 I'd like to now introduce Peter Schlosser, who has the unusual title at Arizona State University of Vice President of the Global Futures Laboratory. The Global Futures Laboratory at ASU involves about 700 faculty members, thousands of students, thousands of individual projects, and it is built around the central premise of an outcome. And that is a healthy, sustainable relationship between humans in the built environment and nature in the natural environment. We are not on that path yet. We're not moving towards that path. We have a number of issues that we have to work through on all these fronts. And so in the spirit of this session, climate technology and ultimately where we're going and whether or not we can build public interest technology solutions to this relationship issue between the built environment and the natural environment. Peter is leading our efforts at ASU to move things forward, including our new College of Global Futures with its School of Sustainability, its School for the Future of Innovation and Society, and its School for Complexity Management. So I'll turn things over to Peter Schlosser. Thank you, Michael. And welcome everybody. It is a pleasure to give some opening remarks to this panel that is of course addressing one of the most important issues in the context of how we are moving on our planet and how we are actually trying to figure out how to get into a space where we leave a future for the next generations that they can shape, where they still have options to make decisions to shape the life according to how they want to do it. In other words, we don't want to continue to close the option space for them and give them a future where they have to deal with a lot of problems we have created with little opportunity to shape the planet according to their imagination and their desires. That is of course a problem that goes beyond climate. We have put pressures on many fronts on our planet. And we are reaching now a point where the planet is telling us, you're actually asking me to give more than I have to offer. Often that is framed in the context of the planetary boundary hypothesis. And it's in that climate and is an important part. And we are of course at a special moment where people in Glasgow at COP26 are struggling to figure out how to get onto a trajectory that in principle we know how it could look. And we have laid out definitely at COP21 about six years ago in Paris, framed in the Paris Agreement. There were follow-up assessments of that pathway and what the pathway actually lays out is how can we stay well below two degrees Celsius warming globally, ideally at around 1.5 or maybe even below that. That is a very ambitious goal. The best assessments that we have today, including AR6 from IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that just was released a few weeks ago. People who are studying that topic come to the conclusion that it is still possible, but only if action is taken now. And when I say now, it means actually 2021, it means today. And just to give a sense of what we are dealing with, a lot of people, let me just frame that a little bit in the context of what 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius really mean. For a lot of people who are not really thinking about climate and weather and the difference, they often say, why would I worry about 1.5 degrees Celsius or maybe 2 degrees Celsius? Between day and night, we have swings of 10, 20 Celsius. Between seasons, we have all these swings. Now, the way I often try to portray what that actually means in terms of climate framing is, if we are looking at the mean temperature of the globe between today and the last ice age, or let's say between an ice age and a warm period. It was globally averaged 5 degrees Celsius. So we already have managed to warm the planet by 1 degree Celsius. That's 20% of a full glacial, interglacial swing. Think back to how the world looked during the last ice age. Just take New York as an example. There was an ice sheet of one kilometer thickness over that area. So we are moving from that 20% of the full amplitude towards 40%, almost half of a full amplitude of a glacial, interglacial swing. So what that means is we are not in terms of climate, we are not just tinkering out the edge here and pushing the climate system a little bit here and there. We are making very, very substantial changes on time scales that are much, much faster than we have seen in nature. And the 1 degree Celsius warming that we have achieved through our human activities is actually a temperature that we have not seen for probably the past 2 to 3 million years. So that also tells you a little bit of how quickly we have pushed the climate system into a problem zone. Now coming then to the technology of what we can do about it, we do know that by 2050, so let me start by 2030, by 2030 you all know we should, according to this timeline, we should halve the emissions by 50%, we should actually cut the emissions by half by 50%, that means starting today we have to, or this year we have to cut emissions by about 6% per year. We are far away from that, but each year that we are losing makes it all the harder we have to cut by more. Still possible, but we really have to get our act together. By 2050, we have to be at a net carbon zero scenario. And that means is that with all the cuts in emissions, we still need technology to take some of the carbon that we have put in the atmosphere back out. To the best of our knowledge, it's about 20 to 40 gigatons per year, it's roughly on the upper end, the total emission of one year that we have right now. There are ways to do it, so-called nature-based solutions, building biomass that actually takes up the carbon, the other one is technology, and you will hear quite a bit of the details of that technology in the panel here. Without that, I don't think we can actually reach that. I just want to come back a little bit to what Michael already started to lay out what SU is doing, what the Global Futures Laboratory is doing. The School for the Future of Innovation Society, which plays a major role in the convening of this meeting, is within the College of Global Futures, which sits in the Global Futures Laboratory. The future task that we have set out for ourselves is to look at which options do we have to go into the future. Technology plays a big role, natural sciences, play a big role in physical sciences, but we cannot forget that even if we figure out everything on the natural science side, understanding the system or the engineering side, finding options on the technology side, finding options for dealing with the carbon budget that goes into the climate, energy, transformation. In the end, the deciding factor is whether or not humankind has the will to act on these options, act fast, and thereby make choices that gets us into a future that has opportunities rather than sacrifice. And that really is at the core of what we are doing around many of the issues that are much more specific that you will hear in the panel. Glaus will speak about the carbon capture technology and many on the panel will talk about this technology and how it relates to decision making and how much time we do have and what the consequences of using that technology will be. So I will not go deeper into that. I'm looking at the timeline. I think I will conclude my remarks here and will introduce the moderator of the panel, which is Laura Helmuth. And I see Michael grow showing up on the screen, but according to the runner show, I think I'm supposed to introduce Laura Laura is the editor in chief of Scientific American. She's a member of the Washington Post National Geographic Slade Smithsonian and science magazines. She's a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Standing Committee on advancing science communication and serves on advisory boards of sideline a program of the American Association for the advancement of science that connects reporters with scientific experts, high country news and 500 women scientists. And the background is, she has a PhD in cognitive neuroscience from the University of California at Berkeley. With that, I would like to hand over to Laura. Thank you so much, Peter. And thanks very much to all of you in the audience for joining us today and thank you to ASU for bringing us all together. We are here as part of the public interest technology university networks annual convening. And for anybody who isn't super familiar with exactly what that term means. Public interest technology or pit is the study and application of technology expertise to advance public interest to generate public benefits and to promote the public good. Public interest technology helps answer the question, how should we innovate from the perspective of what best benefits the public and particularly those who have been historically left out of the process of creating new technologies. So today we have a lot to talk about, and we would like you to be part of the conversation. So if you're in the audience, please feel free at any time to put your questions into the q amp a box and we'll start with some comments. We have a lot of slides with this is going to be a really open and rollicking we hope conversation and we want to bring in your questions as the conversation developed so pop those in whenever you're ready. So specifically today we're going to talk about climate technology from a public interest technology perspective. And so to orient us to follow up on what Peter was saying, we want to consider two of the important conclusions that come from the recent IPCC climate efforts. One, climate technologies will be crucially important in ongoing efforts to moderate climate change. And two, climate technologies will not be sufficient in such efforts. So our discussion today explores kind of both climate technologies and their potential contributions to the public interest from the perspectives of innovators and climate technology as well as leading thinkers in the governance of such technologies and their implications. We have a lot of people together representing these different interests. We hope that we will bring a new dimension to the pit community, as well as draw insights from public interest technology the apply to climate technology. So to address the questions today, these are big questions and we have a great panel. So we're going to run through all of the introductions first and then we'll transfer and these people will will start sharing their perspectives. And this is the order they'll be speaking in. So Klaus Lockner is the director of the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions at ASU, Arizona State University. And he's also part of the firm Silicon Kingdom Holdings with ASU. They have announced an agreement to deploy carbon capture technology that Peter developed that involves or sorry that Klaus developed that involves mechanical trees that are thousands of times more efficient than trees trees and the CO2 they capture we think can be recycled for various uses. Matthew Wallenstein is a professor and department head of soil and crop sciences at Colorado State University. He's a soil microbial ecologist who studies how microbes drive nutrient cycling soil formation and decomposition and how they affect crop health and productivity. So he's the chair and co founder of Grossentia Inc, where they're working to develop and commercialize microbial bio stimulants that increase nutrient availability. Holly Buck is an assistant professor of environment and sustainability at the University of Buffalo in New York, where she teaches courses on energy environmental justice and emerging technologies for sustainability. She's the author of the books after geo engineering climate tragedy repair and restoration and ending fossil fuels. Why net zero is not enough. And she's a contributing author to another book, The Carbon Dioxide Reduction Privilege. Jasmine Sanders is a climate scientist strategist and advocate. She is the executive director of our climate and advocacy organization energized by its Ruth grassroots movement. She previously managed the strategic initiatives and special projects for the immigrant aid group. Hi AS wrote legislative briefs for the US House of Representatives science based and technology committee and lobby on Capitol Hill for agriculture and environmental issues, and she serves on the environmental justice advisory council for carbon 180. Jenine Yazzie is a DNA entrepreneur community organizer and human rights advocate working with the Navajo Nation and other indigenous communities to create rights based approaches to development issues. She's co founder and director of sixth world solutions, which centers community ownership and traditional knowledge in the development of technological solutions, for example, solar powered water filtration units for these and other complex community college challenges. Tina Jena is an associate professor of environmental studies at the University of California at Santa Cruz and a 2017 Andrew Carnegie fellow. Her first book post treaty politics was named the best book in international environmental affairs in 2016 from the International Studies Association, and her second book, greening through trade was a finalist for the 2021 Canadian Political Science Association prize and international relations. She's a member of the stratospheric controlled outdoor perturbation experiment advisory committee, and I think we'll probably be talking about that experiment in the course of our conversation today. So to start us off, I think we'll go in the order that we, you know where we were introduced and, and kind of start with a few minutes each to address the big question of how important do you think climate technologies will be for responding to the climate crisis. And probably with a focus on those that are involved in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So to start us off clouds, would you like to start. Yeah, I'm happy to do that. So first let me begin as you just pointed out the climate change problem has many, many different layers. So technology is just one aspect of this problem, which will will need to contribute to the problem. I'm not quite as sanguine as the IPCC report or Peter express that we have still a fair chance of solve getting getting to stop at 1.5 degrees. I think it is much more likely that we have already entered an overshoot scenario where we will go higher than we should. And at the end have to come back down to do give you the perspective 350.org has said or Jim Hansen has said that 350 ppm may have been the right number to stop it, in which case we already 70 ppm to high. Most scenarios suggest that 450 ppm is above 1.5 degree warming. And while it is true, we only would have to come down 6% on average actually a little more per year to manage to stay into cut in half by three by by by 2030. In reality, we also have to compensate for roughly 3% growth, I would say we have be shown no indication that we actually have made that turn. And furthermore, I'm not entirely convinced that would be a good thing because it would be it would, the ones who suffer the most if energy becomes prohibitively expensive and difficult to get other developing countries we basically say we've the rich countries can figure this out, you the poor countries cannot develop. So I think the bottom line is we have to figure out how to, how to manage this and that means we end up in an overshoot, I think more likely than not, we will have to collect this century some hundred parts per million back, which would by the way by itself mean that for 40 years we are collecting 40 gigatons or nearly 40 gigatons a year, which is roughly equal to current emissions and we want to come back in 40 years, 100 ppm you have to remove two and a half ppm a year currently we are adding two and a half ppm a year so that sets the challenge. Therefore, I think we will probably not get around to having technologies which can clean up the carbon waste we are making. Now, is that the only answer to the problem clearly not but it is an important ingredient. Thank you very much. Let's see, Matt, do you want to go next. Sure. Thanks so much. So, I'd like to just think for a few minutes about the role of technology and both natural and managed ecosystems. And I guess I would start by, you know, talking about the fact that about 24% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from the agricultural sector. So that news is that all those emissions were largely driven by technology, things like fertilizer, transportation, and, you know, the practices that evolved to take advantage of that technology. But I think the good news is that we are, we already know that technology can have, you know, such a scale a scalable impact on our climate. And as we improve that technology and change our approaches we also have the ability to reverse that situation. So I think agriculture, because it is such a large managed system across the globe is a really exciting opportunity for near term improvements to slow down greenhouse gas emissions, soil erosion, and other environmental impacts and, you know, eventually aim to start sequestering carbon in some of those managed ecosystems. There's a lot of points of leverage for technology. One example might be looking at methane emissions from cows and other ruminants. But it's a major source. It's a, it's a nice controlled system and there's promising technologies to manipulate the microbiome in the in the room and to slow methane release in particular. There's ways to capture the carbon in in manure, another or other waste from food production. But there's a lot of exciting potential there. The challenges though are that it's not as simple as developing those technologies and proving, you know, their technical technical potential. We really have to think about the system and with in which we work and think about the role of the people involved the communities. And we have to, we have to make sure that as those as the technical abilities are developed that we think about how to implement those technologies in a way that that provides equitable opportunities for everyone that addresses some of the inequities. And that involves really hard systems level change. So technology is just one piece of that but to implement it at scale. We need changes in policies we need changes in the way we think about purchasing food and other products of agriculture. So it's that's where the problem gets really sticky. Thank you. Thanks for thinking, thinking about all this and and bringing ag into the mix. Let's see, Holly, would you like to follow up. Sure. So, obviously I think climate tech is important. This year we've seen 32 billion in venture capital invested in climate tech which is quadrupling over the past five years. So what kinds of companies are we talking about what even is climate tech is it just clean tech re branded. Kind of it's a bit bigger than, you know, focusing on clean energy. The climate change umbrella includes things like climate and earth data and software. So within that climate tech space about 80% of the funding is going to energy and transportation startups so things like Rivian raising 2.5 billion there's some going to food companies, not that much is going into carbon removal. And carbon removal is one important piece. But we also need to be thinking about how to get residual emissions down. So net zero, we've all heard about the net zero goals they've been a lot of targets announced just in the past few days from Australia and Saudi Arabia and India. It hinges on balancing residual emissions or some amount of remaining emissions with removals and climate technologies can minimize these residual emissions so we used to think that, you know, low following electricity would be a hard to abate sector it's hard to abate industry agriculture. Those are things that might get residual emissions but with these climate technologies thinking about how to decarbonize fertilizer production or green hydrogen for aviation or shipping right that can minimize the residual emissions. And we shouldn't be planning for this world that's removing you know 10 gigatons we should be aiming for a much smaller amount of residual emissions, because we can't count on all that carbon removal capacity manifesting due to social land energy barriers. It's expensive, and it's infrastructure and land intensive. So, you know, minimize residuals. That's my message for this part climate technologies really important and doing that. Thank you. That's great that is that's an important message. Thank you for bringing that in. And we'll talk more about that for sure. And Jasmine would you like to go next. Sure. Thank you Laura. So various technologies can be helpful in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in response to the current climate challenges. I like to say we need every tool in our toolbox to mitigate the climate crisis. We don't have time to wait and we also need to make sure that these are environmentally just technologies. So considering the pros and cons of such technological projects have we established relationships with the communities we want to deploy these technologies and is there trust. Are we setting up communities for long term success environmentally just carbon removal is a potentially powerful tool that can help stop the worst impacts of climate change by removing legacy emissions from the atmosphere. I don't know what Holly was starting to talk about legacy emissions, but we are only just now really starting to talk about it because there's a particular group of people who are now starting to be impacted. So as carbon removal takes place we must ensure that youth and environmental justice groups have a seat at the table to discuss responsible deployment and ensure that it's not used by corporations as a pretense to continue polluting. We have been on the front lines of the climate crisis are also those who have experienced both red lining and blue lining and are oppressed due to the societal inequities that have been in place since this land was colonized. We can't risk perpetuating injustice by moving a climate solution forward that leaves important voices and perspectives out of the conversation. Great, thank you so much. Thanks for making sure that we include those perspectives and in this conversation today and going forward. For anybody who isn't familiar so I think, just in case we have international people who don't know red lining or blue lining would you mind defining those briefly. I just want to make sure everybody understands. So red lining was actually created from here in the United States, the new deal was created and there was housing programs that came out of that, really to have more people be able to own homes however there were particular pieces of language in the policies that excluded particularly black Americans from being able to own houses in certain areas. You can now even look up online to see what those red line districts were red line districts were predominantly in areas that had bad air. So whether they were sitting next to a chemical plant or a landfill. Blue lining is a current topic that is going on. You have these same frontline communities which are communities of color low income communities and coastal communities. And now you're having where banks are not lending loans to people because the house or business is in a climate risk area. So predominantly the people who are being subjected to blue lining are those same people communities of color that have been redlined in the past. Great, thank you so much. The reason I want to make sure everybody in the audience understands these, these concepts is, you know, when we when we talk about climate change, you know, we have to think not just to the future but understand the past and the past of structural racism, the past of you know how the climate has changed during the industrial revolution the past you know earth history like distant assages, and, you know, thermal maximum from the past and things like that. So I just want to make sure everybody's, you know, kind of keeping this in mind too as we consider the conversation about what where do we go from here. So thank you. And Jeanine would you like to go next. Yes, thank you. You know, in the beginning of this discussion public interest tech with defined as the taking an approach to restore our relationship with the environment and I think when it comes to climate tech. We have a lot of data and a lot of evidence about what it has looked like in the actual application to show us that it does not do that it does not lead to that outcome. Right now, you know, with what's happening right in the negotiations at COP and so much of the space and the focus around these international negotiations that are meant to set these ambitious standards to help put us on the right trap towards effective and meaningful solutions are dominated with corporations and with private interests who are promoting large scale forms of climate tech that continue to violate the rights of indigenous peoples and frontline communities that continue to not take a systems based approach in looking at everything that goes into the these these proposed climate technologies from the the waste that they produce the energy they need the infrastructure that is needed the water that is needed. And the, the impacts that it's having on the communities and areas where these technologies are placed and we have examples of this across the board everything from the lithium mining, opening up new threats and leading to the the murders and land rights and human rights defenders and places where these precious minerals and where lithium is being sourced all the way to the the geo engineering. I mean, I live in the Southwest and from the Navajo nation we've had geo engineering going on here for 70 to 100 years, with no evidence that has ever been successful. And yet we're still promoting that as one of the best in most meaningful ways to address this in a large scale manner. And we have our saw me people right now fighting against solar geo engineering proposed to take place over their territories even though it's just like the initial phase of testing the technology. It's still being done without enlisting and respecting the rights of these frontline communities that have their own solutions. I've shown and proven with different types of community led community designs technological solutions that decentralized technology that centers rights based approaches can and will mean to meaning lead to meaningful and effective solutions at at the local level. And we need more of that. But on order to do that and invest in that we have to have political will and motivation in our academic science and government communities. In order to recognize the importance of addressing and dismantling systemic oppression and systemic inequalities at the same time that we're trying to build these technological solutions. Great. Thank you so much. Yeah, I really appreciate you bringing in these issues and grateful everybody in the audience for for paying attention and for making making the issues that Jenin's bringing up part of the conversation of the decision making and the policies. And it's really interesting to, you know, to think about how investment in in smaller or localized or specific solutions can can add up to much more than, you know, things that are done at scale depending on how you define at scale. So I'm hoping we can come back to some more specifics to so people can understand the power of this approach. And so we've we've been talking about some carbon carbon dioxide reduction removal technologies and, and we know what some of the motivation some of the potential is for that. But then also is, you know, as Jeanine brought up with there's also solar geoengineering. And this is, he's been getting a lot of attention and in ways of cooling warming. You know, in fact, there was an op-ed in the New York Times that's been getting a lot of attention by David Keith from Harvard. He was arguing that techniques for basically for for cooling the earth are necessary. And that there's so much so much warming embedded in the system that we need faster more direct ways of cooling the planet like for instance reflecting solar radiation by putting so sulfur into the atmosphere. And so I think, Sakina, would you like to talk about that or is there anything else you'd like to kind of start with to orient your perspective on the on the issues of climate tech, and from a perspective. Sure. Thanks so much, Laura. The opportunity to say a few words about that. Before I before I turn to that I just wanted to underscore a couple points made by my colleagues prior which I think we're just really insightful and resonate strongly with the way I see this as well so both both Holly and Jasmine underscore the importance of climate tech and not thinking about climate tech isn't as a alternative but really emphasize their residual emissions and legacy emissions and reduction of those emissions has to come first right so I really want to underscore that as a framing device for how I think about climate also want to underscore the points made by Holly Jasmine and also Jenny and that sort of point to so the social barriers to climate tech and, and really the social barriers are huge when we're thinking about both carbon removal, and certainly with respect to solar to engineering, as Jenny pointed out with respect to some of the proposed experiments that that were recently strongly opposed and shut down in other parts of the world. So with that, if it's okay I'll say just a little bit about what solar engineering is and frame it in context in relation to carbon removal then turn to the David Keith article that that you brought up from the New York Times. So I don't work at on carbon removal really much at all in comparison to many of the other panelists I focus on solar to engineering technology and specifically governance of it so I should say I'm not an advocate for solar to engineering I study how might we think about governing this group of emerging technologies such that if we ever end up in a position where we have to make the choice to use it we're armed with with appropriate governance responses to ensure that we can do that in as close to a social responsible way as we possibly can and is that an easy thing to do know it's incredibly tall order and I don't certainly don't have all the solutions but that's the kind of perspective that I come to this with. So solar engineering and specifically stratospheric aerosol injection attempts to mask some of the temperature related impacts that we might otherwise see. And those who they do nothing to reduce emissions right so it just essentially reflect solar radiation would seek to reflect solar radiation back into space to cool the planet. And those who advocate for these technologies often argue that if they were developed they might be able to buy us some time while we scale up other carbon tech strategies or other carbon climate strategies like carbon removal and increasing emission reductions. And they're incredibly controversial as you as you rightly pointed to Laura for some of the reasons that are probably pretty intuitive to most people here. But they're also interestingly increasingly being discussed in mainstream policy forums including you know that national US National Academy is just produced a report last year focused on this topic they feature more prominently than ever in the IPCC is most recent assessment report. How important is solar engineering for addressing climate change. The answers I we don't really know yet. These technologies we don't know enough about these technologies how they operate with the impacts are etc to really have a clear answer on that. Generally speaking most folks who who think about solar geo a lot are divided into two camps and this is really kind of a crude crude. It's a question but some of us who think that more research is needed to figure out if these technologies might actually be important as part of the climate response, and others of us who think no way these things are crazy. The risks of even considering them are way too high they present a moral hazard and any research into them would constitute a slippery slope towards towards deployment. So with that kind of background turning to your question about David Keith's article in the New York Times. So my read of that piece and from hearing David speak about this many times over the last few years is that he's not really saying that carbon removal is too slow and therefore we should focus on solar geo instead he's saying. Carbon removal is slow and therefore we shouldn't dismiss solar geo engineering out of hand, if we want to reach the temperature goals put forth in the Paris agreement. So, you know with that said I think the argument he makes in that in that article is a bit more bold than when I'd be willing to adopt myself at this stage. Do I think solar geo engineering is necessary, I don't know maybe, or maybe we'll find out the risks are just way too high or it doesn't actually work the way models predict it well. Do I think it should be considered as a possible part of the solution. Yes. Do I think we should continue research on this topic so that we can evaluate its potential in a more informed way. Yes. Do I think we're adequately incorporating all the perspectives and voices that should be heard in this debate, not even close. Should we be doing better in this regard. Absolutely. Is there any solution to do that, not one that I've heard so far. In short, I'm generally sympathetic to David's argument. I agree with him that current strategies are not enough to get us where we need to be. And having observed the global climate negotiations for about two decades now I'm not particularly optimistic that global leaders are going to be able to extract themselves from the domestic lobbies and, and domestic politics that are kind of tying us to the global climate industry, and certainly not fast enough to address climate impacts and in the parts of the world that are feeling those impacts most strongly already. Am I a little scared about the risks of solar geo engineering as well. Absolutely. And that's why I work on governance of these emerging technologies and spend a lot of time thinking about how if we ever do need to think about these technologies as a way to protect against catastrophic climate risks how can we do so in a way that's as responsible as possible. As I mentioned it's an incredibly tall order and I wish we didn't live in a world where I was willing to even consider the possibility of these types of climate interventions. But sadly my, my view of the political system is that it's repeatedly shown us that we actually need to be open to at least thinking about it and potentially rejecting it but at least thinking about it. I wonder if you could follow up, you use the term moral hazard. And I think this is something that probably all of you on the, on this panel have thought about and could you kind of explain how that how that moral hazard works when you're thinking about geo engineering or climate technology. I mean I think it's not strictly geo engineering that the moral hazard is an issue for is that right. I think in the context of solar geo engineering we more the moral hazard argument is one of the most commonly and I think strongest critiques, which essentially says that if we turn our attention away to these techno fixes. We're essentially turning our attention away. Sorry if we turn to towards these techno fixes we're turning our attention away from what we really need which is, you know as Holly and Jasmine underscore reduction of emissions, and potentially also carbon removal. Yeah, great. Thank you so much. Excellent. So, you know, just a reminder again to everybody in the audience feel free please put your questions in the question box we're eager to hear what what you all would like to talk about as well. Obviously there's a lot, a lot to go on. I want to open it up to the panel with does anybody want to respond. I just wanted to make an order just to start so everybody had had a moment to express their own point of view. Is anybody eager to to speak to what one of the other panelists said if you didn't get a chance if you if you came before they did. And if fine that's not with if not that's that's totally fine. Let me make a point I needed to unmute myself. I have a point about your engineering I in previous papers I have I could it's a little bit like having attorney kit after an accident. Yes, you can stop the bleeding, but don't think you solve the problem. You can't go home and say I don't have to go by the hospital because the arm is not bleeding anymore. You'll be sorry a few weeks later. We can't just keep piling up. See you doing the atmosphere and keep compensating. On the other hand, I would argue people have made the point and particularly advocates make the point that it's very fast and very cheap. And if we don't research it. We will at some point in a panic do it and we may be very wrong about doing. So therefore I would actually spend some significant effort, trying to disprove that it's actually valuable or show that all the concerns we had are actually not there my view of that research would be. I find a hole in that in that logic. And if I can, we should know about it because if we don't know about it, I guarantee you, give another 10 years. We will be told that there is no other way of doing it and therefore we should. For example, I don't buy that it's fast. We had discussions here by the time you assure that you don't wreak havoc on the climate. You have spent a decade trying it. And so you are not much faster than the other options. And secondly, you are not sure that what you did is actually what you what you wanted if you stop the monsoon for example away in the other will be a disaster. Understanding the system before you jump into it is actually very valuable. Having said that, I think it's great to get down and reduce fossil fuel consumption and I think we will do that and given where we go. I don't think we actually have a choice anymore it's it's going to happen and given the fact that so renewable energy is getting so cheap it will happen. But I would be a little careful and colleague of mine pointed that out by if we kill supply rather than demand will see exactly what's happening right now. Prices go through the roof people will object and say it's those climate guys who are doing us in and this could set us back another decade. And having said all of that, I do think if we have to come back 100 ppm we have locked in 40 gigatons a year, we can tip it all around that. And yes, the other point I would make if we if you look at the annual growth and energy consumption and this is largely driven by the developing countries, it's roughly 3% a year. If you if you go to the year 2100 this is five times larger than today. So even if you manage to get 80% of the of the CO2 emissions out of the system by squeezing it out that last 20% is still 40 gigatons a year in 2100 so we better get a lot better than just the last 20%. Maybe we need to get it down to five or three percent. And at the end, we will have to mop up some of it, and we will figure out how to do that, but we have to balance the books, not just on the technology site not just on the fossil fuel site. As you heard the agricultural sector produces a lot of methane and we can't ignore that either way, or nitrogen oxides. Okay, thanks. Does anybody else want to want to comment on some of the first, first opening remarks. Laura can I jump in. Oh yeah please do. Yeah sorry I see a hand but it's a it's small of my screen. I wasn't sure if you could see it. I hope you don't mind me just speaking up. I think you've initiated those comments class and I think one thing that's one thing that's important to keep in mind and thinking about solar geoengineering which you highlighted if not explicitly implicitly in your remarks is that it's all about a series of risk risk tradeoffs right so the risks of could climate engineer could solar geoengineering be have catastrophic impacts on precipitation patterns or regional weather or whatever. Versus what would that look like what would be the impacts of not doing solar geoengineering and and and geoengineered world due to climate impacts that we're going to see otherwise right so there's that kind of set of risk risk tradeoffs there's the risk risk tradeoffs of researching solar geoengineering now versus not researching it and risking on a less informed deployment potentially in future so I think there's so many of those kind of paired risks that are important to think about. And then if I if I can I would love to hear more from Jeanine at some point and hopefully we'll be able to connect after this event as well but I would love to hear some thoughts on what you think would be appropriate and productive way to engage with local communities. In thinking about outdoor experimentation of solar geoengineering what sorts of strategies would you recommend and how could that how could that be done well and respectfully. Absolutely. And I think to give context to what I'm going to offer. It's important to know that indigenous peoples have been involved in international negotiations around these climate commitments that have been discussed for and negotiated for years. And from the beginning indigenous peoples were trying to advocate for keeping the goal under one degree Celsius, because the global average temperature is kind of a misleading concept for the general population. You know, we already knew that if we reached a 1% Celsius increase that in many of our frontline communities particularly communities with very delicate biological ecosystems biologically diverse ecosystems that we're going to see fluctuations of 1015 27 degrees places we're seeing we're seeing more record fluctuations of seasonal and regional temperatures. And so with that understanding knowing that our collective responsibility is to protect all life, all over this planet. So we wanted to, and fought very hard to fight for stricter standards. In that work we're also fighting for indigenous peoples rights to be recognized and centered because indigenous peoples are stewarding 80% of the world's remaining biological diversity because we have world views and practices that enable us to effectively steward and maintain and adapt those ecosystems despite the challenges we're already seeing from from development issues to systemic inequalities to climate change. We're still able to maintain that yet we only retain 10% of record recognize rights to those land 10% of those land bases. And so, in our fight to get recognized in the Paris Agreement, our rights were upheld and recognized in the preamble of the Paris Agreement. And then that's just led to increasing recognition across international mechanisms about how important indigenous led solutions, ecological knowledge and practices and governance structures really are to informing effective and meaningful climate responses and solutions. And so with that said, when we're talking about climate tech and the way a lot of these projects and programs are being developed, they still do not recognize or include those very voices in those very communities in the actual discussions. And just systemic inequality in general, the reality is that because of how pervasive this system is because of how detrimental inequality is to our collective advancements as human society. We do not have the best and brightest at the table, leading these discussions. And that's something that we need to address, you know, 100 years ago. When we're talking about how to move forward and make these kind of conversations, more meaningful and effective we have to be able to name and actively dismantle the systems of oppression, and their root to their roots and white supremacy their roots in colonization, their roots in nationalism that is structured to maintain a monopolized power and control over the earth's resources, and to exploit the human labor population for labor and in that pursuit. And for us this means shifting from an era here in the United States and in Canada from an era of consultation to one of consent, one that upholds the the rights of indigenous peoples as the minimum standard and one that can serve as a model for what it looks like when we effectively protect and center well being of communities of entire populations, and their well being and their the futures that they deserve and that they envision for clean air clean water healthy environments access to healthy and local place based diets access to all of the human rights shelter food water energy. Now broadband, like when we have solutions that center those rights, then we can make the systemic shifts that need to be made for many of us to amount to the type of solutions and changes that we so desperately need. Thank you so much I don't know if the audience can see I don't think you can see everybody on the panel but we're all like nodding. We have a question from the audience that is kind of follows up on on the genius comments which is how can we be sure to center equity and diversity in public interest technology, which is, you know, frankly, operating in a sector that historically has been the questioner calls a monoculture, which, you know, as you can imagine there's a certain, you know, it's a it's an industry that tends to be dominated by people from, you know, wealthy countries tends to be male tends to be white. So how do we make it one of the questions is how do we make sure that it is not just voices but also hiring, promoting, funding their work, everything else, you know, where are what are some of the, some of the levers that people can pull to to make this more inclusive, more equitable. You know, you know, there's there's the technology question, there's the policy question, and then for both of those, how do we how do we make the how we make sure that we are including the communities that can that can make the work better and need to be part of the conversation. And I'll open this up to anybody at the panel has thoughts about this. It's one of the questions from the audience. I can start. So, okay, it was kind of like a multi question. One I would say, you know, when you were talking about the public and being equitable and diverse. It's about public engagement. And how do you do that, you talk to people, you have listening sessions, you have to bring them in from the beginning, you cannot deploy any sort of technological project, throw it in a community and expect for that community to have a significant success if you haven't set up the community for success from the forefront. How do you do that. Well, you know, at carbon 180, they actually talk about a procedural distributive and a reparative approach. So you're creating those transparent and inclusive dialogues. You're making sure that you're compensating who people who are part of these dialogues. And in these town halls and listening sessions, you're letting people know what are the next steps for how we're involving you and how we're keeping you engaged. Whenever you're deploying the project itself, you're making sure that one you're asking yourself the question is this going to harm anyone in the community. That's how you keep climate justice in the center. And you're going to make sure that any sort of community that is going to be impacted in whatever way. Especially if it's a frontline community that it is not them who are having to invest in the project. This is where some problems have been get the money from somewhere else. Lastly, I would say that you have to make sure that there is that consistent feedback loop. So you're in constant contact with them, and then also that you are making sure that who's the point person on the side or deploying the project who's the point person on their side. Are they building that relationship with someone in the community with multiple people in the community. Lastly, I would say, in regards to the policy itself we have to have climate justice in the center you have to think about, you know, how is this affecting people health wise houses affecting people from an economic status how is this affecting people from food insecurity. What are all of those things. And when you think about it with a. I was thinking about how I describe it to my little girl lion King on the circle of life, you, you have to make sure that you are bringing in all of these different perspectives to the table. You know, perspectives from a race, a cultural, a educational, a religious and spiritual background. What are all of those different perspectives that are coming to the table and making sure that these decisions are made and we are truly integrating justice into public engagement. Excellent thank you so much. Lots of practical advice there for everybody at every level of development of climate technology. So yeah we have we're getting some good questions thank you for for your questions in the audience. This is, this is related to what we've been talking about. How can carbon capture initiatives that are that are currently the greatest stage of development. And how can some of them center environmental justice concerns are there any interesting examples, anything that any of the panelists think really needs to happen right now with with carbon dioxide capture with removal technologies, just to kind of focus on those or if there are other technologies you think would be useful for thinking about as we figure out what you know how to how to govern and think about and develop those technologies. One of the important issues to contemplate is that of scale. And if you come in with a $5 billion project, don't be surprised that this is run from a corporate headquarter. So developing technologies that inherently scale up in number, rather than in size has advantages, you can then start building on a community level. And unless you think that small units can not do very much. We have an example of a technology which is broadly dispersed and they are called automobiles. And that's responsible for a very large fraction of our total emissions. So, bottom line, as a matter of fact their power capacity being built every year exceeds the entire power plant fleet. So we can buy by working our way up from small scales to large scale whether this is in technologies or in agricultural systems we can actually engage people. We can have exactly the discussions we talked about how do we engage a community. One of the interesting features of collecting theoretical is you can do it anywhere so you can engage for the community and figure out whether this is the right place or not. And there's a very different discussion if you say I have a 3 million or 50 million tons a year large facility, because that is driven by some remote decisions, but you can get smaller versions and I think in the energy transition you see particularly carbon extraction from the industry also has the advantage that it could make synthetic sustainable fuels, and thereby it could do that on a very, very small scale. So one could combine things and figure out how to go out to communities and say are you interested in this and if not go somewhere else. But you can figure out how to how to spread technologies in a way that people can benefit from it. Thank you. And Matt one of the issues you've been really working on you mentioned in your opening remarks with scale. Also, since you know aside from cars agriculture is also large scale with you said there's, you know there are things that that can, you know, can make big differences on it, you know, across a large scale. Absolutely. And one of the, one of the challenges that that we need to figure out is that the, the technologies that allowed us to scale agricultural production are not the same ones that are going to help us, you know, reverse the impact of agriculture. And specifically what I mean is, you may hear the concept of regenerative agriculture. It's a, it's a great word isn't it. Thinking about rather than degenerating our environment, regenerating it and a lot of ways, emulating natural ecosystems, emulating indigenous practices that did build up the soil over time and build health. And one of the challenges how do we, how do we switch from this very efficient and productive industrial system in towards the regenerative system, because regenerative systems are are more complex, often that includes, for example, grazing cover crops or a lot more biodiversity. And, and part of that might be addressed through technologies that allow for for some of those things to happen and we've already seen that with no till technologies for example. So that's promising, but it's, there is no universal solution. It has to be the best practices for any particular place or context specific depends on the soils, the climate and the people, the traditions, the local economy the supply chain. So, the challenges. I think that that really we're looking at increasing complexity in agriculture and reversing homogenization and simplicity at least in the United States. So, again, it's going to that's this this is the big challenge we're asking a lot. And then thinking about how to involve the public in that. I struggle with that a lot because it's, you know, ideally, we want people to be able to incorporate environmental impacts and into their decisions, but it is, it is really hard and oftentimes practices that feel better. Are not always, you know, when you look at it quantitatively not always the best for the environment, and often there's trade offs there's no best. What's best for carbon might not be the best for water, or, you know, so there's it's it's complex and I don't know as we increase the complexity of agriculture and and forest management and other things. It's going to become an even bigger challenge to to educate the public to make informed decisions. Yeah, and I think that's that's a point that comes in that, you know, basically every level of discussion every every side of this is better communication better cooperation. There are several stages of development. And, you know, one of the kind of one of the leading ideas now people are talking about not just communication or collaboration but that co designing. And Jasmine, is this something you'd like to talk about the how company, you know, companies universities researchers, where are there opportunities for co designing environmentally just technologies for climate. Thanks, Laura. I mean, I think a lot of what I said a few minutes ago applies to this question. But, you know, we need to acknowledge the history of this country and around the world. And I think when you start there. That's when actual progress can begin. I work with young people day in and day out, and that is that is their roots. They want to acknowledge they want to hold people accountable and then they want to get to the solution so it's really that solutions oriented mindset. And I think part of this co creation process that can actually be a challenging opportunity for many organizations and companies working with communities. It's really in your development process when you're brainstorming these ideas that they can be fantastic technological projects. Go ahead and be having conversations with some people from the community pull them into your development process. When you start there, then it's not a question from the community of, well where was our voice at the table, you're coming here and you're having a town hall with us but you could have brought us in from the beginning part. People in the community, they know what's going on. They're very intelligent and can speak to it. A lot of the times it's because the resources are not there. So that's from a funding perspective. That's from a technical expertise perspective. So you're hearing these words be thrown around such as civilian climate corpse or how in eight to 10 years, every job is going to be a climate job. So let's build up the communities that start from there. Great thank you so much. Can I add to this. Oh yeah please. Just building off of what Matt and Jasmine said. I absolutely agree like when we get down to what these solutions actually look like they are extremely complex, but the biggest challenge is how they come into conflict with structures of power of private interests, and with the governments that support and protect those private interests. I know for indigenous peoples we could have had entire landscapes of regenerative food systems. If our rights to use our own lands and develop our own lands the way that we need to in this so country was it constantly challenged or interpreted through paternalistic federal Indian laws and frameworks that don't recognize our worldviews our sciences and the importance of those knowledge systems as a foundation of those practices. Right now, you know, just in 2018 with the revisions to the farm bill, only then was was dry land farming recognized as a legitimate practice that could access federal resources for sustainable food systems. And we're still far beyond like getting the full breath of the wisdom and the power behind our regenerative food practices recognized in any federal policy. So when we have those issues like that it's not just about coming to our communities and talking to our communities, but of upholding in your own internal policies and practices the rights of those communities as decision makers of people with their own worldviews and wisdoms and sciences to contribute to the discussions. We've seen this done effectively with in some local projects and small projects we have a partnership right now with the University of Arizona. And that partnership was largely made possible to be built in an equitable way because we have indigenous professionals and representatives and academics working within that institution to be the liaison and to ensure that it's not we're not just checking a box with the consultation with these academic partners, but that we're actually centering the knowledge and the intelligence like I said of our of our own people in our communities and helping design effective and meaningful solutions and in that way we've built a prototype, and we're continuing to modify a prototype for decentralized solar water filtration units that can, you know, make some of our most dangerous water sources drinkable and usable for agriculture and produce enough energy to meet the household needs. And you know, and all of that design and those discussions we have to, we have to think about everything about the health of the family that the household that we're serving the realities of their living conditions and their shelters, the needs that they have for water use and energy use and and how how that can help them meet their best needs because they're not getting this to play ps4 is all we get right like we and we all have that responsibility to to introduce conversations and weigh all of these different factors, so that we are creating smart sustainable designs when we're when it comes to technological fixes. But you know a lot of this requires us to undo these biases I even heard several times. And even in the course of this dialogue, this this bias that somehow developed nations are somehow better off or safer than so called developing nations and we're not that it completely invisibilizes all of our frontline communities, particularly in Alaska, that are already the first wave of climate refugees because of the impacts of climate change and there's in those areas. It's completely erasing the vulnerability of the American population to the dwindling access to clean drinking water that the the collapse of many critical bio ecosystems and biological diversity. And we have to wake up to that reality and stop buying into this bias that we are somehow better off to play. We have this role to play in the international sphere of that's paternalistic to go out and save other other nations and small, especially small islands developing states, and so called developing nations, because our role in those places is probably to reduce our military budget and reinvest that in the research that everyone's calling for here, and the actual community led solutions and technology that's going to bring about equity and justice and center equity and justice and, you know, like getting involved in those ways is our responsibility as citizens of these so called developing nations. Great, thank you so much. Yeah, thanks for all of that. It's really nice to to hear about the solutions and the prototypes that are working, and that can that can serve as a model to kind of pop people out of their preconceptions about you know what what counts as a solution to technology and how can it be deployed how can be created. Let's see, you know we've talked a lot about kind of your private interests, driving a lot of the activity, but your public ownership needs to be part of this as well. And is this something Holly would you like to speak to that I know some of your research is around around the subject. Yeah, yeah, I've been thinking about, you know, as kind of a spectrum of public interest where on one hand you have the material infrastructure, which I think there's a case for public ownership of carbon removal infrastructure so that there's collective benefit, you know, collective oversight of it right I mean we're talking about infrastructure that's cleaning up waste we have water treatment or municipal waste systems that are publicly held we have public utilities. So I think there's models there. We can also think about public say and decision making around CDR policies carbon removal policies. I also think there's a software layer that's actually really important here too because we have all these sorts of platforms that are coming out around emissions around carbon, they have different functions so carbon accounting platforms tracking when carbon is coming from, then you have kind of platforms that are also giving advice about what to do there's a lot of startups and established actors in this space of decarbonization as a service so helping companies decarbonize. And then platforms that's involved monitoring things like soil carbon or other types of carbon removals, a whole infrastructure around that, and then platforms that are exchanging, looking the supply of carbon removals and the demand for them. And then platforms that are going to be used to finance and actually speculate on all of this other stuff and you can see a kind of the default default path of all of this being kind of a nightmare, either not being effective in addressing climate change, not allowing public ownership of data, you know, people taking a cut of the profit, and so forth. The platforms can come to govern the ecosystem to just like platforms like Facebook have come to govern social life to some extent we know that these platforms aren't neutral so there's this physical infrastructure of the carbon removal that needs to be in the public interest there's this digital infrastructure that also should be in the public interest. Public ownership is one place that links all of that that we should be focusing on when we're talking about public interest it's not just about transparency or access it's also really about ownership, in my view. Great yeah thank you so much. I have a lot of a lot of good questions, but keep them coming we still have time for more the audience questions, and there's one I want to bring in somebody so we need to be talking about adaptation. And, you know, how can we. So, let's see the question is, you know we were talking about mitigation we're talking about carbon dioxide removal. But you know what are some of the realistic adaptation responses, and shouldn't there be this is the question say, shouldn't there be basically an army of technologies and public investments that are going into adaptive adaptation and what's, you know, and I'll open this up to anyone on the panel I think this you know you all have relevant perspectives on the question of adaptation and how to make that just and feasible and actionable. Yes, of course we need to work on adaptation right, because the, the change has happened and the change will get a lot worse so we have to figure that out. The challenge was thinking of removing carbon, or even in solar radiation management you know exactly what you want to do in adaptation will find out the hard way what we need to do. I think this is myriad different technologies and myriad different ideas which all will need to be developed, but we will have to figure out how to live in a world which is substantively different than before. Even if we managed to get to what to stabilize at one degree, which we already exceed presumably, even if we managed to do this the oceans will keep rising the question is how fast. Right, so we have plenty of problems, which we need to address now, and we have, by the way through the moral hazard delayed that a decade. Because we said if you start thinking about that nobody wants to stop using fossil fuels the problem now is we could have said this in 1980 and we wouldn't we wouldn't need negative emissions. Now, now we do need negative emissions and now we desperately will need adaptation because we have reached the point where we don't have a choice anymore we see things we see forest burning. 3537 inches of rain in Hurricane Harvey, we see hurricanes going from category one to four in two days, all of these things are new and we will, we will pay the consequences for this and we will have to learn the hard way. What it actually is that will befall us and it will be regionally very, very different will be very different than Phoenix than it is in Galveston, it will be very different in Alaska, then it is here and we need to learn all of these things locally and do it right and this is hard. Anybody else like to speak to that about the adaptation technologies, and how that should be part of our conversation about climate technologies. Not that they're that different obviously there's, you know, there's not like a bucket of adaptation bucket of removal and another of removing, you know, preventing the addition of emissions. And what got me going in, in the early 90s was the observation that carbon piles up. If we keep adding it, it just becomes more and more and I think even in today's discussion this is not always clear people talk about stopping emissions, well then we will stop exactly where we are. If we slow down emissions, we will raise the climate problem gradually, we have to figure out how to get to a point which we consider stable. And if the 50.org is right, that's 70 ppm below where we are. If the 1.5 degree is right, then it's somewhere between where we are right now and where we will be in 20 years from now. We have not seen a significantly slow down as a matter of fact with the exception of the corporate year every year emissions accelerated by roughly 2%. And you can nicely see this in the annual increase in CO2. I have plotted it from 1960 to today. CO2 is a nice exponential curve. Every year the average goes up by 2%. It's noisy, but it goes up by 2% every year. And COVID was an exception, and we have already filled that hole again. So we have demonstrated that we are still on the accelerator rather than on the break. And we will have to back up at the end. Holly, go ahead. Well, I thought I should add to this because I wrote a paper with a group of colleagues called adaptation and carbon removal. You know, in that paper, just to make the point, we talk about the need to assess these together because they interact, all these forms of climate response interact. There could be carbon removal projects that are maladaptive that actually impede adaptation. There could be opportunities for carbon removal projects that could have an adaptation component if we were thinking about designing them in that way. So to the questioner's point, I think there has been kind of a lack of, you know, engagement between these two fields and I hope that we can move that forward in the future. Yeah, thank you so much. So one of the questions is kind of takes us in another direction. And one of the questioners asks, you know, do, do any of you think about or should, how should we be thinking about potential dark horse energy production. You know, basically miraculous fixes like fusion that would, you know, you know, potentially assist in transitions, if it can ever work is that should that even be part of the conversation. You know, how do you, how do you think about that sort of technology and what role should that play in our in our discussions. I suppose I'm the obvious candidate because I actually at some point worked on fusion. I think fusion could be a great technology for the 21st century. By this time, the train has left the station. We may in the in the future have unlimited fusion energy, we will not have it in time to solve this problem. We should push it forward, not under the climate agenda, but under sustainability in general, by own personal choice of a dark horse is in a way direct air capture coupled to renewable energy. I think we can use direct air capture in the negative emissions scenario where we sequester the carbon and we come down and CO2. We can also have access to liquid fuels that are made from CO2 at water, which was electrolyzed hydrogen and hydrogen and CO2 can make any fuel you like. And that you can do small scale distributed you can do this any in any location where you have sunshine and air. You probably have enough water in the air even in a desert if that's the way you want to go. And so you could produce energy and carry it out as liquid, which is a lot easier than having to rely on somebody's power plants. So I actually could very well see that by 3040 years from now, we still have liquid fuels, but no fossil energy. It's an interesting thought exercise to think about like what if, you know, tomorrow we had a breakthrough like that, and in the sense we already have with low cost of solar and wind. And, you know, are we prepared for that kind of success. I would I would argue that it comes comes back to the moral hazard question, and that if, if we had a technology that allowed us to start sequestering carbon or, you know, limiting we still have all these other problems that we need to fix and and it would draw our attention from it and problems like biodiversity problems like the scarce water resources. So, you know that I think that that while we're talking about carbon by and large that's often shorthand for, you know, a really more holistic approach that we need to take. So I would be thinking about restoring all the, all those processes and just in addition to the social issues that we've already talked about today. Great, thank you. Yes, you know you have your hand up. So if we could, if I could pivot a little bit to ask to pose a question. You know one of the things that I think about in my own work is sort of how do we define that the public interest actually is I mean we're talking about it as if it's a unitary thing but actually it's incredibly diverse and one of the ways that I see this and in my work is, you know, in the work in research on solar to engineering, I have a slide and I won't show it because you promised you promised the audience we wouldn't have any slides but it looks at the distribution by country of where solar to engineering research has been where publications have come from from 2000 to a couple weeks ago from the year 2000 to a couple weeks ago and what you see is that the vast majority of it comes to the United States in Europe, like almost all of it, and some from China. And, and that includes not only things like the atmospheric physics and the economics but you know also the political science and the ethics, all of it like all of the publications that talk about this are coming from, from, from the US and Europe primarily. And that includes even those that are those people who are advocating for halting solar to engineering research in the name of social justice. And a few months ago, a couple of my colleagues sushi to Latte and family or Taiwan wrote this really phenomenal article that was published in the journal global environmental politics, where they call out this disconnect that essentially it's northern countries, speaking for the global south, not to invisible eyes as Janine rightly pointed out that they're also frontline climate impacts and in in the United States and other kind of developed countries. But that, by and large is literature that calls for halting solar engineering doesn't take on board or speaks for the global south speaks for the countries in the world that are going to be facing the most intense climate impacts you know in terms of extremes that impact people that are impacted. Again, not to minimize the climate impacts will see in the United States fully recognize and appreciate that comment earlier from Janine. But these people have it in these countries have largely been excluded from the conversation in terms of research emerging in that space and there was another piece that much a hero. This was published with some colleagues and environmental communications about a year ago that also looked at this and they did a survey of college students in six different countries. And they looked at what are the, what are the ways or how do how do college students in these countries perceive of solar engineering and, and their finding was essentially that countries in the global south actually the survey respondents were much more open to using solar engineering as a potential climate response measure. So I guess all of that is to say that these are really different, the distribution of the work is sort of concentrated in one place and makes it by and large makes a really strong call on behalf of what they see as the global public. But those, but that global public isn't isn't represented so I'd be really, it's complicated and tricky and I'd be really curious to think or hear a little bit about how others on the panel think about what actually constitutes the public interest in your work and how do you grapple with thinking about how technology can be developed in the interest of that sort of nebulous public. I guess I'll go ahead and jump in here and offer my response, because I, you know, I come across this sort of terminology in many different spaces, particularly around public health. And, you know, around campaigns that are meant to unify people around like the good for all. And how problematic those campaigns can be when they do not do that work that I was talking about and harping about this whole webinar about you know deconstructing these internalized biases and the way they show up as institutional power whether you're conscious of it or not. And so in that way when we talked about when public interest and its interpretation and application is largely being determined under the systems of power that historically and continually oppressed entire populations and geographies for specifically for the purpose of maintaining and monopolization of that wealth and power, the interpretation will always prioritize and center band-aid solutions over anything that would threaten our challenge or force the dismantlement of that system. And that's what we see all the time on the ground so in my communities and in my work and whether it is locally and like my and the communities actually grew up in, whether I'm working regionally or internationally with Indigenous peoples, the work starts first and by centering the knowledge and experiences of the right holders that are most directly impacted. And I think in that way it shows how impossible it is to come up with just one grand solution or one grand scheme that could be, that could help us achieve all of our goals, both our climate goals, but also our racial justice and equity goals, because it just it's impossible. Each place has its own experience with resource colonization, with political colonization, each place has its own relationship, historical relationship with its biological diversity, its ecosystems that is historically informed by different cultures, languages and worldviews. And that part of that biological diversity and the need to create complex solutions that reflect that diversity is what makes it so beautiful, I think, and even more possible that we shouldn't be pitting all of our eggs in the bucket to try to force any one sector to come up with the solutions that we've put all of our energy and our investment into, but rather we should be distributing resources equitably so that everyone is able to to design and lead and implement the solutions that make sense for their their communities for their locales. Thank you does anybody else want to want to respond to that prompt. Yeah, we have time. Oh, go ahead. Yeah, Holly go ahead. Now I'll just say that whenever I talk about Publix I usually make it plural which drives editors crazy because I have to be like yes I did mean Publix because there's many of them there's not just one. But I think there's a big tension here that has come up at a lot of events I've been at lately around democracy and climate change and what do you do if you have different Publix that have different interests. And, you know, is our democratic systems up for decarbonization and the climate challenge. So some hard questions there that that brought up for me that I don't have answers to per se. Yeah, thank you. So we just have room for for one final round of comments for each person and you know I want to ask you know right now the United Nations climate change conference is happening just started two days ago. So I think for final comment final comments, if there's something you're keeping an eye on at the COP meeting even COP meeting. Would you like to share that with us, or if you know if not or instead of that if there are some final thoughts anything else we talked about they'd like to respond to you already. I think you would leave, you know in people's minds that you're really thinking about around public interest technology and climate, and let's let's go in the order that we started in so I think class that would make you first if you're if you're up for that. I'm interested in whether we get actual agreements on slowing down. I'm probably less optimistic than most people in that I, I see us over shooting if you haven't overshot already. And so I'm, I'm watching. On the other hand I'm not going to hold my breath. So that's where I am. On the other hand, we have to move forward and we have to make it better on all rounds my biggest optimism comes from the fact that solar energy is forcing an energy transition, whether we like it or not. Pre-taste of how dramatic that can get is you saw in in in hydrofracking. Not that that was environmentally a good idea, but it does show how fast and rapidly and energy infrastructure can fall if pushed the hard enough and I think for the voltage will do that. And how to live in a world where intermittent energy is extremely cheap, but not available 24 seven and batteries can only help a little. We will find that from year to year we see fluctuations that we need to store energy and that's where I think synthetic fuels come in and that I think is the other big thing where we can contribute. We are helping in reducing CO2 by 100 ppm and we know it's completely a fossil energy. That's where I'm working. Great. Thank you so much. Matt, do you want to go? Sure. Well, you know, I think there's no doubt that that policy and global partnerships are enormously important, but there's no doubt that whatever promises are made their commitments, it won't be enough it won't be it won't be fast enough. I'd like to look at that conversation as as a lagging indicator of societal progress and there's a big lag, right? But I think that, you know, we're definitely seeing more serious tone, more urgent tone. And, you know, that's a lagging indicator of where of the progress we're making in global awareness and sense of urgency a sense of the importance of addressing these problems. So from that perspective, it gives me hope. I mean, we know that that that young people around the world are passionate and engaged in these issues. And, you know, I think it's inevitable that we're going to see some real positive change. It certainly will be too late, but I shouldn't say too late. It certainly will be not as fast as as many of us would like. But on the other hand, you know, I think, I think there's a lot of hope for the future and as the younger generation, you know, comes into positions of influence and power. I think we'll see continued acceleration. So if nothing else we need to be developing the solutions and setting the stage so that when society is ready, we'll be able to move as quickly as possible. Great. Thank you so much. Holly, can you go? As far as the cup, I mean, I'm looking at this $100 billion of climate finance that was promised years ago, and hoping that finally that gets delivered it's outrageous. I wanted to point people to a paper, an open access paper by Maya batteries and several other women in the electricity journal called environmental and climate justice and technological carbon removal because they they discussed two things on this global level of climate justice. One is geopolitical responsibility sharing. So, you know, who should pay for and deliver CDR. The global North countries have a responsibility to do that. Those are questions that I don't think will come up at this cup but maybe in future cops. Another thing they talk about is global technology transfer, which is also another important conversation to have in the context of technological CDR. They talk about the lack of transparency and traditional technology transfer processes and make some recommendations about how to improve that for carbon removal. Great. Thank you. And I think I think we've we've discussed the CDR means carbon dioxide removal for anybody who doesn't use it hasn't used that acronym before. Thank you so much. And Jasmine, would you like to go? I'll keep it short. I'm tired of empty promises without true implementation plans and community power building. I think Barbados Prime Minister Mia Motley said it best our people are watching and our people are taking note. Can there be peace and prosperity if one third of the world lives in prosperity and two thirds lives under seas and face calamitous threats to our well being. Yeah, thank you. And if anybody in the audience hasn't seen yet, please do look up that video. It's incredibly powerful and urgent. Thank you. And Jeanine would you like to go? Could someone put it in the chat. Yeah, now I'm I participated in COP 25 negotiations and, you know, been part of like the negotiation team that has been tracking what progress has been made from there so I'm tracking what's going on with article six negotiations again that has been done by the COP around, you know, determining the final rules for the carbon markets. And in our position is that we cannot accept any more investment and false solutions of which we see the carbon market system and structure proposals being part of that, as well as the new language around nature based solutions, again, just cooptation of bits and pieces of indigenous knowledge and practices without recognizing the whole of our world views and our systems and our sciences and our calls for action for meaningful solutions. Because we're living at a time when everyone is waking up to the reality of man made climate change and the situation is putting many frontline communities but where it's still one of the most dangerous things to be black and brown and indigenous land defender are water defector, both in developed nations and in so called developing nations. And so I don't appreciate how a lot of the media is framing these COP negotiations as like the last chance effort for all of humankind because I think the real solutions in those spaces we're really just defending ourselves from more bad decisions, but the real solutions and the real effective and meaningful change is going to come from our communities is going to come from within our nations by building building collective power, and by demanding for the appropriate redistribution of resources into community led solutions, every level and across every every way that we're trying to mitigate adapt to our address the issues of man made climate change. Okay, thank you so much and Sakina would you like to have the final, final final thoughts. Sure, thanks Laura. Well as I mentioned in my opening comments I've been following and writing about the UN climate negotiations for almost 20 years now and my classes comment resonates with me that I'm not particularly optimistic about where what we can achieve through that forum. And I think, you know, just looking at, for example, the United Nations environment program produces a missions gap report every year just came out a few weeks ago. And you know that coupled with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat produced analysis of countries, nationally determined contributions which are the bottom up pledges that countries have have made to explain how they plan to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, and the figures in both of those two documents just tell such a stark story when you look at the enormous gap between what countries say they want to do and what they're actually willing to do at home to meet those goals those collective goals. So Jasmine CV Janine's comments about sort of this being one piece of a much broader solution that has to also involve domestic action at the action at the local level is resonates with me as well. And one thing I would just note about the UN climate negotiations is that this is not a question of we don't know how to do it right like we know how to do it we know what's necessary this has been intractable these negotiations have been intractable for, you know, many years ago, not for lack of knowledge but for lack of, but because of the politics of equity right this is all been about how do we operationalize common but differentiated responsibilities how do we operationalize who's responsible for what and by how much and who has to pay for it. I think there's some lessons not all direct but some important lessons from from those political negotiations over several decades that could also and should also inform our discussions about climate tech. Because many of the conversations that you know that we started out with having today and that many of us are thinking about in our work are also fundamentally rooted in the politics of equity and how do you think about development of climate tech in a way that doesn't talk about some of the things that Jeanine mentioned like distribution and ensuring that you're not you're not doing harm in your effort to address this problem. So I'll leave it there. Thanks. Great. Thank you so much. Thanks to everybody on the panel for your really insightful thoughtful thought provoking comments and thank you for the work you're doing to advance social justice to work on the climate emergency to try and find solutions to try and make it equitable and right. I really really appreciate it's been just a delight to hear all of you talking with each other and to to hear from all of you and also to hear from the audience and hear their questions.