 the dire reality of the climate crisis. Quick question, who among you was in this year in 2019 who has been to a demonstration against climate change? At least one, show of hands, like Fridays for Future or something else. I would say that's like 95, 97% of the audience. Thank you very much. And one of the Fridays for Future demonstrations that I went to was very impressive for me because I felt that they had a very interesting balance between the situation is really, really bad and we're all fucked. And on the other hand, but it's not too late, we can do something. So people are getting really scared but also like constructive and motivated to do something. So it's an emotional and intellectual roller coaster. And in this talk, we're going to learn a little bit more about what the scientists say and if it's better to freak out or be motivated. And our speaker is Hannover. He's an IT security professional and he writes regularly for the media outlet Golem. And with that, I leave you with him. I hope you learn a lot. Please give Hannover a big warm round of applause and have a lot of fun with this talk. Thank you very much. Yeah. Hello. Yeah, just adding to the introduction, like about this, should we be freaked out and should we be motivated? After last time I gave such a talk, someone came to me and said, yeah, if I listen to you, it seems like this doesn't make any sense and we will lose anyway, which heavily influenced how I changed the talk for this time. So, but you will see that. So first, I want to show you this graph. This is the worldwide CO2 emissions. It's CO2 only. There are other greenhouse gases, but that's kind of the big issue. And as you can see, they are mostly growing. And that's kind of the timeframe in which we had something like international climate policy. So, like we knew there was a problem. I mean, some of you were probably not even born 1990, but humanity knew that there was a problem and we just went on. So, I call this the trial of epic climate failure. But I also want to point out a few more specific things. There are kind of two points where it goes down a little bit, like notably down. There are a few, like that statistical variation, but there are two points where you can kind of see that emissions went down. One of them is when the Soviet Union collapsed and the other one is the economic crisis in 2009. And I show you a few more points here that is kind of important events in international climate policy. So we had the UN Earth Summit in the early 90s, which was basically the start of international climate policy. The UNFCCC, which is the UN body to organize the climate conferences, it was founded there. So there the world said, yeah, we have to do something about this. And then there was the Kyoto Protocol, which was praised as the first international binding, which is not technically true, but that's what they said, binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gases, which you can see was very successful, just in the wrong direction. And we had the Paris Agreement and just went on. So, yeah. So, where are we? We are currently at roughly one degree warming. And I think one part why we are discussing this now, why this is a big topic here at the Congress and why, yeah, the topic is now part of the mainstream discussion is that we are actually seeing climate change. So I'm sure you remember, like right now, it's really cold, but in the summer it was really hot and we had several heat records in Germany. We had several instances where it was above 40 degrees, which in the past just was not a thing in Germany. And we right now have a lot of fires in Australia and also in Australia, there were plenty of heat records in the past couple of weeks. And this is of course just two examples. I mean, there are many more. Yeah, so what is politics doing about this? So you probably know that there's this Paris Agreement, which was agreed upon by all nations of the world in 2015. And so it's an international treaty where all the nations in the world agreed to three degree of global heating. Well, that's not what it's written in it. It's probably also not what you heard about it. But technically that's what it is. So in the text of the Paris Agreement it says, yeah, we want to limit the global temperature rise to well below two degrees Celsius and well below is even then it also says we should be pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degree. We're currently at one degree. But the problem is that there's not really any plan how to do this. So Paris Agreement is kind of saying that's what we want, but yeah, whatever. So how this Paris Agreement works is there's something that is called nationally determined contributions, which basically is voluntary actions by nations. So nations say, yeah, we have a plan to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. That's what we commit to. And if you count them together and estimate what the outcome will be, and this is an official UN document. So it's not from some, I don't know, radical climate scientists. This is the UN that this adds up to roughly 3.2 degrees temperature rise. And that is if the nations commit to what they said, which usually they don't. Yeah, so to give you a bit of an idea, I mean, in the climate discussion there's often these degree numbers and to get a bit of an idea. Like currently we're at one degree above what it was before humanity started emitting greenhouse gases. Then the Paris Agreement kind of says we should get limited to at least two degrees and it would be better to limit it to 1.5 degrees. But the actual Paris Agreement commitments are around three degrees. And if you have a realistic view on current policy, it's maybe more. Yeah, so what is the science saying about this? So there's this institution called the IPCC, which is International Science Gremium. And they are not doing research themselves, but they are creating a summary of the climate research. So trying to find the essence of what the science figured out. And so they create regular big reports, but the last one is kind of outdated by now. And they published a special report which gained quite some attention in 2018. And this was a direct reaction to the Paris Agreement because the Paris Agreement said this two degree, 1.5 degree. And so they said, yeah, the scientists should figure out what does it mean, two degree, 1.5 degree? What's the difference? And there were kind of two main messages from this report. One of it is that there's a big difference between 1.5 degree and two degree. And the other message is that 1.5 degree is still doable under some optimistic assumptions. So what does that mean, 1.5 degree or two degree? So here's a nice picture of some coral reefs. Unfortunately, I have to tell you that in the future there won't be any more such pictures because soon they will all look like this, very likely. What this report estimated is that if you have 1.5 degree, we will probably lose at least 70% of coral reefs worldwide. If we have two degree, basically almost all the coral reefs will be lost, will be destroyed. And I mean, currently even two degrees seems ambitious. It will happen much more often that the Arctic will be ice-free for 1.5 degree. This is estimated to be, this is switched. Sorry, that's a mistake. For 1.5 degree, it's estimated every 100 years and for two degree, it's estimated every 10 years. Then it's expected that two degrees will mean more sea level rise. It's a relatively minor difference here, but still, I mean, that matters for nations where every centimeter means more area lost. And this, I think this is one of the things that very directly impacts humans, the estimate of how many people will be affected by extreme heat and extreme heat can also mean something like you cannot just go outside anymore without any kind of cooling support. That this will be more than doubled with two degrees Celsius. And always keep in mind, right now we're on a path to three degrees. So, yeah. So what would be needed to achieve 1.5 degrees? So the path would be roughly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in the next 10 years and come to a carbon neutral state by roughly 2050. Um, so, um, but, um, lately there has been quite some discussion is the IPCC is telling us the full story or if they are rather underestimating some of the effects of climate change. So many scientists are worried that the IPCC is too conservative because like they are kind of trying to create a consensus of the view of the scientific community and they also have a lot of pressure from, because I mean, you know that they're basically nations that were the head of state denies that climate change exists and these people also fund the IPCC. So there's a lot of pressure from people who basically don't believe in climate change and also there's this consensus view which can lead to that maybe more, more outliers that they are not viewed as much even though you probably should also have a look at what the worst outcome would be. And there's been a kind of meta study where some scientists looked at IPCC predictions and compared them to what actually happened and they came to the conclusion, yeah, the available evidence suggests that science have in fact been too conservative in their projections of the impact of climate change. We suggest therefore that scientists are biased not towards alarmism, but rather the reverse towards cautious estimates where we define caution as airing on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions. And like recently this has been picked up by the New York Times where they had this article which was a bit problematic because it kind of had this somewhat populist headline how scientists got climate change so wrong. I mean there were scientists who were warning about this and it's been part of the process. But also occasionally you can then read headlines like this where it says climate models have accurately predicted global heating study fines. And this was based on a study where they came to the conclusion. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were generally quite accurate in predicting global warming in the years after publication. So maybe you'll find that confusing. I also find these things occasionally confusing when I read, okay, climate scientists, they were underestimating the effects and then it says, okay, they were very accurate, actually. But usually if you dig down a bit, there's an explanation and the explanation here is that actually climate scientists have probably underestimated the effects of climate change but their models on temperature rise have been very accurate. Yeah, sorry, wrong slide. So I mean that can both be true, right? So the prediction on the average world mean temperature has been very accurate but that's usually not what we care about. We care about things like storms, like fires, like heating, like more local events which directly impact humans. And if you're more interested in that, I recently watched a very interesting interview. This is on YouTube. I have linked it here. So, yeah. Yeah, then you may be wondering like the climate scientists are telling us, yeah, we need to act very fast to avoid the worst outcomes of climate change but we can still do it. And maybe you have heard something like that 10 years ago and you wonder, how is that possible? Because like as I kind of said, the science did not get more optimistic. And the reason for that is that climate scientists recently started adding something called negative emissions into their models which means they estimate that in the future we will be able to reverse emitting CO2. And so most of these scenarios that they are calculating where we achieve two degree or 1.5 degree, they are estimating that that's what we will do in the future. And so you may wonder how can we do negative emissions? We can do things like planting trees because a tree, when it grows, it sucks in CO2 from the air and that is turned into a wood. That is great, but it has very obvious limits because the earth has only a finite amount of land. And the amount of land where we can plant trees will probably get smaller due to climate change because we will have level rise and we will have more heat. So we should plant trees a lot, but there's only so much you can do here. And so we need to talk about something which is called carbon capture and storage. The idea here is that we get carbon dioxide and then we store it underground. And originally this entered the discussion in the context of building new coal power plants. For example, in Germany, I remember roughly 10 years ago, I was living in Karlsruhe back then and there was a new coal-fired power plant built in Karlsruhe. And some people were saying, hey, isn't that not so good for the climate? And then some people said, yeah, that's no problem because we already planned in the future to use CCS on that plant. That never happened, but that's how they said it then. And this was not just happening in Germany, basically CCS for coal or gas plants that has largely been a failure. So today there's only a handful of projects running and the impact is minimal. So it's really small and most of the projects that are running are in the context of something which is called enhanced oil recovery. And what they're doing there is they're pumping CO2 into old oil fields and can squeeze a bit more oil out there. Now, you maybe get the idea that that's maybe not the best thing for the climate as well because that means more oil. But in order to get to negative emissions, we need to do something different. And one way is you could imagine doing bioenergy, like for example, using biogas plants or burning wood and then coupling that with CCS. So I don't know, for example, you burn wood and then you capture the emissions and then you store them underground. Now this obviously has all the problems that you usually have with bioenergy that is it competes with land for food and if you use pesticides and fertilizers, that has a climate impact as well. And if you plant, I don't know, palm oil where there was previously a rainforest then it has really had terrible for the climate. So that's not a very good solution and basically the discussion is moving away from that because people realize the effect of bioenergy are so negative that it's probably not a good idea to do that. Another thing you could do for negative emissions is called direct air capture, which means you run a big machine that sucks in air and extracts the carbon dioxide and then you store that underground. That technically works, so there are a few startups working on that, but these machines themselves will of course require a lot of energy and it is questionable how realistic it is to scale that up to international levels and I'll get later to actually how much energy we are talking about here. And obviously the energy that you use for that needs to come from something like wind or solar because if you fire it by a coal-fired power plant that does not make any sense. So one criticism here is that the IPCC in their optimistic scenarios largely rely on technology that does not really exist at scale. Like their test installations, but yeah, they have very optimistic outlooks and how fast this can be scaled up. And even if the technology kind of works, you can wonder how this should work economically and politically because like for someone to run a negative emission plant, there's no profit in that. So you would probably have a, I don't know, a state funded and then there's the question of who pays for that and why should a country do that? You basically have the same problems you have with climate policy with reducing emissions. Another issue with the science is this discussion about so-called tipping points and feedback loops. And this is probably the most worrying criticism of the current climate science. So we have a lot of feedback loops in the earth system which is to put it short when we have warming and that causes even more warming. So an example for this is when ice is melting because as you can see on this picture, ice is very bright, but water is very dark. That means if there's sunlight shining on ice, then it's reflected, a lot of it. And if the ice melts, then the sunlight is shining on the ocean and that means less energy is reflected. So this means if we have melting ice, then we have more warming following that. This is called the albedo feedback loop. And these tipping points, you call something a tipping point when you have a system that at some point it will turn into a process that something collapses and even if we stop further emissions. One example for that where it's generally assumed by science that this is already happening is the West Antarctic ice shield. So the assumption is that even if we stop emitting CO2 now and the planet is not getting any warmer that this ice shield will completely melt down. And that in the long run will mean one to three meters of sea level rise just by the West Antarctic ice shield. And there's probably more ice shields that will melt. And there's a risk that these feedback loops and tipping points could cause a cascade where some effects cause more warming that brings some other processes in motion and that causes even more warming. And there's been a study in 2018 which is kind of known as the Hot House Earth Study where they looked at various of these tipping points at feedback loops and how they interact. And they came to the conclusion that even with just two degrees of warming it may be that we end up in such a scenario. Now, I want to add some caveats here. One is that there's significant uncertainty. So when scientists say this may happen with two degrees that doesn't mean they are sure about it. That means they are worried that this could happen. And also these are long-term effects. So we're talking here about hundreds or thousands of years. So this is probably not something you will experience or I will experience. So yeah, what would need to happen? Obviously we need to stop burning fossil fuels, right? So we really need to get rid of something like this. This is the Jens Schwalde Opencast Mine. It's near the border to Poland. I recommend everyone that you go to one of these Opencast Mines and look at it because it really kind of looks like a nightmare scenario. There's one very close here in, it's roughly half an hour with a train. So I don't know, maybe after the Congress you want to see an Opencast Mine. One kind of good news here is that it's probably much easier to build renewable energies than we've fought in the past. Yes, I really like this graph. This is from a Dutch researcher called Auke Huxtra. And what he did was the black line is the worldwide installations of solar energy. And the colorful lines here are the predictions of the International Energy Agency. So what you can see here, like the International Energy Agency kind of always assumes that solar power is more or less flat even though it's growing exponentially. And they notice that their starting point, they have to move that, but they don't really seem to notice that they are not getting a trend here. And that also means like a lot of people are relying on these reports from the International Energy Agency. So we can probably be more optimistic about the outlook of renewable energy than what is usually assumed by governments. So what usually the big plan is for reducing greenhouse gases is, yeah, we should switch to carbon-free electricity and then we should use electricity for everything. So just that you get a bit of an idea that is how worldwide electricity production is. The big thing is coal. The green thing and the blue thing, that is renewable energy. Hydro is the biggest one because that humanity has been using for a long time, but the green thing is growing rapidly. And I mean, I can easily imagine that we manage to solve this and get the green thing to cover everything with the growth rates we currently have in renewable energy. But what worries me a bit is thinking about how much electricity we will need in the end. And just to give you some numbers, we currently have roughly 26 petawatt hours per year worldwide electricity production. And that is only a small share of overall energy production. That is 160 petawatt hours, which includes everything from heating and cars and airplanes and industry. So somehow we need to turn all that into renewable energy electricity use. It will get more efficient in some situations. For example, an electric car is more efficient than a gas-powered car, but still this is a lot. And then there are things like if we want to turn the petrochemical industry, so plastics, chemicals into renewable energy for that, we can do this by using something called carbon capture and use or also called power to X. There was a talk on that on the camp, if you want to watch that, that was very good. But there's been a study that if you want to turn the current petrochemical industry use renewable energy for that, it would be something between 18 and 32 petawatt hours per year. So that is kind of, we would need all the electricity we have today worldwide like double that just to replace the petrochemical industry. And we talked earlier about these negative emissions. This is a number from the IPCC report where they estimated that we might need 43 petawatt hours per year by 2100 just for negative emissions, just to remove the CO2 that's already in the atmosphere and that's causing harm. And like in a talk here two days ago by a scientist, he said, yeah, that sounds crazy, but we will do that because climate change will be so bad. So looking at that, I mean, you can easily see we will probably not just need the electricity we generate today and make that with green electricity, but probably multiple times that. And where should all the electricity come from? I have a hard time imagining that. I mean, the good news is renewable energy is not really limited. We have, if you think about putting solar plants in the desert or using offshore wind energy, there's plenty of space, but it's obvious that this is really, really challenging. And we're not just talking about energy. There are some things that are even harder. So this is a cement plant. Who knows how cement is made? A few, yeah. So what you do when you're making cement is you're using limestone, which is mostly calcium carbonate, and then you burn it with a lot of heat and then what you get out is calcium oxide and CO2. So the thing in this formula is that you can see there's CO2 on the right side, and that is part of the chemistry that does not come from the energy we need to make cement, but the chemistry to make cement emits CO2. And there's not really any technology to avoid that, except using something like CPCS. And this alone, these cement emissions, the chemical cement emissions, that is 5% of the worldwide emissions. That is 5% of the worldwide carbon dioxide emissions. So the only plan really to do something about it would be either using CPCS or using these direct air capture plans to later get the emissions back out of the air. Yeah. Then here's another, not a technology, but something that humans do is that they keep cows. Cows also cause emissions. Methane. And it is, overall emissions from Livestock is roughly 15% of the worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. And also for that, there's not really a solution. I mean, you can replace parts of it like running a tractor on electricity, but these methane emissions there is not really a solution. So maybe the solution is this. This is an impossible burger. I read yesterday in a big German news publications that they are unhealthy, which is, I always say, like you're missing the point, that's not what this is about. I don't eat these things, but I really hope that this is becoming successful because we need to do something about that. So maybe my point here is because very often, environmentalists tend to say, yeah, we have all the solutions and we just have to do it, where I would say, yeah, we have the solutions, but this is not gonna be easy. And then there's this thing called geoengineering. So geoengineering is where when you wonder, like, can we do something to impact the climate system where we counteract the warming from the greenhouse effect? And the most plausible thing here is something which is called solar radiation management, where you're trying to reflect more sunlight from the earth. And one way to do that is to put aerosols into the atmosphere, which is kind of understood how this works because volcanoes also do that. So if there's a big volcano eruption, this will temporarily cause a cooling effect on the earth because these aerosols in the atmosphere reflect more sunlight. And this is currently not widely discussed. So, and the IPCC, for example, explicitly excludes this from their scenarios. One reason for that is that, yeah, I'll get to that. So usually you would say, yeah, like blasting plenty of chemicals into the atmosphere. It sounds like a pretty crazy idea, but on the other hand, if we're talking about a situation where we have a planet where large parts become uninhabitable, then probably we will have to need to have a discussion about this. And but the big issue here is basically that some people may think, yeah, okay, we have this geoengineering, we can just blast a few chemicals into the atmosphere and then we can go on like we do, which is not really plausible, but some people get this idea. And that is also one of the reasons why climate scientists are not really happy discussing that, which I don't think is a good outcome. I think we should discuss that. I'm not saying we should do that, but I think we should discuss whether that would be a reasonable thing to do or not. Yeah. I think one issue is that there are a lot of very wrong ideas about the climate problem circulating in the population. So I found this interesting. There was a survey where people from Germany were asked what they think is the most effective thing to reduce their personal carbon dioxide emissions. And the thing that was named most was avoiding plastic bags, which is like it has a really small impact, like compared to one flight or whatever, this is basically nothing. And like this was completely disconnected from the real impact. So people have completely wrong ideas, what matters and what doesn't matter. And this came to the conclusion that like excessively overestimated was avoiding plastic bags and also regional food. And excessively underestimated was eating meat, which has a relatively high impact, but people don't like to hear that. Then I think something which I would like to frame as efficiency is a lie. There's this naive idea that if we have technology that's more efficient, that's a really good thing because then we will use less energy and less emissions. But this is usually not what is happening. And I want to show you this. This is a car, an old car from, I don't know, 80s, 90s, a Volkswagen Golf, and a modern Volkswagen car. And the modern car is twice as heavy and it needs roughly the same amount of fuel. So I mean, that's really, really efficient. Isn't that great? So I mean, that's an amazing increase. We doubled the efficiency, but it's just not helping the climate, right? If we have cars twice as large, and as you know, that is kind of becoming the new norm right now. Yeah, and we have more cars as well. Here's another nice graph. This is from the Lufthansa Sustainability Report, where they say what nice things they are doing to become more green. And here they're saying they're decoupling the transport performance and fuel consumption, which I think is not really what the word decoupling means, but what they are saying here is, yeah, look, we're transporting more people. And I mean, okay, our fuel consumption goes up, but it doesn't go up as fast. This is kind of trivial. I mean, you assume that technology gets better. You don't assume technology gets worse, but still, this is not helping. Like, the emissions are still going up. And this is discussed under many different names. One is the Jeven's Paradox, where a researcher back in very early times figured out that even though the use of coal got more efficient, but then people were using more coal and not less, and it's also named the rebound effect. And I think this should be core in basically every discussion about solving climate change with technology, but it's often just ignored. And the message here is like efficiency, I mean, I'm not saying efficiency is bad, but I think it's efficiency does not automatically reduce emissions, and it may even increase them in some situations. And some people, I mean, if you follow the political debate in Germany, then there are some parties who are saying, yeah, we should solve the climate problem with innovation and technology. And like, I'm not against technology, completely not. I think we need technology, but I think it's simply not plausible to assume that by innovation and technology alone, we will solve this problem, or even we will have any meaningful impact. Yeah, so, situation is not very optimistic. But as I said earlier, after my last talk, someone came and said, this sounds like there's nothing we can do, and it's all fucked anyway. And I feel sometimes there's a thin line between saying how bad it is, and then saying something which is not really supported by the facts. And there was this article, who has read this? There was this article, who has read this? Yeah, a few. So this was in the New York magazine from a journalist called David Wallace-Vels, which was painting a very dire picture of what the effects of climate change will be. And he also wrote a book later on that. This article was based on something called RCP 8.5. And this is one of the climate scenarios from the last IPCC report. So this is the worst emission scenario in the last big IPCC report. And sometimes this is referred to as business as usual scenario, where the assumption is emissions just keep growing. And the scenario assumes that by 2100, we will use roughly six to seven times the amount of coal that we do today. And how they come to these high numbers is not just the normal growth, but also they assume that at some point maybe oil will become more scarce and then we will start turning coal into oil. This is technically possible, but I mean, this scenario, it's not something that is impossible, but it looks rather unlikely. And I think if you talk about something like this, you should put it into perspective and not painting it that this is the likely outcome. And these discussions about this RCP 8.5 led to recently some scientists did a calculation where they took the current prediction from the International Energy Agency, which as I said earlier, are not exactly optimistic about renewable energy. And ended up with that this would probably lead to something like three degree by the end of the century, but with a big uncertainty range. So this could also be up to 4.4 degree if the effects are more severe than we currently assume. So what kind of like, the thing is, I find this really tricky how to say, like this is implausible, but I really don't want to downplay the risks. So the kind of takeaway here is there are some extreme scenarios that are rather unlikely, but even if you take a plausible scenario, that could lead to really, really bad outcomes. And also one thing that is often making these things confusing is that most of these scenarios, they look at, they end at 2,100, but of course the world does not end at 2,100. And when we have these discussions about tipping points, we're usually talking about much more long-term things. Then this made a bit of buzz on Twitter lately. So there was a report by the International Monetary Fund where it had this sentence, there's growing agreement between economists and scientists that the tail risks are material and the risk of catastrophic and irreversible disaster is rising. So far not surprising, but then it says, potentially infinite costs of unmitigated climate change, including in the extreme human extinction, which sounds like quite a severe claim. And some people were like, like why is the media not reporting on this? But I looked into it and I was not super convinced. Like there's, as you see, there's one source cited which is from 2009, which is also not, it's a bit old, but, and I looked into what a kind of study is that and this was a study published in an economics journal and it was kind of modeling what it would mean when you try to find an economically optimal path and when you have a risk that's not very likely but very extreme. But it was not really saying anything about the question of human extinction. So I felt this was not really justified to have that sentence there and I, yeah. And like I really don't want to be dismissive about these extreme scenarios because like honestly, what three or four degrees Celsius means it's really hard to predict. And I would not say that we can confidently rule out that this will mean something like human extinction in the long run. But, but whenever I read something like this I try to look up the sources and very often not much of substance comes up. Yeah. Does anyone know this guy? Okay, so you're not around on the crank sites of the internet and so this guy is called Guy McPherson and he thinks climate change will kill us all within the next decades, the least latest and there's nothing we can do about it. The good news is this is not supported by the science. There's also a webpage called Arctic News which is kind of in the same realm. This is a blog written by someone called Sam Karana which is probably a pseudonym and he has some theories here where he says, yeah, maybe we have a warming of 10 degrees by 2021. We will see probably not. He also has a plan how to stop that so he's more optimistic than the other guy. But yeah, yeah. One of the theories that a lot of this is based on is something we'll call the methane clathrate bomb. So methane clathrates are also methane hydrates that is frozen methane that is on the bottom of the ocean and the idea there is that if this all suddenly melts and evades into the atmosphere that this could cause a sudden climate change where we have very extreme effects in a very short term. There have been a few scientific papers about that but it is generally believed that this is simply from the physics not possible. So to be clear, these methane clathrates, this is a real concern but this is a long-term concern. This is one of the feedback loops I was talking about earlier. But it's not plausible that these scenarios that's something like that will happen in a very short timeframe. And so if you have these doomsday predictions, they are usually a mixture of using something very speculative and saying that this is what's gonna happen or massively overstating some effects and also very often confusing long-term and short-term effects. Now you could say, okay, this is ridiculous. There are a lot of cranks in the internet. Say all kinds of weird things. But some of these things are going into the mainstream. So there was a paper called Deep Adaption. Has anyone read that? Oh, a few. And this got a lot of media attention. There was this article on WISE. I think this made it kind of famous. The Climate Change paper, So Depressing is Sending People to Therapy. It was rejected by a scientific publication due to its poor quality and it was heavily citing the people I just showed you earlier that are having these crank theories about very short-term climate effects. There was also this article. I have to hurry up a bit. In the New Yorker where someone was arguing, yeah, we're at a point where there's nothing we can do anymore, where he said, the consensus among scientists and policy makers is that we'll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius. This is not true. I know where this is coming from. There are scientists who are saying they are worried that with two degrees something like this might happen. But saying that you think something might happen is very different from saying there's a consensus between the scientists. So, yeah. So, and the thing is like, I think for one these predictions, I want to say things that are correct, right? So, it's just in the spirit of science. But also, I think these predictions are problematic because you can come to this conclusion that it doesn't matter, it's too late to do anything about it. And that leads to this strange situation where through very different arguments you can come to this conclusion that either there are people who are saying, yeah, climate change is hoax, it's not happening anywhere, or it's not happening, not caused by humans, or it's a good thing. Or on the other hand, you will have people that say there's nothing we can do about it. And you come to the same conclusion, no change is needed. And like, climate change is not a yes or no thing. It's not a binary thing. It's, we cannot avoid climate change. It's already happening. But there's almost no imaginable scenario where reducing emissions now is not on the long run improving the situation. So, there's this idea that with these tipping points and feedback loops, we will have this one point where it doesn't matter anymore. But this is not true. So, if you remember many of these feedback effects, these will happen over a very long time, particularly melting of the ice sheets. These are effects unfolding over thousands of years. And even if you imagine a scenario where humanity needs to evacuate large areas due to sea level rise and heat, which obviously will be terrible, but I imagine that we need to discuss about geoengineering or negative emissions and deploy these technologies. It will almost certainly make a difference if we have several decades for this or several centuries. Yeah, so in summary, yeah, the situation is really bad, but still, it absolutely matters what we do about it. So, yeah. So, for the new year, I ask you to think about what you can do to stop this. Yeah, thanks. Great, thank you very much. You actually landed on point. So, that also means, unfortunately, that we do not have time for questions and answers.