 Hello everybody. Wow, it seems this thing is live so you can hear me. Well, thank you very much for coming. It's very exciting to see so many people. I'm very uncomfortable here. I like to wander around, but they've sort of anchored me to this position here. Anyway, my name is Nick Everard. I work for the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Admission number one, I'm not a climate scientist. So why am I here? Simply because I think this is the most important thing the whole planet faces. So this is the fourth in the series that we've done here. We started off with one called, if our house is on fire, why haven't we called the fire brigade? And the whole point is really the theme is we know this terrible thing is happening to our planet. And we know that we are responsible and we don't see very much happening. And so really it's to try and unpick that and understand why. Does it stem from the science? Does it stem from how the science is communicated? Is it societal complacency or ignorance? Is it the politicians? Where does the problem really lie? Are we just having too good a party that we just don't want to call time? Is that the problem? But anyway, so this is a great debate to which we're really excited to have our debate panel here. My colleague Haley Fowler is going to introduce them in a bit more depth later on. Rolf Huck is our other convener who we should name who's actually got a clash. So he's elsewhere right now. But we really want this to be a very spontaneous, interactive, participative thing. For those in the audience going to ask questions, we have a couple of microphones which are towards the front. There's one in the middle there, one towards the front. We are going to strictly enforce a rule. You have 20 seconds to ask a question because we've all been in sessions where seven and a half minutes into the asking of a question. You really want to hear the answer. So probably on that note, I should probably shut up and we should give over to the debate. Is there anything important I need to say other than that there's no safety things or anything else? No. Okay, I'll hand over to Haley Fowler. Thanks very much, Nick, and welcome everybody. It's absolutely brilliant to see so many people in the room. So I work at Newcastle University. Many of you will know my research and I work very much between climate and hydrology and all the way through to producing climate services for adaptation. I think that this topic is really, really important. Climate impacts are accelerating and we need to come up with better ways to communicate and change and actually instill action. I'm going to introduce one by one five different panel members who are each going to make a statement. And then we'll have a bit of a panel discussion and then go out to the audience for questions, etc. So first have the pleasure of introducing Professor Ed Hawkins or Ed as we know him invented the warming stripes and really do we need more introduction in a room of people who work in in climate science. But we could say a lot more. He's a climate scientist in the National Center for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading. He was a lead author for the IPCC sick assessment report. And his research examines how and why the climate has changed since the Industrial Revolution, and how it might change over the coming decades, particularly the interplay between natural climate variations and human cause trends. And he's obviously mostly known because he actively engages with a variety of audience about climate change, especially using novel graphical visualizations and the best known of those is the warming stripes. I'll pass over to Ed. Thank you Haley and thank you Nick and Haley and Rolf for inviting me to be on the panel. It's a great pleasure to be here and see so many people here it's fantastic. It's been 150 years since Eunice Foote and John Tyndall identified the main greenhouse gases in our atmosphere 150 years. 90 years ago, Joseph Kinzer first wrote the paper asking, is our climate changing. He identified a few places around the world where he could see some trends in temperature. A few years later in 1938, Guy Callender produced the first global land temperature time series which showed a warming of about 0.3 degrees over the previous 50 years. More importantly than that, Callender also put together the available carbon dioxide measurements of the atmosphere and worked out based on the theory that Foote and Tyndall and Fourier and Arrhenius put together before that, and showed that the conditions of carbon dioxide and the increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere should have already caused a warming by that time, which he could see in the data. And that was the first detection and attribution of climate change all the way back in 1938. And if you if you haven't read Callender's 1938 paper I encourage everyone to do so. We've known about climate change and the causes for a very, very long time, indeed. So, are we sleepwalking into an inferno, we're certainly not sleepwalking we're running with our eyes wide open, we understand. But also Callender at the time thought that actually, many of the consequences would be beneficial. We're carrying crops at higher latitudes and avoiding the return of the deadly glaciers. And so there are some benefits from a warming world, and our understanding of the negative consequences came over the over the subsequent 50 60 years or so. And I think we're very bad as a human species at preemptively taking action. I think we often respond to events, rather than warnings. And it may be we can hope that recent very extreme weather events across the world may open our eyes a bit more to the consequences we're seeing and provoke a bit more action. And it was wonderful to be part of the IPCC process and the sixth assessment report and see the focus on extremes in the summary for policymakers. Many of you will have read it. We see in a very clear graphics highlighting the fact that we already see changes to extreme weather that we can attribute to human activities all across the world. We also see very clear statements about how those extremes will get worse in the future. And so we have all the information we need. The one negative point about that IPCC assessment report the summary for policymakers in the working group one report. It does not include the phrase fossil fuels. It was an earlier draft, but it didn't make it through to the final draft, and nor did the phrase fossil fuels appear in the press release about that summary for policymakers, and I think that was actually a missed opportunity. We haven't spelled out the reason the main reason for that change in our extreme weather, but the choices are in our own hands and the IPCC makes that very clear that every bit of warming matters for changes in extremes is going to affect us in the future. Thank you. Thanks very much, Ed. And we'll move on to Martin Van Alst, our second speaker. Martin is the Princess Margaret chair in climate and disaster resilience ITT, ICT at the University of 20. He's director of the International Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Center, and he was coordinating lead author for the IPCC working group to chapter 16 on key risks. Martin is an impact driven scientist and humanitarian aiming to increase resilience in the face of rising climate risks, especially among the most vulnerable. He has 20 over 20 years of experience bridging science policy and practice from local to global, and he has a recognized influence on humanitarian operations, development investments, and international policy at the highest levels. So, over to you, Martin. Thank you for that eloquent introduction and I might add the last chapter of that is I've left the International Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Center as of late last year and I'm now the director general and also chief scientist I might add off KMI the Royal Netherlands meteorological Institute, which itself I think is an interesting sign that someone from the interface between climate science and humanitarian work would be hired to lead a meteorological service. We're focusing now on weather climate and also seismology I should say but certainly weather and climate, and also recognizing that things are not just affecting the most vulnerable in the poorest countries, even though that is a right focus for everyone in the world and and even for for KMI although I are our primary focuses on the Netherlands, but it's clearly also showing that there is concern everywhere about things that are already changing. So, taking up picking up from the thread from from Ed about essentially the IPCC working group one conclusions about everything that's already so clear, and all the extremes that we can indeed already attributes to the emissions that we've that we've emitted so far and the rising concentrations that we can measure. I would take maybe a slightly more positive spin on the question if we're asleep walking into into inferno. First of all, I think we're no longer sleepwalking I think it's it's a really promising sign that everyone is recognizing how much the climate is already changing. There is awareness that these risks are already hitting us today, especially with the extremes and also rising surprises I might add among those extremes. There also comes a recognition that it's not the climate on its own that is causing those problems. So it is the combination of those changing hazards with pre existing exposure and vulnerability and how we manage that how we allow that to evolve. So that, on the one hand, shows our vulnerability. It also shows our ability to act on that front as well. Which I think we have a lot of work to do. But it offers a ray of hope. I think also back to the mitigation agenda, partly because we're also starting to recognize that we are already facing limits to adaptation. And those limits will get worse as we progress. And I think that's a very different, much more close to home narrative about the need for both greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation and we've had in the past, because people are really feeding those consequences and they're feeding those limits. The Netherlands is a case in point. So, if you had asked me this question five months ago I would have given a red cross example but I can start very close to home where we initially thought of climate changes as far away long term sea level rise and we were already asking engineering questions actually implementing engineering questions raising our coastal defenses by a few centimeters for a few centimeters of sea level rise. And then over time, of course, we recognize that it was going to be a lot of additional meltwater and extreme precipitation water coming down the rivers flowing into our delta. So we're going to get higher peaks. So, we're not just going to get away with higher seawalls we needed more space for the river as well and that was actually a transformational adaptation solution for the Netherlands setting aside space for water in a very densely populated country that has always fought against water. But doing that was very successful. And we actually did manage to do well in some very heavy peaks that we've had including sadly the ones that caused casualties in Belgium and Germany we barely escaped what we did escape partly thanks to some of the prior investments. Yet the past couple of summers actually we've had the reverse problem we've had droughts. And that was one that we were not prepared for we had optimized getting rid of water. Yet we were confronted with a lack of water, including then the distributional questions who's going to get the water. Are we going to let it flow to the river so that the the transportation up our delta as a trading company country again a very, very important thing to the country. But also an agricultural country second biggest agriculture producer in the world, so are the farmers going to get the same water to to keep their crops alive and so already very difficult choices. And again, partly the changing climate and the increasing chances of those hot summers, but partly also the way we had managed our water, responding to what we thought was the threat of more extreme precipitation. So again, I think some of those things are becoming real here and now problem. They're also pointing to the fact that this is much more a systemic problem, rather than just a single climate focus problem. So we're dealing with with distributional aspects, even in a well off rich technology rich well organized good governance style country like the Netherlands. It's even worse if you look at the global scale. There are great solutions that that will do that but I think we can leverage what we are already feeling today, if we do it well to get to do better than we have in the past, making use of the shocks that we're already seeing and I think that's partly the climate shocks it's partly also the non climate shocks that confront us. So that's maybe my biggest plea then we have to get to work. We're getting some some pretty rough wake up calls from our, our sleepwalking, but we need to use them well. And if you look at how we've used the biggest shocks in the past couple of years we haven't used them well. So we've had COVID and everyone was talking about the transformation opportunity there, and some things have been transformed but for the most part we've missed the opportunity. We've spent tens of billions in the world, and we've not made much progress on the Paris goals. We have for a while stopped flying, yet we're pretty much back to normal. So what could we have done better at making use of that shock. The past year, the shock of the of the terrible war in Ukraine. The energy price shock in the Netherlands, or in Europe in particular, a very big one, the transformational one in theory. Yet if you look at how we have used that shock. We, to some extent even started subsidizing fossil fuels in some places rather than looking at the distributional impact of that shock and harnessing where we could the market signal from the shock that we were getting which was in a way a good one, and yet buffering those people that were hit hardest that many countries have not done that so I think that's that's one where I think there's a lot to learn, and I would maybe be a little bit humble about the role of scientists in the introduction we it was like you know there was I don't think the scientists here are the fire brigade I think we need to work together much more effectively the communications part part of that and I think we have you to thank for a lot of good options for that. But this is really one that we need to bring to to many more places and again harnessing what's already happening around us using the science to show how much worse would get, but also showing those many opportunities to still turn the corner which which we can. We need to on all of the fronts of the climate fight and not only on greenhouse gas mitigation which also I think would lose that momentum that we can have harnessing that that impact of what people are already seeing today. Thank you. Thanks for finishing on the optimistic note there Martin. So, next we have Dr Eleanor Lopez gun. She is the founder and director of I catalyst, a Spanish startup specialized in climate change adaptation and sustainability. She's also a lead author working group to have the IPCC and a member of the European scientific advisory board on climate change. She worked at the local at the London School of Economics as an alcoa research fellow focusing on water governance and collective action to achieve sustainable water management. Elena, over to you. Okay. In terms of obviously walking into the inferno. I mean I actually think if you were in India now on in Thailand or Vietnam, you would actually feel you are in the inferno. It's the same as if you were in my country in Spain last summer when we had heat wave after heat wave it in us and already this week. We are beating or on the way of beating the record from last year when we had temperatures in the 30s in May. It now looks like at the end of this week we will be hitting possibly 39 as a spec hopefully not. So, yes, I think the inferno sphere, but I also want to I also share. I think there are some questions concerned that we still remain positive that we can actually back this trend. I think the impacts are here. And I think that the good news about that is that it might actually trigger action. The impacts from the synthesis report myself was participating in the water chapter. And we know, for example, from that chapter that 60% of a lot of the measures or solutions come from the water world or in fact the impacts are mediated through water so I think that's partly why I got involved in climate change. I think one of the things the scientists, I think where you have a big role to play and I'm not saying I'm an ex scientist but I kind of migrated towards kind of being in the front line of helping cities or regions or communities adapt climate change. A little bit like Martin. I think the science of attribution is going to be critical. I think we're going to be able to demonstrate, you know, the attribution. Why, because I think one of the things that as a social scientist that is becoming very exciting and I encourage you to also mix a lot of transdisciplinary interdisciplinarity is absolutely key because Martin says we're talking about systemic problems we need all divisions or the perspectives to understand the systems. And one of the things very exciting at the moment is litigation around climate. I attended a workshop in December with with lawyers, and they were saying how, you know, as we are able to attribute the impacts, I think this is also comes with responsibility. I think we have to do a lot, but there's a lot of issues around, you know, impacts that are not even distributed on also who caused the impacts and I think these questions, as the impacts get harder are going to these hard questions are going to be asked to all of us. So, when I was probably kind of asked, you know, if, if I could participate one of the things that I've been thinking about recently is we saw in COVID we learned lots of lessons I think that we should really reflect on. And one of them is the social tipping points. And I was checking the RPC report recently and it normally talks about negative social tipping points, but could we also see positive social tipping points I think that's really what we what we're needing at the moment. I actually see social movements mobilization and I think here, hopefully we have a lot of young scientists, you know, youth to me, COP 27 that was the hope I got was from seeing youth, not just making, you know, opposing things but on the, on the other hand, we're coming with very concrete proposals very, very, very well prepared, asking very tough questions. And of course, if you saw some of the fantastic visualizations, you know, produce and the synthesis report. He is going to be there's a huge intergenerational equity questions here as well that we should not ignore. And also, what next, I think one of the key things you know we've been working obviously which I suspect Philip will mention on the mission on adaptation from the European Union. But I think also we will need to kind of shake hands with the mission on cities for example because now no longer can we have, you know, mitigation on the one hand adaptation on the other hand, you know that we really need to shake hands because the best option of course is mitigation, you know, and as Martin said, some limits, you know, we just will not be able to adapt. So I think on a positive note, I think there's a lot you can do. I think a scientist, there's a lot we can do. And I think that hopefully then it means that we will not be sleepwalking, but we will help wake everyone up so we can actually move and prevent this inferno. Many thanks Elena. Now, next we have Dr. Billy Tulkens. He's the head of the climate and planet planetary boundaries unit in the research and innovation directorate general of the European Commission. In the co programs EU research and innovation activities in the areas of climate change, biodiversity, nature based solutions and environmental observation. The units are focal points of the EU for the IPCC and only for the EU towards intergovernmental science policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. So over to you, Philip. I hope this works to me because my system is very unstable. So if it stopped, please raise your hand. I'll repeat. Thank you first for the invitation. I'm really sorry that I could not be with you. But actually, you may be happy to hear that even in the European Commission, they are restricting the missions, the travels. Only one of the members of my team, we are about 20, could attend the EU. Sophie Birger is there with you. She's a very good ambassador. And that's fine. But you see that even in the policy world efforts have been made to restrict and we were planning to travel both by train, by the way, from Brussels. So this is the anecdote to pick up on what was said and not to repeat what has been said. I wish to say that I would like first to congratulate the scientific community for the work done over the years through the IPCC through the best also now through the International Resource Panel. And those are extremely valuable reports that the policy making world is using extensively to prepare its policy. I hope you hear me because everything is blinking on my screen. But if on your end is stable, it's fine. And I'll continue speaking in the dark. But I would like to add also that we, the scientific community has produced in the last cycle of the IPCC 10,000 pages. We also need to reflect whether this is the best way to inform policymakers. Of course, we have the summary for policymakers, but 10,000 pages requires a lot of people time review. And I look forward to the next cycle of the IPCC to propose actually with others with the member states with others, some reforms to make this process, perhaps less demanding to the scientific community who is contributing to that on a voluntary basis. They are not paid for that. They are almost all of them. Only those in the technical support unit so we need to let them work on their research and not only on assessing the research for policymakers so that's an important point. We also need to attract in the IPCC other types of scientists than those who have participated so far, in particular those working on the economics of climate change, where probably it's a point where less prominent authors are participating. I've been asking this question to many economists to association of economists. Why don't we have prominent economist in the IPCC report for the assessment and it's a complicated debate. Some say, as a joke, oh, you should pay them. Others say, no, I mean, if if economists participate, while climate may not be their core topic, you cannot ask them to spend virtually months if not years of their lifetime as a researcher to contribute to the IPCC. Well, there are many other possibilities. And this is perhaps a question to you, the audience or the other panelists, how can we attract prominent economists in this process. Also, there were some comments that were a bit, maybe a bit mean, but some say, well, look, there's so little consensus among economists that we are not sure that we could reach an agreement on what we would be the basis of knowledge that is agreeable by all in the IPCC report. I leave this to your reflection. I'm not an economist, but I'm convinced that economics and social aspects, of course, I mean in broad sense economics is absolutely fundamental to the transition. Also, we need more science, but we need also different type of science. We need now researchers looking at transformative pathways, how to implement the transformation, how to relate to policymakers to accelerate change on the ground with all kinds of aspects, psychological communication, everything it was said in the first introduction that communication is important. We need to go beyond definitely now we are in a phase in Europe, for instance, where the transition has to happen it has been decided in the Green Deal. And which was in my view, and a really game changer, the European Green Deal with the climate law, the target of climate neutrality by 2050 is extremely demanding. And many people also those involved in the policy making now realize only now that actually it's very demanding to reduce by like 4% per year the greenhouse gas emissions, while also addressing objectives on biodiversity pollution and other aspects of the Green Deal. This is very demanding and they are really calling for scientists to help in providing solutions. So we need more science, also a little bit different type of science. And this will help us in accelerating. It's true that the momentum is not fast enough, but I think that in the EU, at least, and it's not I don't say this because I work for the EU, but one should recognize that action has been starting since 2000 in European climate change program. And since the EU has always met its objective and is accelerating constantly. Okay, we are not talking about global economy is generating a lot of emission now 8% of global emission but nevertheless the EU is in my view a good example of an entity that really tries to listen to science and implement sound policies in the in this area, but we need support from members of society. And this is perhaps what we can discuss today how to do that best, and in an efficient way, and with, of course, considering properly the social aspects because as we always say is that there is no transition if there is no just transition. So the social aspects are absolutely fundamental to get this transition through in a democratic system. I think this is, I would leave it at that. Thank you. I mean, I think that the fact that global emissions only reduce by about 7% during the COVID pandemic really sort of highlights your point there about how difficult it's going to be. Just before we move on to the next speaker just to say to all of you standing at the sides there are quite a few seats right at the front, particularly in this area here if people want to move into those seats. Right, so our final speaker. And nobody wants to move into those seats. Okay, so our final speaker is Noel Baker. She's a climate scientist and artist and a science communicator. She currently works as the project manager of Altius and other earth observation missions at the Royal Belgian Institute for space aeronomy. She serves as a member of the EU's science for policy working group and supports the EU's efforts in its current current policy priority area of biodiversity. She manages a variety of science policy and outreach activities in Brussels. Over to you, Noel. Thank you very much Haley and Nick for having me here today I am the least important person on this panel. Hopefully I'm here to provide two things. One is a bit of the early career scientist perspective and two. I can tell a personal story that I think some of you might be able to connect with and relate to. So, when I started my PhD, my advisor handed me the IPCC report, and he said, this is excellent climate science, but contained within this is some politically charged language that isn't good. In fact, you should really try to avoid getting into any kind of bias or politics science policy in general you should avoid because as a scientist, it's your duty to remain unbiased and pure in order to maintain your credit credibility. I have to say my advisors are wonderful person and scientists but I absolutely did not follow his advice. I have done quite the opposite. In fact, I've moved my career away from pure science into science policy more and more I live in Brussels now I even crossed a very bad line and I do have political activism and science policy quite regularly so I have to say my choice to do that is based on motivation from two main things. The first is that I got into science because I care, and for a lot of early career years they echo the same thing. We became scientists because we care deeply about the planet about people we want to do some kind of work that helps society that has an impact, but the second reason why I've been moving my career in this path, especially as a climate scientist is because I'm human. And I realized, especially over the last few years that my exposure to climate research, especially the news and articles and stories about the incredibly terrible impacts that humans have had on the environment. I was affecting me deeply to the point that I was experiencing symptoms of ecological grief, and I ended up having to pull back from social media a bit and pull back from the daily exposure to these kind of articles and news because it was affecting me immensely. And as a human, it would be nice if I could remain pure and unbiased and unaffected by that but I am, I am human. And I have to acknowledge that this is something that I care about. And I have to say, early career scientists more and more the more I talk to the more I interact with it does seem to be a trend that we're getting more involved. We are starting their their scientific careers seem much more open to the idea of becoming science activists or active in science policy. And I really do think that that's a trend that's going to be moving into the future. So thank you and I look forward to hearing your questions. Thanks very much Noel. Yeah, I mean I think I've taken the same approach in the last year or so. As scientists we tend to be quite conservative, particularly when we're talking to the media. And I've taken the approach that I'm going to be completely honest, and really try not to be conservative and try to tell the truth, as much as possible. I know we're scientists we always try to tell the truth anyway but I do think we try to couch it. But we don't like to say things risky, or perhaps not not completely certain and science is never certain. So I think, to a certain extent, we, you know, we need to be thinking, all of us need to be thinking about how we communicate these things. I'd like to sort of pose the first, the first question to the panel and really thinking about particularly starting with you, Ed. And the warming stripes are visually appealing. They have gained global prominence. And I think they're one of the most significant ways that as scientists. We communicate the urgency of the climate crisis. Yet, I know that when I've talked to a number of members of the public. They, they haven't heard of them. And I think, perhaps, as scientists we would find it quite surprising how many members of the public don't don't know what they are. And perhaps you know this, this already it. And so I do wonder. And, and this goes to the other panel members as well what what methods have been effective in communicating the urgency of the climate crisis do you think, and and and what what should be be transitioning towards. Thank you, Hailey. I think part of the power of the stripes is that we can communicate local changes. And that was actually the first set of stripes that I made. I was invited to a literature festival in, in a town called Hey, in England. And I decided to make stripes for the town of Hey itself to try and communicate to that audience. And the climate change wasn't just a big global phenomenon that was happening here and now and in the village that we were sitting. And so I think that's an important aspect that we need to talk more about how it's changed how climate change is affecting individuals, wherever we are in the world. But I think what's been fantastic to see with the stripes is that so many people have taken them and adapted them and done amazingly creative and novel things with them to communicate to different audiences. We've seen rock bands use them. We've got big music festivals. We've seen fashion designers take them up and make dresses and have catwalk shows from them. And we've seen a local football team use them on their kit. And all of these have started conversations amongst groups that wouldn't normally talk about climate change. And I think that's been critical we need to reach broader audiences, make climate change, a normal part of a conversation, talk, make people talk about the risks, but also what they're doing, talk with their friends and their family and their colleagues and their neighbors about the risks, but also about the responses they are personally making. We'll talk about, you know, politics economics education health as part of our normal conversation with people and we need to make climate part of that normal conversation as well. Martin. Yeah, I would agree you summarize it well when you said here and now. And also, when you emphasize taking it out of our scientific discourse and and the, you know, the preaching to the converted the choir already listening to us. I, I'm so excited about the stripes party because I see them being picked up by so many others. And I think it is indeed the rock bands or the artists or the fashion designers I mean it's going to so many places. And we need to think of many more creative ways to get our messages out. I think the media also have a big role to play there. So, one of the reasons why several of you mentioned attribution of extreme events. What's already happening now in the perspective of what's changed in the past and often also what we can still expect in the future. If you would put it in a scientific paper it's unreadable and we used to do that two years after the event had happened. I think what we're doing now is that much faster, but I also see a cutter of TV broadcast meteorologists, but also just science journalists for for papers but also general mainstream journalists, being able to pick up that that element you know and they may report on that inferno was already, you know, mentioned it's happening around the world right now so they're reporting on those things. And then weaving in that bit of science that this is not a surprise, or sometimes it is a surprise because it's happening even faster than the not surprised that we would have expected to happen at some point. But still and bring in that that element of the science make that interesting make it juicy. And, and then I think we can we can bring in our little science portion, but you indeed get those conversations all those different places you know the talk show tables of the mainstream TV shows that's where we want those conversations. And it's not just going to come by them inviting us more often and us than just giving our science explanation again we need to find all those other channels. I definitely agree about the, the, the broad span and the excitement about the stripes already doing that. But I think we, you know, it would have been good for instance to have a bunch of journalists in this panel as well to have this discussion with, because they, they have the bigger audience. And the other one would be the social media influencers and that's where I do think a younger generation, you know my students even in college, I see them communicating much more effectively than I do and reaching out to people, sometimes with the stuff that we do together you know paper is going in completely different channels and I would have thought, sometimes something I might have done in the IPCC and they're getting the word out to different audiences so that's another thing where the older generations, primarily have to well, I wouldn't say sit back and relax because then we'd be back in sleep walking mode, but the harness that power of communication of the younger generation. Thanks Martin. Noelle, would you perhaps like to say something about the younger generation and I think particularly about the sort of emotive aspects and I mean I work a lot with school children and I've seen that climate anxiety in the younger generations. So perhaps something about that. Absolutely. I think the question that I ask is, how do you get people to care. And how do you best communicate to those people. So certainly I think the younger generation is exposed to social media participates in it and uses that as such an important role for their own communication and if we can reach them in these new innovative ways through social media or otherwise it is an effective way to communicate to that generation. But back to the first question of getting people to care. For me, it comes down to, as a climate scientist, I've given many scientific presentations I know many facts and figures and numbers but the average person doesn't care about the numbers. They're not going to care if you give them a figure as terrifying and impactful as that figure might be it's not going to be something they connect with. For me, it's the emotion that people really take away when you talk to them any kind of communication that you do a dry scientific presentation is not going to leave nearly as big of an impact as one in which you open your heart, and you talk about your own emotions, and you connect to them in a way that that they can really understand and feel. I think that couldn't can be one of our most effective ways of reaching people these days. I was going to follow what I said that I mean I had to. I think a scientist. We're not used to this and I think we have to rethink what communication means or how good communication and in fact, last week I was part of a project that we were doing a serious game with role plays with the water authority about illegal water use. It was very interesting because at dinner we had people from the water authority someone from an NGO and people from universities and I asked the question because at the moment we really considering how to engage citizens and stakeholders in communication. And it was very interesting as I asked him okay what do you think is good communication. And it was really interesting because the, the, the person from the real based in agency he said oh, good, good data, you know, good data, we need to have good data. And then I asked the, the, the person from the universities you know which a lot of them will be like you, and they said oh evidence we need to, you know with our models we need to really simulate and demonstrate. And he was actually the guy from the NGO from WF, he said, I need to touch their emotions. And this is the guy who at the moment is at the front line I don't know if any. Yeah, from Spain we have a big issue at the moment with one of our national parks, which is going through a terrible situation with drought. Climate change is very much human action as well. So I would completely share this idea with Noel that we need to, to communicate differently, but that also brings responsibility because when we think about social media I agree. But also I worry, you know, social media has got his own buses his own ways of polarizing. So I think we need to, and in fact, just before I came at the end of the, of another event that you had on on on social media and I wish I had actually attended the whole session. Because I think, indeed, we need to, to be able to engage in a different generation I mean I have three children that actually the young adults now. And indeed I mean we, we did a survey because it was the big UN water conference, the first 50 years back in March. And we did a survey on with use on equal society. And the biggest shock for me was that they, the first time to social media. So I think, in a way the world is changed, and we need to really reflect about. At the same time, this my older gray hair says this but we still need to read. We still, you know, some things are complex, you cannot reduce it to a tick tock, right. I mean, so I think we need to really understand that we need to touch emotions, I think understand that that brings responsibility because it's about values and ethics. And we need to really find ways of not oversimplifying and yet mobilizing as, as, you know, as it was saying we need to mobilize everyone and get them to really act. Okay, thank you. I'd like to ask the question of believe. On biodiversity and I wondered where you feel we are in terms of understanding messaging and action on biodiversity and just to follow it up with one statistic that I've uncovered recently which I find quite shocking. And by 2050. We will have created 1400 times as much plastic by mass as the mass of all wild mammals in the planet today 1400. Which, you know, it feels to me part of the whole jigsaw of how we're treating the planet so biodiversity loss and the bigger picture of climate change and other factors. Okay, excuse me, you hear me, because again the system but I kind of heard a question about biodiversity if I, if I may say a few words about the previous question because. I think that a lot of the scientists tend to put a lot on their shoulders to talk to the people and convince people. I'm not sure the scientists are the ones that are best placed who in a democratic system to talk to the people, the politicians. They are being elected by the way, and I always wonder why so many people including scientists say, oh, it's the politicians fault, it's the politicians fault. We all vote in a democratic system. So we should think really at what we will vote for and be consistent in that. And the second thing is science could help in providing knowledge that will give courage to the politicians courage is the main thing that is lacking. Because of course the politicians are subject to all kinds of pressure and they want to be reelected, which is normal. No one can blame them for that. But this puts some constraints in the system that forces us to communicate with them in a different way. People will have to change for sure. But if the decision makers don't take the decisions at the top for society, we won't get there because it's nice to count on few people who are willing to change but those will not represent the mass, even in the youth. And we should not assume that all the young people think green. If you see the results of the elections, the extreme right is quite active and climate skepticism is still quite active. And the people who don't want to change or who want to favor other issues are still quite a significant fraction of society to answer the question on biodiversity. This at the time, no, I don't want to. I mean, if you want to be totally depressed at the end of the session, we can talk about about biodiversity, which is another layer of crisis. I'm sure you have seen this cartoon with the different ways and biodiversity war, economic crisis and so on and COVID. Indeed, and this is why we need to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss together. I mean, there are some options for that nature based solutions are being promoted quite a lot. And they're also scientists have done a great job in showing the potential for those nature based solutions and that they are technically there's no technology involved. It's just what nature does, but technically they work. And now we need to make sure that the investors are convinced about those as solutions. And to be concrete here, speaking to the EU, I would like to praise here what the EU did on the nature conservation law last summer. The proposal by the Commission with ambitious targets and the policy science policy interface of the EU actually provided a policy brief to inform the policymakers. So the parliament and the council who will have to decide on this legislation next year, proposing some scientific knowledge that actually could be useful in their analysis of the proposal of the commission. And this is a concrete action that I really praise by scientists where they can really be in their role, which means they don't have to tell a narrative and becomes kind of a novelist or filmmakers. They can stay in their discipline and provide the knowledge that is specifically relevant to a specific legislation at the right time. And that is in my view an example that we should applaud and perhaps the EU can consider further occasions to influence in this way. Okay, thank you, Philip. And I'd like to ask a question for anyone who fancies taking it in the panel really it was it was a point raised by Philip, but it's about economics. And we're told that economic, the economics of climate change are that the impacts will be much greater the cost much greater if we don't take action and yet we're not taking that action as far as I can see at this point so believe you're very welcome to jump in but anyone who would like to they don't want to believe would you like to talk on that as you as you raised it. Is it me sorry I missed a bit I heard about the economics and the fact that indeed it makes good economic sense to address, but the question is a time scale. All economists and economic models look at short term in micro economic forecasting. And if you look at short term with also metrics, which sometimes are a bit too simple, like the way they measure welfare. If you have a simplistic approach with models that do not account for all the impacts, all the effects positive and negative effects, you may actually conclude that it's not worth acting because the decarbonizing may reduce welfare. While, if you have an approach that considers all the relevant elements. It's clear that there's a good case also on with economic arguments to address decarbonization. This has been demonstrated since the Sturney report and then repeatedly through other reports over the years, but still you know the economic models are evolving at their own pace. And that's why I'm, I would be strongly recommending the scientists who are interested in the interface between science and economics to work with economists on the development and improvement of their models. But for that, scientists need to study a little bit economics. I don't like it. For different reasons, I'm a physicist, but I invested some time in studying economics to be able to discuss with them and it's quite helpful actually to understand their language, their methods, at least a little bit to have a productive dialogue with them. If the two communities stay apart from each other, we won't progress. We need to reach out to the others understand their language and address their needs if possible. I think Noel you had something you wanted to say and then pretty soon we want to get to the audience so yeah. So instead of answering that I'll actually pose a question to the more intelligent members of this panel is capitalism as a system compatible with climate mitigation and adaptation and sustainability as a concept. Oh, come on panelists. You want the official to dive in here. Very quickly, I have a very quick answer to that. I'm born in 68 in families where the big hope was to change the economy completely and all that we are in 2023. It has not changed. If we wait for the economy to change and capitalism to be changed into another system will crash and will be changed before so I'm convinced that we the instruments that capitalism offers actually are capable of delivering what we need but they need to be used to their full extent and well, and well. So we need sound environmental economics. We need to use all the instruments taxation phase out fossil fuel subsidies of course and many other things tax kerosene and all that all these is all in the policy proposals that are there but they need to be used forcefully. And that can deliver the results if we wait for a fundamental rethinking of how the economy functions and the implementation of this new model. I think we won't make it sorry. I've given up on that on the revolution. Yeah. It's a bit of energy and passion coming into the base so let's hear from another Martin. I'm happy to add and I'm afraid I'm with Philippe on this one and I do think we have not used all those means to their fullest extent I mean the basic concept of factoring in externalities is is doable in economics. It's just hard. And I think there's a second element here with the timelines that's difficult. And it's on the one hand this question of, you know, how does it work out and what do you do with discount rates and all these technical things, but this party also we have to pay now for something that in people's perception may or may not have a consequence much later down the line and certainly our political system is not geared towards that people have much shorter election cycles, and also we're not getting the societal conversation where is that the level of accountability for the short term decision so I think that brings us back to that, that whole set of societal discussions that that need to be invigorated, where I would at the same time also say, we've come a long way, you know, it's not. So I, I'm not sure if I want to be the voice of hope and I've got many reasons to be pretty pessimistic but I also feel we need to. We need to see what's working and why, and do more of that. And one thing is, 20 years ago, climate change was starting to be discussed a little bit of head of head of state level. Now it is one of the big topics. It's a chef, you know, and if if heads of state feel accountable, and we can get all the science across to a much wider segment of the population and there's more demand for those externalities to be priced in and thus also acceptance of the price that someone will have to pay to some extent for those taxes for those, those regulations, then I think we have a chance but but I agree with me will probably have to use the systems we have. And I think it's primarily the short term ism of our. I think it's actually partly the politics. It's partly also the individuals who have become used to, you know, fast moving lifestyle of immediate immediate rewards and. I, I regret that we have gotten back to the, the, the flying to Barcelona for a weekend style after Kobe. I was hopeful that we could could have made a transformation there. I don't, I don't want to shut you down, Martin, but we let's make this a fast moving debate as well and it's got something to say, and see if you can keep the energy up because this is turning into more of a debate. And that's what we want and we want energy very quickly then so I guess the short point I would like to make on this probably is that we often phrase things in terms of what we're going to lose or what it's going to cost us. But I think we also need to be more positive about what we're going to gain from the changes that we're going to make and sell a positive vision of the future of cleaner air healthier lifestyles and I think that is what we need to do, not just stress the negatives but also stress what we're going to gain. Yeah, I mean I think I think for me one of the, we talked about economics and I think if you meet good economies they actually say, capitalism is about money but in fact economics is about welfare and I think the other very exciting discipline at the bottom is ecological economics, which I think is really reframing the whole thing and really understanding and there's a lot of physical scientists here that there is actually physics, you know, at the bottom there's a limit and I think, and I think that's important that we understand that we cannot continue as we are, because that really is not enough, I think. So I do agree with you. I think it means we need to really rewire the whole system. I think we do. I really do. And I think yes, and I think the problem is no one has really mentioned the political economy at the moment I mean let's bring geopolitics into the scene. It's a bit of a disaster I mean I don't know how many of you followed COP 27 COP 28, you know who was appointed in a way as climate kind of. I think I think we have some very serious problems with the current system with the current political economy, I wouldn't just focus only on the economy, also on the political economy, and who gains and who loses and at the moment. That's why I think climate justice is at the core of what we're discussing. So it's not to me only about economics I think increasingly it's also about law. I think that's why I think climate litigation, I think is for me is very going to be very important in the future. I think we need to make people accountable these externalities. When I mean we just saw it with with the current war, we just saw who made a lot of money. And the decisions they and I'm not going to mention name the investments decisions that they're making now, putting all their hopes on the fact that we're going to capture carbon. And the simplest things to stop emitting now audience. I sense the passion rising in the room which is important. I mean, it's one of my things that I felt so we can talk so blandly about terrible things we must bring passion and emotion into it. But anyway, I've also reached for my smartphone which means I've set the timer on my smartphone which means it's question time, which means have a short but punchy question because we're going to give you 20 seconds to ask it, so that we have a lot of time for a lot of people to ask their questions so So you mentioned you mentioned event attribution. I'd like to know, are we doing this right. Are we really informing the public. And if we're not, what are we going to do differently. Okay, thank you very much. Nice and brief 11 seconds. Okay panel. Come on you got to be quick to pick up these questions panel I'm going to point at you and Ed smiling and grinning. Martin's go first. Yeah, I can speak from the experience of world weather attribution the consortium has done so I think one thing has been to try and do it faster and we can still be faster. Second is to communicate as simple and as straightforward as you can that's hard, and it's also scientifically hard. Thirdly, I think we've benefited from networks of communicators including journalists and the media that we've invested in over time that are able to get that story out. And I think we are reaching audiences with that way of working that are way beyond what we would otherwise have done. So I think that is working to be improved more people need it, but the sign of progress. Thank you do we want to anyone else to come in on that one. We've got agreement next question please let me get my time already you can ask your question and I'll get it ready whilst you ask. So my question about a very short word in your title, the word we. Now I do not feel that I am a sleepwalker. I don't think that many people here do. So my question is, who is we do we should we differentiate in different cases or do we have a bland we for everything. Okay that's 20 seconds so that's a good question. I wrote that title and we there means humanity but I'd like the panel to comment because you didn't come here to listen to me. I think that sums it up I mean, regardless of who's listening or not we're all in this together. So if we're not acting then we as everybody. If I may add one thing, I think it's really critical to keep emphasizing that the Paris agreement has this as well that there is a sense of global responsibility to this as well. And I, I see that the dimension of the global responsibility including the financial transfers that may be needed for that, often missing in discussions in the richer countries of the speak so it often becomes a mitigation only and then often also by association with the question and what is my double contribution, what difference does that make. So the need to see this as a global we problem is I think something that often needs more attention and I think it's a pretty good question because it deserves to be discussed more and we need to be talking about what we need to do on adaptation and loss and damage in order to compel the we to be the world over on mitigation. Okay, thank you very much. Next question timer is starting when you come to the mic. mentioned about democratic elections, and you also mentioned about reaching out to younger people but I feel like the vast majority of people and are actually older, and they are on average way more conservative the younger people and they actually vote and hold the most amount of resources. So maybe we should reach to them as opposed to the younger generation. And how would you comment on that. Okay, perfect. 22nd question who wants to pick that one up. I can say a word on this. You're fully right. In particular, all type of society with an aging population we need to reach out to those and in talks that I gave all colleagues give when I hear that this is for the next generation, it makes me nervous, quite frankly. It's a different generation that has to take who are is in power that has to take the decision. But we will all have to change. And there, I'm involved in within the European Commission in the implementation of the climate neutrality of the commission as an administration. And this is a very, very telling exercise on our capacity as individuals as civil servants to change within or remit. And the striking features that is that innovation is always for the neighbor, not for oneself. And this is disturbing because we all know we need to change the politicians need to act. We all need to change so we all can play a role on this, whatever our generation is. And this is what I the message that I would like to to pass is that at all level, each of us, we can do something and something useful. Nobody Jesus Christ, nobody Jesus Christ we, we can, when it's necessary continue to fly there is no alternative and all that. Let's not lose all or energy into extremist actions, but in convincing other and collectively to move. This is something that we can all all contribute to. Thank you. Okay now if I'm understanding the sign language correctly I think Chloe's going to ask a question this coming online. Yeah, so we also have an online audience as well and I don't want to leave them out of the discussion. So I will ask a question from the online audience from Duncan Faulkner, who says I would be interested in the panel thoughts on the psychological and spiritual dimensions of a response to climate change. And he says he thinks it's more a more fundamental aspect than politics or economic economics. So, here you go. Yes, absolutely. I have had to deal with my own personal grief and emotional impacts before continuing to do climate work and communication so absolutely yes, and connecting with people on that level as well. I mean, I'm more than just a scientist I also do science communication through artwork, and I found that that's also an incredibly effective way of reaching people on that emotional and spiritual level, because some people who attend climate marches protests or scientific talks they'll be getting the message in that way, but others won't. They're not interested or maybe they just don't know. They attend an art expo where I've displayed one of my paintings and they see that and also see that it's created partly as inspired by my work in climate change. And they get the message through that and I've had some amazing feedback from people through that method of communication. So I think if we get creative and find other ways to connect with people and absolutely yes. On those levels, I think it is also an important way to reach people. Okay, thank you. I'm itching to ask more questions myself but we're going to carry on with the audience who's next in line please. Yeah, thanks so given the multi causality of disasters and other impacts, and especially I think our tuition science for example, there's lots of different ways to do this, and I think that framing will depend on whether you and you're wanting to be as relevant as for adaptation or to motivate motivation or to assess loss and damage. So I think how would you how should, how do you think we should prioritize or maybe more importantly, who in society should be our stakeholders to help us decide what to prioritize and those features. Thanks. Nice approach talking really fast getting it down to 22 seconds. Who wants to pick that one up. I understood it. What should we prioritize in terms of event attribution. Is that the question. We need everything right I mean, we certainly need to communicate about loss and damage, you know, and to perform research in the area I think we need to move away from likelihood language though and talk more about risks and storylines and narratives. And how it's going to affect people. I'm losing my track here of it. As we've heard already I think numbers don't necessarily work though, you know I think we need to tell stories and narratives, and we will need to adapt. And we need to mitigate, but if we fail to do that will suffer. I'm not really sure. This is a debate if I waited in stereo I think, I mean, I think there's a wider recognition in fact I've heard a lot more people saying it lately that we are to expect the unexpected. You know, in other words the models are going to tell us broadly but really we're going to see these extremes we're going to see these shopping things. We're not going to be jumping on this one but but you know it. Is it time for us to sort of step away from what what the models actually tell us and use these and use our perception and awareness of what's happening to recognize that extreme things are going to happen they are going to have bad consequences and that's what needs to drive our awareness and action. Well, I don't think you need to say that are going to I think we're seeing many of them around us already and we need to leverage them much better. And we are already seeing surprises and that is to me it's part of my narrative in every public discussion you know we can start to put numbers on these but but we are also getting surprises. We're not going to be beyond what we had ever expected or we're getting things that we are, you know, we had one big, big event here in the Netherlands, it's in our climate models in a run for 2098. So I show that that figure like we know we've been trying to be creative in our climate modeling for the end of the century but we're facing this right now. And those sorts of wake up calls do work. And but I would want to comment on the implicit question from the audience, I don't think it's an either or between those three. I think the fact that we are seeing loss and damage is an additional reason to adapt to to reduce the loss and damage that we will be facing, and also for mitigation to not let get things further out of that. So I think they, they can all go together. And I think, and then to the point of stakeholders. I think that's where we have to to really do the cold analysis we need to think about stakeholders when we communicate, but I don't think it should change our science in terms of our, our core analysis. So I think, I think it's, it's very important. I think, I like what Philip said earlier that this is scientists with actors in the play but there's other actors. And I think that it's really important that it is such a challenge that we really have to mobilize everyone which is why and I did like the question earlier I do think that it's going to touch on on our values. And I think we will. And I think that that's actually important because it will actually give us the energies to mobilize and I think we saw what happened with COVID you know like when we understand was at stake. I think people will mobilize and I think, again, I completely share what Noel said, you know, all the ways of communicating like art, music, you know, it doesn't matter, you know, but but also I think something that hasn't been mentioned I think it's quite exciting now is. And I think that's something that we can play a role as scientists is citizen science, you know, it no longer we do no longer have the exclusivity on the on the right knowledge, you know, we need all the knowledge we can get, including from from local people from farmers I mean last week I was at a workshop with farmers, and it was really interesting to listen to them, and, and their experience because they are seeing climate change, they are in the frontline. And how you get them to be part of this, you know, they are great ambassadors for for these social deep transformations that we need. And I think. Yeah, I mean, I really agree that we, it's not just us, I think it's us mobilizing others, others mobilizing us, because it's just a whole of society challenge that we have ahead of us. Yeah, so I would like to say that, or ask the question that climate change is not a scientific problem, it's a problem of oppression. It's a problem that that needs substance change oil and gas companies control politicians old rich people are making the decisions for us, we bail out airlines we bail out car companies. So when will this change when will we treat this not as a scientific problem, but as a problem of oppression of stealing from future generations and current generations, because those are the people who are paying these bills. It's not the people who make the decisions is everyone else and treating this as a scientific problem isn't going to fix the problem. Okay, we let's build on your passion and your energy and perhaps anger but yes, and give the panel some time to answer the question so thanks very much for it. Elena, would you like to share his passion, I guess. No, I mean I think, I think, as I said earlier, I think there's some fundamental questions on equity here. And I think if, and again, you know, for example, the earlier question on capitalist systems, I mean, efficient systems are not going to get us out of this. There's some fundamental questions about, you know, who, you know, loss and damage as Martin said earlier, and it's the big elephant in the room but I think, to me when we understand that the is, we don't really want to talk about it, but there is an existential issue. You know, I mean, it is really documented it really well, you know the six extension, you know, I mean, I think when we understand that we have this one planet and despite alien mask, you know it will take a while before we can get to Mars. So, I think, I think it's important that we start to think about how we can change our lifestyles. And I agree with it. It doesn't mean, you know, the alternative I actually think is probably better quality of life. You know so I think that imagining how it would be like I think that would also help. So that's why art music, other ways of showing people or them showing us would be helpful documenting those. I'm going to jump in here and I'm going to ask ask something myself. And so, given that governments are not acting with the urgency we need, given that they they treat mitigation and adaptation separately, certainly in the UK anyway, different departments, both, both not treated adequately but both treated separately. And what do you think is the role for private industry in driving change, since politicians won't, and since we still are going to remain within this capitalist system. Should I take that one. Yes. If I may, then industry can and does move very fast when the signal is clear. And when the price tag is also well identified. If you see under the tragic circumstance that that we are now living in that Europeans are living through the reaction of consumers of energy, which actually in saving energy. This winter was much greater than the electricity producers thought would be possible. And they have to revise some of their forecast and it just shows that we are doing a lot of research on behavior on the need to change on awareness. The price signal is there. And this is the metric that industry understands best. They can adapt and do much, much more and much faster. But of course, there are some industries who may lose in this context. And that is the problem is to how to push a new form of industrial production that is more sustainable, and addressing the socio economic impacts and social consequences that people will lose. And that's the classical problem of politics. How to deal with those and their, they have also a strong lobbying power. I mean, this is, if you see, have a look at, I find it quite interesting to see the outcome of citizens in different EU member states, where you see that they in the future will go further than what their government would do. And you may think, oh, if the citizen panel was well constituted, it would represent the same range of opinions than in the national parliament. But nevertheless, they, in most cases I've read about, they go further. Why, what's the difference. There are two main difference. One is in citizen panels you don't have lobbies and in citizen panels, the members of the panel don't need to be reelected. And there may be other analysis. I have not found good literature on that yet. Maybe some of you are preparing this, but I would be keen on reading articles on political analysis of citizens panel. But it can be a way forward actually to use citizens panel not to replace the democracy institutions, but actually to complement and to show that when people are involved and properly trained by scientists. Actually, they can take, they can reach compromises and show the way for society and this can could be an element to give courage to the presentation actually. Okay, we thought we had one online. I would just say if people online do have questions do send them in because Chloe is going to jump up and down and tell us that she's got one. So we do have a couple but I know there's a lot more people waiting in line. Shall we take a quick let's take one from online and then we'll go to the people in the room. Sure. So I think this also goes to the question of whether it's personal responsibility or if it's more on big business industry. But Steve is also asking bringing the climate issue down to the local and personal level has been argued as a way to reach people. Now do you find this as being a better approach than appealing with emotion, or a path to enabling them to internalize the issue and respond emotionally and personally, purposely. So I think there's sort of two components there that the sort of the emotional response, as opposed to personal level, and then whether we should do personal level at all. Yeah. Come on somebody. Elena. Yeah, I mean, you're like it. No. Yeah, I mean, I think that there was some of you might have seen it. I think it was during COVID that at one point I'm not going to mention the company said oh, it's a good company or what can you do for climate. And I think, I think we have to be very careful if you were social scientists one of the big things for us is how you frame the debate is really important, you know, because that's like the underlying rules of how what is being discussed and what is not being discussed, right. So, although I do think we have a personal responsibility I think that's what they talk about, you know, everyone has the same responsibility and I think we just have to, that's why the word accountability also exists, you know, in our language so I think that we are entering this but I think building on what Philip said earlier on the citizen assemblies I mean I was lucky to participate in the Spanish citizen assembly. And it gave me a lot of faith, actually, in in this deliberative processes. But I think again, the big challenge as Philip says is, Okay, so then they put recommendations forward and they were really much more advanced actually than then you would imagine. Really, very impressive. But then how do you then close a circle to then make all the actors that, you know, way these recommendations were appealing to how do they respond. And I do know that for some of the Spanish office of climate change, they on purpose distributed between the different ministries but they also make sure that it also went to the relatively, the relative kind of private actors, you know, so then they're the result of addressing this challenge. And I do think that, as Philip says, if they respond, and they should respond, they can quit move very quickly that as compared to bureaucratic systems you know so I think, I think personal responsibility yes, but also, you know, responsibilities are not equal between the different actors, and I think we should be aware of that. So, as Katherine Hayhoe always tells us, the most important thing we can do about climate is to talk about it. And that has to happen at the individual level. So as individuals, we can choose to take different actions, we can choose which companies to spend money with. We can vote. We can talk about it and we can also give the politicians courage as as Philip has said, and I think that's a really important role that we play, but you know, government and industry also have to play their role. So the government need to enable the actions that we need to take and also set the direction of travel to enable us to make the right decisions and to make different decisions. It may be as simple as just saying, by 2030 we won't have any more petrol diesel cars sold, and that enables the car companies then to take the right steps to take out combustion engines from their plans and move to an EV system. It's a simple decision which can have very long lasting and fundamental conclusions and so we need everyone to take action, we need individuals we need companies we need cities, local authorities and governments all working in the same direction. Okay, and I'm going to take action to try and speed this thing up no disrespect to anybody involved, but there's a lot of people standing in line there and we applaud you for standing so long. I have a question from the rear mic, the lady in the stripey jumper, 20 seconds for question and let's have a quick rapid fire answer so we can try and get through all these people. Yeah, I have a question on the role of scientists, I think Philip mentioned that scientists should provide courage to politicians and I think for 30 years scientists have been trying to provide coverage with facts and reports and it clearly hasn't worked and that's why today we have to take such radical action so much from year to year, and we see more and more scientists engaging in climate activism, because basically they care and they think we can't just keep on doing the same, it's not the ethical way to do things if we look at the crisis we're faced with. And I was wondering what your opinion is on scientists getting involved in activism, and yeah. Okay, let's get on to Noel. First off. Yes. Next question. Okay, Noel do you want to say a little more. Absolutely for those who have the time and the energy and desire to get active please do. Going back to my advisor I do think that it's important that some of the scientific community continues to do the science. And to some extent remain pure scientists who are unbiased and continuing to do and get the funding and publish papers. I think that's no longer that person. And for many of you maybe that's where you want to take your careers as well but certainly for those who have the motivation to I encourage you to. Thank you very much. Next question. Green jumper front microphone. Yeah, so one comment is that if we don't want to be sleepwalking maybe as scientists we have to be aware that we have political enemies it was touched on before for example the fossil fuel industry. It's blocking attempt to reduce CO2 emission in the past by climate science denial, and now by greenwashing and lobbying as it was said, so as scientists instead of focusing on climate communication again shouldn't we engage more actively in confronting the greenwashing because it's not something easy to do we need to bring the science we need to be rigorous and maybe getting more into the political and public arena would be a way. Thank you. I certainly think that many scientists should be doing that, but not everyone right I think we need to ensure that the scientists who want to do their research and advise and provide the evidence required. Brilliant, we need those people but if those want to get involved in activism as Noel has done and encouraging others to do then fantastic. But, you know, I think also we need to ensure that those who choose to be activism don't face consequences. I know that AGU there was a mini protest from two scientists, and they ended up with quite serious career consequences from doing that and I think that was a real fantastic. Can I can I add something to that. If I may. Okay, in the delegation in the IPCC. You see some delegates from countries. Not to name one in particular but let's say oil producing and exporting countries. We've been training the best British and American universities. And also some of the economists present in those negotiation in the UNFCCC have hardly followed courses on environmental economics. And there is a role for academics to check whether the programs that are are properly reflecting the current state of these disciplines. And so that the people who are trained actually are trained in the right way, because sometimes we still see young people who have had their degree quite recently. So I'm not sure of what environmental economics or climate science has to say these days. Thank you to the other microphone the real most microphone please. Yes you. Yeah, thank you so much for the discussion so far. We've talked a lot about kind of policymakers politics economics and I was wondering, do you see a space at AGU for sessions involving people kind of a bit outside of our field and yeah those people. I'd love to answer that one and say yes but I'll give that to the panel. Yes, yes is what we're hearing. I mean I mentioned one example, it happened a while ago and I think Martin you probably were at that. It was the adaptation futures conference in Rotterdam a while ago. And I remember that there was a lot of discussion and damages and everyone was mentioning insurance. And then someone very clever in the panel said oh how many people in the audience which was probably as big as this or larger how many people here from insurance. I think one person raise their hand. You know how to create these hybrid spaces, you know and I don't mean online offline. I mean more like where we mix more. And we talk more, because otherwise I think it's going to be very difficult. So yes, absolutely yes, we need. Maybe you maybe, you know, make sure you persuade for example that the fossil companies, why not. I mean, you know, I mean, many of them are probably geologists like some of you in this room. They understand science. So, maybe, you know, I think it'd be difficult but I think we need to really have this is tough discussions we really need to believe in the power of dialogue as well. A quick comment each of you has been making tremendous strides in adding science policy sessions to the General Assembly. Chloe Hill is the science policy officer for EGU and has been creating many, many sessions, especially in the recent years that answer many of these needs and questions so I encourage you to check them out. She's blushing. Okay, so next question will be from the front microphone and then we resolve any microphone ambiguity because they'll only be the bad one populated so question please. First, thank you for an incredible panel I'm going to make a last minute audible and ask a question following up the last question. I think we all know that there's a social cost to caring about climate change whether it's economic or mental or whatever. And it doesn't exist with scientists as much as exists with people who work in the business community or insurance. So I think that prevents people from getting involved in climate because they'll make less money, or just have a tougher life. How can we counter that like we did with clovered to get more people involved outside of the science here. Thank you. Don't expect them to come to to to EGU. I don't think that's a realistic ask. I think we need to go to them much more often, and I spend more of my time going to meetings where I tell a little bit of a story from my perspective in a much bigger whole, rather than expecting all those other people to come to our places. I fully second that Martin I absolutely think it's not just them coming to you, but I think they should but we should also go to where they are. So then, you know, we then have more opportunities to meet and discuss fully fully agree with what Martin just said. Yeah. Okay, so we have five minutes left because we want to have a five minutes sort of summing up from our panelists so let's see if we can get through this small queue that remains next question please. Yeah, so, regarding the question whether we are sleepwalking into the inferno I feel like the elephant in the room is not being named as Hawkins already pointed out. We have our eyes open the science is clear, but it's being ignored, and not for no reason. The powerful fossil fuel industries actively spreading doubts and greenwashing their acts of worsening this crisis. This week we had good news from the Netherlands where the fly University Amsterdam is going to cut the ties with the fossil fuel industry. And I think that's the moral thing to do. So my question is should more research institutes cut the ties with the fossil fuel industry. Yes. You know, we're already seeing you know big movements in divestment and so on and it is taking non government actors to take, take responsibility step up and take the lead. So having to do that, but we absolutely must. Okay, next question please and we might get through the whole key. Thanks. So first on the format of the whole of the whole thing I think you should give more space to the audience may maybe because here it's kind of rushy for us. And maybe, maybe everyone has some something to say. And it's not not just the eight of you. But so I had something to say about the, the look for consensus. It's been like a general subject that we should make a consensus about climate change the consensus political consensus consensus and stuff. But I think the world doesn't advance through consensus. It advances through political struggle. And I think we should acknowledge this as a scientist that there is an occurrence political struggle and as was said before there are enemies and allies in this struggle. And everyone is not our ally. At some point, Philip said that some economists didn't want to come because economists were not. Sorry, we need time for the panel to answer I appreciate your question. Thank you very much. Somebody answer stony silence. Does nobody have a comment on that. Sorry. I don't want to do it but yeah, that's involved the audience well next question on the mic but if anyone else in the audience has a question they want to ask, come up to another mic and or answer yeah. Sorry, should I go ahead then. I couldn't hear what you said. Well does anybody have an answer to the question that was just posed because it seems very unsatisfactory not to answer the question that was posed so well. Sometimes it's difficult being up here. Um, yeah, yeah. Just a short answer. Of course, not everyone is our ally. Text the rich rich people our enemy. Okay, now, please ask your question. Okay, so regarding climate action over the past year French and German police have made protesters. This is climate action that's taken against public interest in defense of capitalist interests. My question is, when are we joining direct action against those capitalist interests. That's how we act to protect the climate. So, when are we going to do that. Okay, when are we going to act panel. Do it. Why not. I mean, everyone in here has the ability and the knowledge to stand up and take action. In my part in the way that I can, someone else can do a different thing. Do it. Yeah, if I may, as a civil servant. Of course I can't. Let's say that nobody's acting. There's a lot of action. And my viewpoint is that people have not realized what has been decided in 2019 with the Green Deal. Have a look at the documents have a look at the implications have a look at the legislative package that was adopted at the end of the year, last the year 2022. It may not suffice, but it is unprecedented to have such a comprehensive legislative framework to reach the 2030 targets. And I have never seen in my career the commission and I didn't work only for the commission I had other jobs before such a fast movement and it has vast application now this needs to be implemented in the member states, and it will be extremely demanding. If you want to act on this, besides of course the personal action that you can take can also perhaps have a look at the decisions their implications their impact and see the area where you may wish to contribute with your scientific research because I that's what I want to plea for is that we should use, you should use you scientists your expertise in the area in the area you can best contribute to. You will not become suddenly a great communicator if you have not been trained in that but if you have expertise that is relevant and can be used for transformative change, please use it, it will help the society. We have one person still as far as I can see at the microphone so we don't want to disappoint him so please your question. Briefly then on leveraging emotion and communication I work on the energy transition and the results can be a better pill to swallow you know people don't want windmills in their backyard. So how do you deal with this then. I wanted to comment also Philip said I think. I mean I no longer move in more like the normal scientific university kind of in different contexts and I think I actually think that there's a lot of things happening at the bottom. I think I think there are. For example, for example, for me the, the, the mission of cities is really interesting when you see cities, you know, committing to being carbon neutral by 2030. I was with, they had an event in, in a small city in Spain last week. I was pretty impressive they're signing climate contracts where they're committing, you know, they're not contracts because my law they cannot be like that but they were they really really are trying to transform the cities, I think that's one. Another one that I'm, for example, I know that it's happening this network of climate ambassadors, the EU level, and this is actually, they come from all kinds and they really having events to discuss so I think there's, there are things happening in the climate assemblies were mentioned before I think we now seen at least in my country, you know that they happen at the national level and now the, the people that attended the assembly, helping others create assemblies. I actually think that there are things happening. And we just have to, as fast as we can to what we can to make sure that these things happen as fast as possible. But, but I think, you know, it is happening and I think it's just not fast enough. So that's why it's in our hand to make it go faster. Okay, so huge thanks for every few questions. And yeah, I mean we really want the audience to be involved and to be to be honest, the only reason I'm up here is because I attended a debate rather like this about five years ago, and felt inspired to try to move the discussion onwards so anyone in the room come talk to us at the conference. If you've got ideas how we can improve this format so that you feel like you can contribute more. Come and tell us but we would like that the panelists to finish by summing up in a minute or less, their key sort of takeaway message or thoughts from this debate. So, if anybody, I mean, Ed, you went first initially do you want to go for you do you feel ready. Who feels ready no well you're a quick thinking lady go for it. I think it's something too meaningful to say I just want to say that I know it feels frustrating sometimes I know it can even feel hopeless we're here because we see that this is such a huge issue and maybe we don't know what to do but I have to say, seeing this many people attending this many people who care I just, I want to say thank you. Thank you for being here thank you for caring and keep going. I'm happy to add, don't take all the, all the weight in the world on your own shoulders be happy with the impact that we have had with our science. Also equating Philippe, I mean, there are big things that are happening. They're not easy. Also, not for the politicians so I've heard some of the comments here sort of only pretending like you know the whole system is our strategy. I think there are actually attempts at making bigger shifts than have consciously in terms of a long term trend been tried before so it's a huge thing that's happening and we need a whole lot of different types of support for that in a lot of different ways there's something everyone can do. Some people will be on the more active side of the spectrum some people will be providing the scientific advice to policymakers. We need more and bigger action, and then I was very clear about that as well, but there are many space in which you can do that. I would not become depressed if that doesn't lead to as big a changes we would all like to see today but actually be inspired by how much change is happening partly thanks to all of you. So let that inspire us and also make us be even louder through all those communication channels. I'd like to echo some of those comments I think we need everyone in this fight. And so, for those of you who maybe don't want to do the more activism side, keep, keep doing science, keep talking, keep communicating, keep talking to whoever will listen. And to those more senior members of the audience perhaps give space and encourage those who want to go out and do the more activist work to do that given space encourage them. If that's what they want to do is that how they want to spend their time, then we should allow them and encourage them to do that. Yeah, I think in my case just, you know, as it says this, you know, help in whichever way you can and that makes you comfortable. I think it's really important. Then science interaction. Believe. Yeah, I have nothing to add. It's just perfect. Everybody's part of the solution use your skills. Use your skills to contribute to the transformative change that we have all decided that has been decided on. Oh, believe you can't be that cool to say you've nothing to ask for me looking for that killer final statement but I mean I would like to thank everybody very much for their contributions to this, the panelists the audience people online and my fellow conveners, and I would like also to thank Chloe, pretty much, and and Haley and give Haley the mic as well to say something. Nothing to add. But thank you everybody. This has been I think the biggest audience that I've been had for one of these great debates so brilliant to see everybody here. Obviously we really care. Do what you can and communicate as everybody said. Yeah, just just keep doing what we're doing and do more.