 Felly, ddim yn ei wneud i gwybod i 2 degrees C, wrth gwrs, mae'n gweithio eu bod yn gwirio i'r ffordd. Felly, oherwydd mae'n gweithio ein goll, ziwethaf dyna. If you look at this, it said there's an outside tattoo degree c. And if we're prepared to reduce our engine demand, it varies significantly than the SNH is. There are three things I'll touch on, the first was on equity and behaviour. The second one is on technology, so technology has a big role to play. I remember what Trefyn did say, but I meant to say that the supply side is hugely important. We do need to do everything we can do on the supply. But it will take a long time to come to play to significantly reduce our emissions, gan cymryddol yn y maes cyfnodd â'r gwleidydd yn ymddir iawn. Mae'r dros i fwy o'r ddysgu am ddysgu i ddweud ystod gyda y dyma i ddweud y brosig. Mae'r ddweud ystod ddarliwyr i'r ffordd â'r pwladau, i gyd yw gyntaf – ac mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud eich bod yn ddysgu быchol o'r ddweud. 50% of global emissions come from just 10% of the population, 50% of just 10% of the population. The top 1% of US emitters, which is about 3.5 million people there were there about, have carbon footprint that are 2.5 thousand times higher than the bottom 1% globally. Now I'm making a bit of a guess that quite a few of us here in the top 10% probably quite a few of us here in the top 1% of global emitters. So 2.5 thousand times. So I just think that the emissions are hugely skewed to a particular group of people so that policies need to be aimed at the people that emit. Is there any policies that people who do not emit or have very small emissions? Is those that emit the live-shared emissions where we should be aiming at policies? That's really helpful because then you can take the policies to them. So the first question is, who are they? Who are this group of people out there that are responsible for the live-shared emissions? No. They give the most primers what scientists spend their time doing is having, you know, essential conferences on flights all around the world to pontificate about their work. Our emissions are very high. Seal servants, NGOs, the question mark there. I don't know whether, I have no idea of any of you in this group, but if you are, think about you and carbon footprint. And I think of this sort of lecture to students and they will say, well I'm not in that group, nobody was spying to be there. That's why you've come to university. If you take a long-haul flight every year or two, that is indicative of your emissions, and they almost certainly will be in the high-emission category. Two degrees centigrade, the carbon budget of two degrees centigrade, is a short-term challenge about what happens between now and 2025. So if our governments are talking about 2030, 2040 and 2050, they are being disingenuous or ignorant. When we need to think about climate change, we are saying what happens today, tomorrow, what are the policies for next week, the year after that, are really over just the next 10 years or so. Because beyond that point, we are below the budget for two degrees centigrade, in a reasonable sense. It is an assumption issue, it is not a population issue. You often hear people saying, oh so it's all about the poor getting wealthy, that's rubbish now. Just tell them to do some maths. The poor will not become wealthy enough in the time frame we have to deal with climate change for their emissions to really matter. Just assume trickle-down economics works, it never happened in the history of humankind. Assume it works and just assume that poor emissions grow at the average level of GDP. Their emissions will still be low in 2025 or 2025 or 2030. So over that time frame, when we need to reduce emissions, the poor's emissions will not be significant. So it's down to people who are the ones who omit significantly today. So equity is a really helpful way forward, because we know who the emitters are and we need to tailor policies towards them. When you draw back, they are the policy makers. So it's the chickens and the crocs and the garden chickens. And escalator technology is also a bit more hopeful. There's a lot we can do with technology, I'm going to touch on two of these. Private road transport, and I can have from discussion yesterday that it is a slightly higher than this of Ireland. I was told there's 20% of emissions in Ireland, is that? I'll give it to myself. OK, you're omitting some private cars, not including freight. Tyre TV. All road transport. All road transport. OK, this is cars. Tyre TV would be on top of this and light vehicles are not including this either. So it's that sort of ballpark which would be a little bit higher. We need to be at a North American density because of the European density. OK. There are now over 300 models of cars. These are petrol and diesel cars that are less than 100 km of carbon dioxide per kilometre. And they have no price premium. They look like normal cars that take three children's seats in the back. They do the same speeds for every car legally anyway. They fit every normal category of the cars except for sports SUV vehicles. They're not necessary for anyone except for them for small egos. So I'm sure many of you would have those. So every category of car is covered by vehicles at 100 grams near the ground site here. The average car in Ireland, I'm guessing, is near 170 grams. That's on the road. The average car being sold is probably near 130, 140 km because of the EU requirement for fleet average cars in the EU to be near 130 grams. There's still way above cars that are available today at 85 to 100 grams that are just petrol and diesel, not even a hybrid or electric. Two thirds of all, car travel is travelled by cars that are under eight years old and under other. And so that you think about that, you put in a maximum CO2 standard, which obviously would have clerks and screaming and the dame rail as well in the UK. And we have a maximum CO2 standard for petrol and diesel cars. Or cars, just forget being non-specific about the technology. At no additional capital cost, not cost you any more money just replacing it than the natural replacement plate, reduced operating costs because you need much, much less fuel on that so that the operating cost has gone down. Identical infrastructure, same roads, same fuel stations, arguably a fewer fuel stations because you don't have to get quite so much fuel. Same employment by the same companies because the same companies that make all the same cars make the inefficient ones and the ego enhancing ones. So you put all of that together, you have about a 70% reduction from this supposedly intractable sector in about ten years at no cost, at no, with no new technology required. Simply, all you simply require there is to put in a maximum CO2 standard and then ratchet it up year on year given a code to the market signal. That's all you require. I mean not even bothered, not even prepared to do that that shows how much again we care about climate change. Refrigerators are the same, not really going through in detail. For an A plus, plus refrigerator for the same size uses about 80% less energy than the A way to refrigerator. So if you phase out all the A ones, and of course many of us in our homes are probably worse than A, at the normal replacement rate, there or there about, you're looking at sort of like a 40% to 60% reduction in emissions again in about ten years, refrigerators and refrigerators in the UK represent the largest consumption within the domestic sector next to heating. I'm guessing that's probably not too dissimilar to here. Yeah, next to the gas. All thinking as well. But next to the heating side of the homes, I think this is the biggest consumer. I just think about this. If you want them to keep some Guinness, you don't keep Guinness chilled. You don't give it generally chilled. I'm a British aleman, which means a bit of room temperature. But then if you want a glass of cold white wine or whatever, or your lettuce, whatever, to keep chilled, you need a fridge, let's imagine it's A rated fridge and then we need some electricity, and you need a transmission distribution network to get the power to the fridge. And you're holding the power to the fridge and you need the Citarians to get the gas out of the ground, obviously we've been buying cold to America because they've got shell gas revolution, so we've been burning that cold. So if you then put into that say we want ten units of useful refrigeration and we have an A rated fridge, then actually we have to put a whole load more energy into that fridge because it's not very efficient. I mean that's better than A anyone, but we haven't. This guy's just got an A, he's got an A++ and an A rated fridge, so a lot of electricity goes into the fridge. You're going to lose somewhere between 6% and 8% of the energy in the transmission network and distribution network. Most of it in the low voltage distribution stuff, the stuff that goes underground, the pylons are very efficient. They're quite long distance travel, so... What's your voltage? Is it a quarter of a million or what's that? Two times two. It's 440. 440 kilobots, the pylons. 440. Yeah, the height. Yeah, the pylons are going to be at 440. So it's a distribution network in cities and towns that makes a big difference. It's underground and low voltage. Power stations are constrained by thermodynamics despite the fact that some politicians forget this. I won't say who it was, but one of the UK politicians said about jet engines, it was a very senior politician, said that one of the engineers about to make jet engines 100% efficient. Now, I'm sure he was really good on Shakespeare plays in Greek, but didn't know anything about physics or the same level of thermodynamics. 100% efficient jet engine. So power stations are between 35% and 55% efficient, most of power in a power station, most of the engine goes up the chimney. And then what gets stuff out of the ground and moving around the world, that's a very significant energy quality as well. The point I'm just going to say here is if you're interested in trying to reduce our emissions, we shouldn't be just focusing on power stations. The man side offers you massive potential very early at almost no cost and we have chosen to do nothing about it. So, again, this shows our level of concern for our children and indeed for our own futures. I'm hoping that the Stenysol research will still be here in 2015. So, the final thing I'm going to look at is growth. What matters to us in life? Health, life expectancy, religious rates, security, you've got your own list here, fairness, fun, family and new friends. These are things that matter to you. Now, if I asked you what was important in your life, you probably wouldn't tell me things that had a pound sign or a euro sign next to them. Not that you're quite a sad individual. You'd probably say it was your lovely parents or your children or the fun hobby you had with your friends last year. These are the things that really matter to us in life. And yet, we don't abandon it. We never put a pound sign. I mean, do you love your mom? Five love units and your children two love units? You've got two kids which one's worth more to you than the other. We've never dream of doing that. They'll be a category of the same philosophy. And yet, economists come along and do that all the time. They take the world that we live, the heterogeneous rich world that's awash with with different forms of value, some are quantitative, some are not quantitative and they're certainly not substitutable. They convert more into the same units and then they are substitutable. You can swap the value of a car park for the love of your children. And that's what economists do all the time now. The near-classical economists, the environmental branch that feed into the sort of analysis that we're thinking about here. Growth itself has no meaningful value We need to look at the things themselves and value them in that way. Sometimes that metrics you can measure things and measure them relative to their appropriate metric. Other things don't have values in that formal sense and we shouldn't be valuing them now. We should be using them in text-based form, in paragraphs to explain what's important about them. But beyond that I think what's really helpful is the economists' economy has stalled and this is really, to me it's quite good news. Temporary it's not good news. Obviously it's not going to suffer if the conscript is generally important. But the reason that the economy is collapsed is not because of green taxes and things like that. In fact, Alan Winspan I think it's interesting when he was interviewed and when he was Senatoring at the previous head of Federal Reserve so one of the most eminent economists in the world. He said he found a fundamental flaw in his model. Markets do not self-regulate. If any of you have got a pet poodle or a cat or a budget guard it will know that markets do not self-regulate. But the head of the Federal Reserve and indeed many advisers of the government are not aware of the markets do not self-regulate. A fundamental flaw in his model that's interesting was a fundamental flaw was the minor aside. Near classical free markets are in disarray. They cannot explain what has happened and what is still happening. They provide us no guide to stories and listen to them on the news and you'll get a different response from each person you bring on there. You would never get that in any other area of physics any other area of science or academic endeavour. Sort of certainly quantitative endeavour which this has been claimed to be. But also the projects that it has put into deal with climate change whether that's a region of setting, CBN, development mechanism, joint implementation, remissions trading scheme all of these systems that are basically market sort of base systems of one sort or another have fundamentally failed without a quarter of a century to play with these and we've got no way with them. So they themselves have not developed the sorts of changes that are necessary is incremental approaches. And I think it's quite a big thing. We have an unprecedented opportunity to think differently both because we are facing a problem that has systemic challenges that are very different from anything we've faced before and secondly because the tools that we would normally have to address these sort of issues are no longer perfect. Why would you ever use marginal economics as to what the classical economics is is about small changes in a system that argue changes around it theoretically. Why would you use that to address changes that are systemic and non-marginal in other words large? You would never use Newtonian theories to understand quantum mechanics. So why do we think we can use marginal economics to understand non-marginal changes in society? It was completely inappropriate to be applying it and yet we apply it in every government department in relation to the industrialised parts of the world. So coming towards the end here we are seeing a spectacular degree centigrade and bear in mind that this is not a safe temperature threshold. We will really talk about an outside chance of this very dangerous threshold. We need deep reductions in any human being and we know what sort of percentage they need to be and we know by whom and we know by what sort of time frame. So that will quantitatively be incredibly clear and we can deliver all of that. Just one thing that's interesting there if the 10% of people around the globe who are responsible for 50% of the emissions they reduce their average emissions from the 25 to 30 tons per person of the hour at the moment down to the average European around about 10 tons they were there about. That would be a one-third reduction in global emissions with no one being published to the level less than the average European. Now most of what I mean the average European is not too tall and that's all we require to have a third reduction almost overnight. So this is not a challenge really towards me thinking about it. We also need a massive marshal style but we need a marshal style built program of zero of the energy supply. That has to go hand in hand with the first one. If you put those two together when we end the energy system by 250 then I think you went outside at a 2 degree centigrade. So some quick thoughts on islands at the end and no shooting leaves obviously on the other side of the water and I don't know enough about that island but these are some quick thoughts here. You have 1.7 million homes in Ireland they are there about 1.2 million of those probably will be here that they were there at scale will be here in 2050. If you retrofitted those with deep retrofits now assuming here at 40,000 euros a shot now that in a moment it is individually cost quite a lot more than that but I think if you roam in the south that seems a reasonable level and admittedly I guess the island will be like the UK the construction industry is not up to that at the moment I don't think the training is not good enough for people to do this and that needs to be improved very significantly. Over 15 years that's 3 billion pounds a year that's 1.3% of your GDP that is excellent training for people to have 20 years there will be highly skilled by now within a few years in doing this and you have 9% unemployment now I don't know what you're constructing but your unemployment structure of unemployment is my guess is quite a few of them are relatively unskilled and if that's the case then they are people that can very easily be skilled up and a good supervision to do the retrofit agenda. It also has a eliminate fuel poverty which is 200 to 300,000 homes in Ireland and if we really care about people in fuel poverty whether we do or not but if we assume that we do not eliminate fuel poverty it also makes us all resilient to volatile fuel prices which undoubtedly will be the cases we go forward if we carry on using fossil fuels it also makes our homes resilient to a changing climate as well if we do it well so there are lots of I don't think there are that many win-win opportunities but this is a win-win-win win-win opportunity and are we doing it of course we are not we'd rather give the money to the banks than quantitative easing it's interesting in the UK quantitative easing in the UK was 375 billion because the retrofit the housing stock in the UK in 2050 for 200 billion and you could have still given the chance to 175 billion to squander amongst his banking friends so you could have actually managed to achieve very significant levels of retrofit and put the money back into the economy as part of a sort of a greening QE that we chose not to go down that route max and CO2 standard for electrification for cars and a huge electrification programme because if you've been a deal with climate change you have to electrify the only vectors energy vectors outside of electricity that are low carbon that I can really think of as viable here are bi-mass and bio-fuel and they have to have probably grown sustainably and they're not always low carbon but they can be and hydrogen and hydrogen generally is produced to electrification possibly for for electrolysis possibly to build the conversation and stuff like that efficiency standards on all appliances follow the top one approach from Japan to being very successful be climbing under a series of appliances for the best for the new average to be the same as the best that was available before and you continually update that that has been very successful in Japan and of course you can start at the government procurement in Ireland which I don't know how life that is but I guess that's a reasonable size if you put all of that together I think you could power down the demand system by 40 to 70% without radically changing the quality of life of people living with a nice society that doesn't mean to say that the viewers at the top of the income I wouldn't say top in terms of our society in terms of our income we will see significant changes in how we have to live our lives and we will no doubt just think of those ourselves as being detrimental to us but for the majority of people in our society this could be delivered without huge changes in the quality of life but for people like me and probably most of us here we would see very significant changes just in how we have to live our lives at least until we have low carbon supply in place as I said before a major electrification programme competing perhaps in the royal environment here we've looked at ground source heat pumps in the royal environment this is where we are looking at district heating providing power schemes possibly air source heat pumps also electrifying transport I gather you've already got a fairly good network of charging sites around Ireland probably you only have about a thousand cars doing it which is you've got one or not the other team so you need to find some way of rolling that out you can't overplay smart grids but smart grids and there's been meters on the kitchen they tell us how much they're just less done grids less done grids proper smart grids where the supplier communicates directly with the refridgerator for the washing machine for the dishwasher if you have one in terms of meeting and community energy all these are things that we should be pursuing and the early phase out of your three peak stations which are 300 megawatts there or thereabouts I think for the three peak stations you have a well formation with huge renewable potential now that should be brought into play and I'm saying this it's got to make the same argument to set the peak for the UK as well and indeed the normal so we should be very rapidly moving towards renewables we should not be building any more fossil fuel plants at all we should be only going down a zero carbon or very low carbon roof so the power is on moving on to extending this in the UK assuming your weather patterns or your irradiance is very similar to that in the UK which is possibly a little bit different it's a slightly better one there you go is that a tourist a junction? don't know I would be down to dry weather and sunny there's cloud cover there's cloud cover there's cloud cover oh yeah that's a big place to be on the east coast west coast that's really good that's really good that's the work on your part is the way back the other way all right so certain panels on south west facing roofs if you did that to all the domestic properties I would extrapolate this in the UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change and Energy Pathways which is a really good tool to play with maybe you've got something similar in Ireland that would give you about a third of the energy demand in Ireland would be met by solar panels okay you've got a tendency issue for that but you can say very reliably what that will be year on year and what the cost will be you can't do that for fossil fuels you've no idea what the cost will be next year we do know what the cost will be next year and you've got huge potential because although you don't have many clouds occasionally you have clouds and there's some moisture in reality otherwise it must be painted there in green because it's like a nice green country so it's still up night it's still up night don't go into that as well so if you're into this biogas and biogas I think you could be growing a lot of biogas and biogas but biogas within Ireland now there are lots of issues around that if you use that you could imagine applying that to help deal with issues of intermittency which are much overplayed anyway once you start to electrify heating once you start to electrify cars once you start to have some sort of intelligent metering system in your homes you can start to actually choose issues of intermittency anyway but nevertheless you're going to have some periods where you'll have to have things like some sort of back up there but you also are going to do demand side management if you put that in there as well for a few days of the year when you don't have sufficient supply you may have to look at some demand side management and having come over here by ferry which is a fairly polluting form which transports in terms of the point that was at the moment that you think about ferries that were fuelled by something different and there's already work we've done this and there's already our money in hybrid ferries over there so there's lots of things to do there and some touches on policy one of the things you need to do is stop rebound effect to the intermittency where people just spend the money on a digital flight or some more good so in the UK for instance we've seen a significant improvement in the intermittency of lighting and yet lighting today has the same number of tech consumed still 17 terawatt hours that it did do 10 or 15 years ago we just light outside our house we have more lights in our home you go into our kitchen there's a full of light light socket to a little bit of kitchen 10 halogens rather than having one light in the middle that we used to always have so we don't generally save energy when we when we're more efficient we generally spend it somewhere else so you have to overcome that so if you start making progressive reading tariffs in other words the more you consume the more you pay for a unit you can overcome some of the rebound effects it's much more equitable than as a gallery have in Ireland in the same UK at the moment the poor pay the most at the unit of energy so you have that and again it's why I said it that's the case I've looked at it next to you very quickly because obviously this is going to be slightly controversial a mob that's only won hydrocarbon developments was serious back climate change no shell gas no offshore oil gas Ireland we should also close them down in the UK and make the same arguments there and in Norway as well you have a massive renewable potential you're one of the wealthiest countries in Europe you've got very educated population if we're a serious back climate change we are the countries that should be the example we should be leading by example demonstrating what is necessary for Paris while we're finding any excuse under the sun to do nothing we've set the model of an airport expansion and I haven't talked to here agriculture you've led us 33% of emissions from agriculture my understanding is there are many many things you could do to significantly reduce emissions from agriculture and to be blunt if you don't have an egg on Paris you're going to have to do a lot about your agriculture as well not just here but obviously other parts of the world as well agriculture reasons will have to be very seriously reduced we are serious about our Paris agreement and I've put in there finally a personal carbon allowance it's what I'm not saying we have to think about that as an approach but it's one way you can motivate and what we think we can motivate and engage wider citizenship engagement leaders some people think it's fairer and it's much better than a carbon tax for driving innovation because it requires the wealthy to drive the innovation process which is what they normally do because a carbon tax allows them to find their way out of it so that carbon allowance you cannot find your way out of a certain proportion of your emissions so I think oh, I'm going to finish off I had a criticism recently about this I was finished off with this it was too upbeat and as you know it's interesting because I've been using this quote for years without playing any role in fact one of my colleagues at work for my physical year they've got a great board for me with this etched into the breadboard because I have some already with it at every level the greatest obstacle to transforming the world is that we lack the clarity and the imagination to conceive that it could be different now I don't mean to leave that oh, we're all going to be fine but I'm starting to say here is that if we are really serious about our commitments to climate change and by that climate change is something abstract what I'm really saying if we're really serious about our commitment to our own children our own society and those elsewhere on the planet that's what we're really saying then we have to think of a very different world the world will be fundamentally different than it is today either because we have chosen to act on climate change or because we have actively chosen not to act on climate change and hand the repercussions to our kids and indeed some of us will still be here in 2013, 2014, 2015 so we have to have imagination to think of a different future that's what policy makers need some clarity around that to say well what would that look like we need to be able to paint a very clear picture for policy makers the alternatives the options that are available and we have that international capacity within our societies we have the technical capacity to deliver change we have the innovative capacity to come up with new policies and social change as well we've put all of that together what I'm trying to suggest here is that we can still hold an outside chance at 2°C but every day we fail it gets more difficult and very soon from now 2°C will be too late so thank you very much for this one