen in somewhere like the UK is that we've outsourced a lot of our industrial production to China." So the fact that you can then point to China and say, "Look at all of the stuff that you're throwing out into the atmosphere," is... and, uh, we can stand on a high horse and say, "Look at how green we are," it's facilitated by the fact that a lot of our production is now being outsourced there, that we're getting electronics and machine parts and so on and so forth from that country.

    2. RB

      Yeah, that's exactly right. So when, when you're, uh, looking at a country's claims on how well it's reduced its own emissions, so for the UK, for example, uh, monitors its, uh, our own emissions, we were the first country to put in place the Climate Change Act, so legal obligation on the government, uh, to reduce emissions, uh, and the Climate Change Committee, this independent advisory body, will track, um, the UK's progress, uh, a- against its commitments. And you have to be, uh, very clear about whether the emissions reductions being quoted are the total emissions that, that nation is responsible for, including what- what's called offshoring, yeah, what, what we've been... uh, what we're buying from other countries elsewhere in the world, which includes China, but other places as well. Um, uh, are you including that or are you just not talking about domestic emissions, what we're emitting locally? Uh, so you are absolutely right that you have to look at the bigger picture. We're responsible ultimately for, uh, emissions elsewhere in the world-

    3. CW

      What we consume-

    4. RB

      ... as well as other countries.

    5. CW

      ... as well as what we create, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's, um-

    6. RB

      Yes, yeah, yeah.

    7. CW

      I found, I mean, I... understanding stuff like that, I find very interesting. I think that-

    8. RB

      Mm.

    9. CW

      ... you know, having that in the back of your mind when... I can still be concerned about China, but having that as a, a little bit of a, um, a caveat was, was interesting.

  28. 45:50 – 47:56

    Protests

    1. CW

      Does it, does it annoy you that climate science sometimes gets forgotten or tarnished due to crazy stunts and protests that grab attention?

    2. RB

      Uh, yeah, that's an interesting one. It can, um... So I, I, I think that some, some things can be unhelpful if, if they're, you know, annoying a large part of the, uh, yeah, the population when people are, uh, you know, particularly if they're, like obstructing public transport or something, I, I personally think that is sending out the wrong message, you know. I, I'm an advocate of public transport and, and, and cycling and that kind of thing. Um, so when some people have, have used public transport (laughs) to get their message across, um, I think that was the wrong target.

    3. CW

      A bit self-defeating.

    4. RB

      Uh, yeah, yeah. The, uh, uh... on the other hand, uh, I can see how keeping the issue in the news, uh, is a useful thing, uh, as well. Uh, the... I mean... when people are breaking the law, you know, and when people are perhaps, uh, even potentially endangering other people, then I get... you know, I'm, I'm not happy with that. Um, so the... you know, if you, if, if you go as far as... yeah, some things can, some things can be counterproductive. So you have to be quite, quite careful about what, what, what you're doing, I, I think. It's, uh, it's a very difficult area. I would much rather, uh, that... uh, say that the media, news media, for example, um, gave prominence to, to, to climate science, uh, in a, in an unbiased way. Uh, one of the protests last year was particularly targeting certain ni- uh, sections of the media, wasn't it? And the reasons that the protestors gave for that was that they s- saw that this, uh, certain sections of the media, they, they were saying didn't give a true picture. Um, I would rather the media, uh, cover climate change in a, in a good, unbiased, fact-based way so that people then didn't have to feel they had to take this kind of radical action.

  29. 47:56 – 51:01

    Balancing act

    1. RB

    2. CW

      Yeah, I, um, I read an article a while ago by Scott Alexander from Slate/Star Codex. It's called The Toxoplasma of Rage. It's very interesting, and he talks about the fact that activists or anybody that's trying to push forward a, uh, a narrative or an agenda, um, they have a balancing act to make that the more outlandish and gregarious stunts that they can do, they do capture more attention, but inevitably, they polarize opinion a lot more too. Uh, on the flip side of that, the stunts which are perhaps much more persuasive and well-meaning and rational don't capture as much attention, but don't cause the polarity and also don't, um... that it, it's easy to get people on side. So there is a payoff that you need to decide between exposure and impact or exposure and persuasion, and, uh, from my side, based on what I see, I think... it, it feels to me like climate activism is...... sacrificing a lot of persuasion for impact, and I think that that being drawn back now, you may be right, maybe that could be assisted through other channels. But from your, uh, seat in the middle of the climate debate, what would you do if you were someone whose job it was to try and improve the messaging? Uh, you know, it w- it's not good enough to just put Excel spreadsheets up. Like, it needs to be engaging. There has to be a reason for people to take care, but also this, this undertone that you, because you drive a car to work, you should feel bad about what you're doing. I don't think that that, I don't think shaming people into compliance is the right way to go about it either. So, wha- what would you, what are your thoughts on the messaging at the moment and moving forward?

    3. RB

      Yeah, I, I, I, I, I agree. Nobody likes to be told what to do, uh, and nobody likes to be shamed about what they, what they're doing. Um, I much prefer things which are, you know, more positive and, and creative, and you, and you can find things which are, uh, attention grabbing and, and creative and more positive. An example here locally, uh, some local activists, um, uh, last year, uh, hired a load of road cones and they put in a- an unofficial cycle path, uh, on one of the main roads in Exeter that goes to the hospital. So they just put this cycle path and it was completely unauthorized, and then they sort of sat by and they, and they watched, and they filmed, uh, people using it to see whether... first of all, to see if people would use it. And they did see that hospital staff, doctors and nurses who cycled to work, were using this, this cycle path. Um, half a day later, the, the council then took it away 'cause it wasn't authorized. Uh, but I think, I, I quite like that as a more kind of constructive thing. It didn't do anybody any harm, uh, and it, it illustrated the fact that the cycle path there would be really useful. Um, so I would like to see more of that kind of thing, you know, more, more, more positive, uh, imaginative and, and creative things that, uh, that really are helpful, uh, rather than, rather, rather than negative. That's my personal

  30. 51:01 – 59:59

    Cycle lane

    1. RB

      view.

    2. CW

      One of the things that I definitely notice in myself, you brought up the cycle lane, so in Gosforth, which is where I live in Newcastle-

    3. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    4. CW

      ... the, uh, two-lane high street, uh, sorry, the two per side, so a four-lane high street was reduced down to a two-lane high street to accommodate a cycle lane.

    5. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    6. CW

      The traffic on that now is, is disgusting. It's absolutely awful. Anybody that tries to-

    7. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    8. CW

      ... get from the Great, Great North Roads down into Newcastle knows what I'm talking about. Um, there's something, there's something about that that is a little bit uncomfortable because you observe the inconvenience that you suffer from a front row seat. You know that if you're stuck between 3:00 PM and 5:30 PM or at any time during the morning on that road, that it's going to take you 10 minutes to do a mile, and that's going to annoy you, and you knew, you'd also remember a time not long ago when it didn't cause that long. I think creating a grand narrative, creating a more cohesive understanding around why these measures get put in place, so let's say that adding a cycle lane helps to reduce carbon emissions by whatever percent. I don't know that. I don't know that. I just see what broadly to me looks like a mostly unused cycle lane and a ton of traffic that's tailed back. So, what I think is missing, first off, I would suggest to climate activists to, um, dial back the amount of shame that gets put onto people. I don't think that that's an effective strategy at all. I think it just makes people kind of resent whatever it is that you're doing. But a, a broader understanding of the direction that we're trying to move toward and how individual actions contribute to that. I think that that's important because it connects the sacrifice that you make. If someone said to me, if I was able to feel good about the fact that I know I need to set off 10 minutes earlier to get to town, but that by me setting off 10 minutes earlier to get to town, I'm actually helping in a way b- to reduce down carbon emissions because we have increased other people's ability to cycle to work, then I'm like, "Oh, okay, like, I kind of feel, I kind of feel good about this and it..." or at least it dampens down the inconvenience. Do you understand what I mean?

    9. RB

      Yes. Yeah, and I, I, I think, uh, uh, also, uh, w- we could encourage people to think a little bit, um, outside their own kind of narrow, uh, view. And I don't, I don't mean this in a, in a negative way, but sometimes people don't realize that they could do things differently. Uh, sometimes they genuinely can't. Uh, sometimes they could do if given a bit of help. So again, using the cycle lanes one as, as an example-

    10. CW

      Mm-hmm.

    11. RB

      ... um, there's a lot of people that, that have no choice but to use a car. That's, that's for sure. Uh, h- here in Exeter, we're a small town, a small city, but with a rural area around it. It's very hard to get anywhere in the rural area without a car. Um, within the city, um, it's actually a l- uh, much easier than a lot of people think to get around by bike for example. I, I haven't had a car for two years. Uh, in that first period, uh, I was actually quite surprised about how easy it was to live without a car. I, I just use my bike and, uh, public transport, uh, and, and trains. Uh, some people, I think a lot of people could do more like that. I recognize a lot of people could not do that. But those who have no choice, uh, uh, th- their, their lives would be easier if those who, who, who do have a choice could, could make a different choice. But often those people could only make that choice if they're helped along the way by having, yes, safe cycling routes and that kind of thing. So it's not all down to individual people. It's about helping, changing the system to help people make these, make these choices.

    12. CW

      How much do individuals' decisions about what they do, you know, one person remembering to turn the lights off or putting the, the lights on a timer or switching to a hybrid car or an electric vehicle, how much is that going to make an impact even if you start to scale that on mass across an entire population, and how much of it is from other things that are more out of our control? So perhaps things that are...... in industry, business, control by the government, uh, transportation, owned by companies, and stuff like that as opposed to individuals?

    13. RB

      So the, uh, yeah, the small actions like turning the lights off when you're changing your low-energy lightbulbs and that kind of thing w- yeah, have a, have a, have a, have a small impact. It, it is system level change, like entirely different energy sources. Uh, so not having, uh, coal-fired power stations, having instead, uh, renewables or nuclear or, or whatever. So that's a sort of system-level change which, uh, uh, would need to be, uh, pe- people would, would obviously have to buy into that as, as, as consumers. And, uh, uh, and it needs to be sep- set up in a way which is not disadvantaging, um, people. So you kind of, yeah, it's, it's seeing yourself as, as part of the bigger, uh, bigger picture, picture really, yeah.

    14. CW

      What's your thoughts on nuclear energy?

    15. RB

      Personally speaking, uh, I, uh, would be surprised if we could, uh, a- achieve the targets without nuclear energy. That's a personal view, not as an expert. Uh, you know, I'm a climate modeler. Uh, this is just from, you know, me seeing the debates from, from where I, from where I sit. Uh, I see arguments, uh, w- which say it can be done without nuclear energy. Uh, so, you know, I'm speaking as a non-expert here. I'd be surprised if we could do it without, without nuclear energy. I think the problem is so severe that we need to throw everything at it basically. We can't rule anything out. That's my view.

    16. CW

      Why do you think it is that there is a quite a big swath of climate, um, activist people who dislike nuclear energy?

    17. RB

      I think that, that links to the, uh, the, the, uh, the, uh, the origins of the green movement, uh, who, uh, who traditionally, uh, were sort of, you know, suspicious of any, any, any kind of technology. Uh, and of course, you know, there have, there have been horrendous nuclear accidents in, in the past, of course. Uh, the, uh, technology is very different now. And, uh, the, uh, new nuclear, uh, power stations are, are being designed and built to a, yeah, much, much higher standard. And, uh, the risk assessments are done to account, account for climate change as well. Yeah, acc- accounting for very high temperatures, uh, uh, high levels of CO1-

    18. CW

      Oh, so nuclear plants that are being created now are being future-proofed against potential higher global temperatures?

    19. RB

      Exactly. Uh, exactly.

    20. CW

      Wow.

    21. RB

      Yes, yeah, yeah.

    22. CW

      I mean, that's so sophisticated. Um-

    23. RB

      Mm-hmm.

    24. CW

      I had Alex Epstein on the show quite a while ago, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, so he's a philosopher that he's talking about. And, um, I, I don't understand enough about the impacts of different types of fuels to be able to kind of dig into his data. But what I did take away from it was, uh, a surprise at how much most climate activist groups seem to be very averse to nuclear energy, which is, you know, aside from a couple of very big accidents which occurred on version 0.1, uh, reactors and plants that were very unsafe. Um, it, it, it surprises me that that isn't just what everybody is throwing, throwing their efforts at. Um...

    25. RB

      Um, I mean, it, it, it, it, it is true that the high-level waste is, is a long-term problem, uh, that you kind of, yeah, you, you'll be bequeathing that to future generations. But it, it's a relatively small amount, uh, you know, in the, in the grand scheme of things. But it, but it does exist. So part of the concern is about what we do with this stuff, which is going to be around for, um, uh, for thou- for thousands of years, uh, as well as the obvious con- uh, concern based on past experience, um, o- of past accidents. But again, so this is why it's such a, such a controversial topic and you get very, very polarized views on it.

    26. CW

      Richard Bettts, ladies and gentlemen. If people want to keep up to date with what you do, where should they go?

    27. RB

      Uh, you can follow me on Twitter, @richardabetts, uh, on Twitter. Uh, you can also, uh, look at what the, uh, the Met Office and the University of Exeter are putting out. I put work at both of these, uh, these places. You could, you could look at the, the technical report of the Climate Change Risk Assessment, which I, I led, which was published this year. Uh, so look that up. It's, uh, uh, UK Climate Risk, uh, is the website. Uh, so you can look there for some of my latest work. But, uh, yeah, I'm, I'm active on social media. Uh, so always happy to have a conversation about this. I just talk to anybody who's interested in climate change, so happy to have a discussion.

    28. CW

      Thanks for today, mate. What's happening people? Thank you very much for tuning in. If you enjoyed that episode, then press here for a selection of the best clips from the podcast over the last few weeks. And don't forget to subscribe. Peace.

Episode duration: 59:59

Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript

Transcript of episode zAd_Bz5ARL4

Get more out of YouTube videos.

High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.

Add to Chrome