 Is Paris lock out to do two degrees centigrade? That's the question we want to ask here. I'm going to try to... I'm going to work out this... So I'm going to try to unpick some of the detail in the Paris agreement and also align that with some of the science, particularly that that's embedded in the IPCC and then do some really quite simple arithmetic to say where does that lead us today? Ac mae'n bwysig o'r gweld i'w cwmp ffyrwyr ymwylltebeth. Mae'r gweld i'w cwmp ffyrwyr. Mae'n gwybod i'r gweldio ymwylltebeth, ac mae'n cymhwylltio'n gweldio'n gweldio'n gweldio'n gweldio'n gweldio'n gweldio'n gweldio'n gweldio'n gweldio'n gweldio'n gweldio'n gweldio. Fy o hynny, mae'n cwmp yn gwneud y tuerwath eich cyflogu o'r rhainfodol i ffyrwyr yma yw'r gweldio. ac y dylaiddymaf yn ddatblygu rhoi rhoi groes ein cyfnodi ar hyn ac yn gallu hwn yn ddweud y dylaidio. Fynnodd eto dylaidio a'r ydych chi'n meddwl i'ch cael ei amlwg o'r hanes ar yr aelod ym thyf ar y llyfigol, ond wedi wir i'r ysgolod yn cael eu'r blaenau. A gynnaeth descoliaeth ym Llyfrgell Dderbyr, ond ac yn telodau'r gwneud y llyflwydgor yng nghymru, ond y gallwch yn gyffredig y llyfrgell yn rhanoedd. ond we've all shared when it comes to climate change. I also think it's important before we ever think about how we resolve a problem to remind ourselves where we are today. I think most of us are fairly reluctant to acknowledge where we are in terms of the challenge, and only then can we start to think of what the solution space might look like. The mitigation message hasn't changed since the first IPCC in 1919. Not a lot has changed really since then. ac mae'n dda i gael y cyfnod yma yn ysgol o'r cyflwyniad yn fwy o'r cyflwyniad. Rydyn ni'n gael y cyflwyniad yn 1995 o'ch gwell yma, yn y parw mwy o'r cyflwyniad yn cael eu cefnod o'r cyflwyniadau. Rydyn ni'n gael i'n rhaid o'r cael eu cyflwyniad o'r cyflwyniad ac i ni'n gael ei gyflwyniad o'r cyflwyniad. Mae gael y cyflwyniad yn gweithio ar gyflwyniad ar gael y cyflwyniad. 60% o'r sgwpeth, yw'r sgwpeth mae'n unrhyw o'r sgwpeth yw gweld yw'r cyflodol. 25 oes a 60% o'r ymwneud o'r rhaid. Rwy'r ysgrun wedi rhoi'n gweld, ymwneud yn ymwneud yw'r cyflodol dros o'r sgwpeth yw ymddangos. Mae yma yw hyn yn ymwneud yw o'r 800,000 o'r ysgrun o'r rhwng. Mae'n 3x yn ymddangos o'r ysgrun a'i cyflodol. ac nifloeth, siaradau Fyllt, byddai lleol yn ddechrau jei ac mae'n seron yn bwysig fan hynny o sefydlu gyrfaeth singol. Rwy'n meddwl. Fy fliw'n fathio y ddigon, mae'n lleol iddyn nhw, mae'n pethau sefydlu wedi gweld yndyn nhw, mae'n hi ddarparu'n eu ddechrau i fynd i ei fynt, mae'n ddau'n credu i fynd i fynd i mlynedd yn syniad. ac mae gennym ei hwn i ymlaen nhw'n mynd i'w gennym. Yma yw hefyd yn gallu Llywodraeth Fylltifol o'r tynnod gwaith ar y llwyddoedd a panoedd g keyword yn gweithio'r llwyddoedd. Mae ydych yn bwysig iawn, y ffordd y chymdeistlo, yn clwn i friffau a'r ddannивi. Felly mae ni'n gwneud i gyrraeth i fy wir yn ddod o'r gweithi, ac mae nhw'n mynd i gael eichنت hwnna'r hefyd. Ych ein bai o welio, pob gwna drwy'r hefyd yn bwyllaf gyda'i yr unig. Felly, mae'r bolw! A ydych yn un iawn i'w lle… …rhaid i'w llwyddoch i'w wneud. Mae'r holl iawn i'w llwyddoch i'w llwyddoch i'w llwyddoch i'w lwyddoch. Felly, mae'r ffordd o'i amelio yna yn defnyddio i yw perfume iddyntau. A ydych yn y teimlo yng nghadlion yn y llwyddoch chi, a llwyddoch i'r fennyfud i ystyried fan yn dod mewn afael. Mae hi'n golygu mewn clywennu mewn hyn yn femwy… Ia, the most riveting agreed. That's what we pointed out. I do think, and I want to emphasise, because I'm going to be very critical of what's within that and I'll respond to it, that there is an important diplomatic triumph. I think to see it in two respects. Firstly, the idea that pretty much every single world leader came together and said that they think that the climate change science is broadly right is a huge step forward. Mae'n sgwr fyddwyd yn gwneud argoedhaf, felly ei amser i gael cyflwystau a fydd ei fyddwn i gael gwrthodbiol yn ddod yn gwybodaeth o'n byw. Ond yn fyw, cyflwystau hefyd ti wedi gael beth bethau. A'r gwnaeth gweithio cwmnod yn ystafell ag ysgolwm, mae'n gwneud yn gwneud sy'n gwneud cwmni. Yrtychu'r twfyn cyfnod wedi gael ar gyfer ffordd o'r codi'r cesf. Mae'n ôl cyflwystiau yn Ysgolwyd. But I'm not going to focus those as well, and I'm going to focus on the mitigation side in particular, and it's this little paragraph here, which I've blown up a look at, just here and now. And it says to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees C, well below not 50-50 tonsol, above pre indicate level, and to take efforts, suicide efforts to deliver the temperature increase to one and a half degrees centigrade. It also makes reference now to doing this on the basis of the best science ac yn y bwysig, yn y dyn nhw, mae'n fwyaf ar y teimlo, ac mae yma'r bwysig yn ei bod yn unig. Mae'r ffais cyddiant yn y bwysig ac yn cyflwynt ar gyfer ar y bwysig yn y llaw. Mae'r bwysig yn y llaw, oedd gennych ar ddweud, maer i'r bwysig, ac mae'n rhaid i'n gwybod yn yr ysgrifennadau. Mae'n meddwl bod mae'n meddwl felly mae'n meddwl ar y bydd hon i'r rhaid o'r cyflwynt yn y rhaid, gwybod eich ardor ond o'r ffordd y metro yng Nghymru sy'n bwysig i'r byw, a'i gofio'r ffordd hyn i gael i'r alw hyn eraillwyr gofioedd y Llyfrgell, oedd y bydd o'r ffordd mae'r ffordd yn gallu'r EY, neu mae sy'n cynhyrchu un o'r lŽedd eu Llyfrgell, a i'r gwahanol i gyfydd. Wrth gael eich mynd i'r eich ffordd ym lŽedd arall y gwn. I'r ei dweud o'r Llyfrgell o'r best ffaint, ac oes byllfa cyfliadau i mae'na gwahod SAV ac yn ein defnyddio'r gwahodau yn y cyfliadau. A oes bywch gydag ym Mhwlaen i'r gyffredin ehemledig i'r gwbl, gyda'r gwahodau oedd y cefnod i'r gafod meddwl yng ngyfrif Weiniddo i'r newid yma yna, cydweithio'r gwahodau yn ei fan hyn yn gwybod i'r gwahodau bod yma yn y cyfrifiadau cynnig, sy'n cael ei wahanol o'i ddau cynnig yn mynd i gydag y graffau Ie, mae hyn yn dweud eu bod hynny wedi gweliwydd yr uneddau llyffydd, yr uneddau llyffydd, yr uneddau llyffydd allan, yn ôl, ychydig yn tu. Rwy'ch meddwl fawrach am y ddweud, oedd y ddweud y bod yn creu bod yn gweld y blaen. Rwy'n credu fel, mae'n clywed yr ein rhaglen yn gweld yn dyn nhw. Mae hyn arni, fel gysylltu fel y mae'n gweld yn dyn nhw, mae'n ddweud yr yr uneddau llyffydd ar y ddweud a'r lle, Pan rywbeth yn gweld yn dyn nhw. I have signed up to this. I assume he was alive, I assume he meant it. And therefore on the basis of the best science, I should be able to push along with other people in civil society. Our Prime Minister, in your case, your leaders here to deliver this policies in line with this or except the fact that they are going to re-name on the Paris agreement. Let's be honest and clear about that. There are some very clear issues with the Paris agreement that are not in there. Firstly there is a document about climate fel lawerr. Mae'n gweithio'r ffosil yw 32 pwysiwr. Mae gydag rydw i wedyn ni'n bwynt ymgrodd yn saith i'n cysylltu. Rydyn ni'n gweithio'r ffosil yw unrhyw gwrthau yn bwyslodd yn hir y taen y strawberry. A oedd yn y daithu mynd i'r maen i'r chael. Oio am ei oedd meddwl yn siwp, gyda'r pwylo eu bosile am y gallu ei wneud credu i'r Llyfrgell ym Gweithwr yn ddiwyddu i'u gyda'u own i'r Felly mae'r cyfnodol yn dda'r ffordd o 15% o wc. Mae'n cyfeirio a'r ddweud o'r ffordd arall. Mae'n 8 yn amlwg oherwydd oherwydd eich clywed, neu oherwydd o'u cyfnodol. Oni'n rhoi'n cael ei chyfwyr. Mae I&E C yn ddydigol, mae'r cyfnodol yn dyfodol yn cyfnodol yn ysgrifennu yn y parys, yn y debyg. A'r cyfnodol yn gwneud hynny yn 2,7 o ffordd. Mae'r cyfan yn ymgyrch yn ymdw'r cyfnodol yn ymweld yn cael ei wneudddw i yn gwneud yn stori'r amser o gweithi'r Llyfrinol yn wneud yn 2030. Mwineb i'r gweithio cy 표현 ar y Parus hefyd o wahanol arweinio ar 2020 a 2030. Mae gennym arbethau a'r hyffordd ac yn golygu. Mae'r mewn haf dein unrhyw i carpeiddiad ac yn golygu arbennig. Felly mae'r mewn cyffordd ac yn golygu ar fy mace mwy o'r siwydd ar yr hyn o BAH. Mynd i fyddwch i'r mace sefydl cerdd a'r amser o'r hefyd, o pob i'r 2030. I ddw i'w ddweud y gallai'r cyfnod o ddweud o'r 2030, ddyn nhw'n gwelwch ei gwrdd o'r tîm hwn yn gweithio yma, ond mae'n cael ymweld cael y tîm hwn yn 3,5ºC. Ychydigon i'r I-MDC yn rhan o'r ffordd yn gweld i'w 200billio tonnwys i ddweud o'r 2020. Rwy'n credu'r tîm hwn yn gweld i'r tîm hwn o'r I-MDC, o'r cronogigol o'r tîm. Abertau o bwysig yma, 200 bwysig fod rhan o'r cynllun wedi完odd casadau AMDC o'r eu cyfioedd sydd bod golfer yn gweithio, yn fwyaf gandd i'r cyfioedd amser, yn gwneud y cyfrifioedd. Rwy'n mynd i ymweldol ymweld y cyfrifioedd yn gweithio yma yn gweithio'r cyfrifioedd. Mae gwneud hyd yn gweithio'r cyfrifioedd. Fy fyddwch wedi bod hynny oes yma yn y legud ac bod yn cynnig'r cyfrifioedd ac mae gyd-doeth yn gweithio'r cyfrifioedd ac'r cyfrifioedd, gallwch nid oherwydd bod ni wedi chwilio yn gwneud drwy'r flaswyr tynnu – ond y byddwch gyda hynny i gael yma, ac yn ystafell ac yn Lywodraeth, ond yna wedi bod yn ei ddalotau yn hoffi gyd i ymddirio 100 ystioli gwahanol i fynd i ymddiriaeth unknownid ar y pwgol yng Nghymru — yr hynny i'r gwleid Ysgol Llywodraeth, ac i gart iawn i rhaeg i hynny i ddweud eisiau yr FNG sydd wedi cynnig o'r pethau'r gweithwyddiad. A chi ddim yn bwysig i gweithio gweithio'n unig o ddweud 100 bwysig o ddweithio cwestiynau. A mae'n fydd yn fyrtu'n gwmpai'r cymdeithas. Mae'r ddigon o ddweud o gwmpai. Mae'n ddoch chi'n rydyn ni'n ei ddweud i'r byddau. Mae'r ddweud yn dweud i gweithio gyda'r byddai. Mae'r paraffau ffugir hynny yn ôl i'r YMF yn 2015. This is the direct and indirect subsidy. The indirect one being mostly health costs and not climate change costs. I think they're going to use $30 a ton for the climate change cost. So that's the direct subsidy. The indirect subsidy was about $5.3 trillion, $5.3 trillion. A dwarf any subsidy that we could renew. Or even substitute a new deal. And that's 53 times more than we are, than we are for petty of the poor parts of the world to deal with climate change. and that shows how little we care. Of a UK perspective it's about 30 of the UK GDP that's going to give it the poor part of the world to deal with the climate change impacts that we've decided to hand on to them knowingly and hoping they will actually produce menomissions as well, something that's established by them. The three papers, I've got on here, this is what I want to take a copy. The one I wrote in NatureMCL likes to read ëA25. It's a response to Paris, through clear and socials there, a dweud y nifer sydd y bwysig yn omlwch. Felly yn parys, mae'r rhaid a'r hyffaith iawn i bobl yng Ngrych Ndeiddiadol, ac'r ICP 8.5 o'r amser ei hyd yn gweithio â'r ganzenid lle asti, yn geisliadau gwahanol, mae gen i'r seffaith. Mynd yn ymgylchedd yma yw... Mynd yn ymgylchedd yma yw 4-6 arfer, ac mae'n enwedig i chi fod ydych chi'n ei wneud, ac mae hynny yn ychydig i'r bobl i, yma gan welfyn o'r tempihau, ond ei wedi fy nghyddysgu i'w gennym iaith i chi fyddai cysylltu sy'n unrhyw i chi gynnwys iaith i chi i ei fyddai cysylltu i chi'i gynnwys iaith, i chi'r hyn yn y ddim, dyma'r gynhyrchu ar hynau. Ond yw yw dwylo bod y lle sy'n iawn, rhoi hanfyd, mae'n dwylo SNP vegysylltu. Rydym ni'n dwylo. Ysbytym yn gweld a phanol yn i viewi. Mae mae oedd ymddangod yma.�� gaanwch ond mae yn am 3.50 amdduno. Ond oes yn ysbyt i chi i ymddangodaeth. As we build things, as we build power stations, infrastructures, buildings like this, when was this building constructed? 17 years. I guess it'll be here for another 200 years or so. The buildings that we've put up are things that we've been using for decades, not centuries. It's the same for power stations, not maybe centuries. That's the title scheme, but certainly for 25 to 50 years for power stations. If it's a coal and you'll be home for it, we license it. Even aircraft and ships, they lock in for 27 years. They average back to the aircraft in the west, every South Africa of course, and the designs, that's probably considered to be longer than that. So when we do these things today, any policy we're putting in place today is a policy we're putting in place for our children and our children's children. It's not simply putting in place just for today. We have to bear that in mind. We are making policies for the coming century. That's the pathway for two degrees. See, that's actually based on the interpretation of a thousand gigaton pathway for the IPCC. That's a lot of particularly good chance at two degrees centigrade. So there's huge void between where we're heading and where we need to get to. The big question to me, and the big political question, that emerges out of this short-term period, the near-term period, in this particular period, we are not going to deliver the rates of reductions that are necessary to move us from our current trajectory onto the two-degree C trajectory without dramatic reduces, reductions in any demand. That of course has political repercussions, and that's the part that none of us are very enthusiastic about. It's also unpopular because we can all talk about nuclear power or wind turbines or solar panels and electrification of our energy systems and so forth. Those things take decades to put in place at scale, decades, literally. And we cannot do those. We can wrap them up far faster than we're doing them now, but we could never wrap them up to a level where you can bring yourself off that kerf in time. So in the short to medium term, you have to reduce any demand or fail on two-degree centigrade. And no one writes that message because it comes home to roosters. I'm going to try and show the next few slides. This analysis here is for a global picture. Because we are signed up, Ireland is signed up as one of the wealthiest countries in the year, and so the UK has stayed well below two-degree centigrade and to pursue a 1.5-degree centigrade threshold as well. And the 1.5 is there because the poorer parts of the world recognise that two-degree C, their impacts will be very significant on those parts of the world and some of those countries will literally disappear. Even at 1.5-degree C, the impacts are high, and there's supposed to be quite a big difference between the impacts of 1.5 and the impacts of 2-degree C, and there's some ongoing work to ensure a distinction between the two. But we've signed up on the basis of equity. So we have to think what does that really mean for us. So you can go back to the IPCC carbon budgets. Again, as I'm using here, this is the one for the census report. And we can look at current emissions, which are about 36 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, is what we're pumping out in the atmosphere this year and last year. From energy, about 40 billion tonnes of you include the defostation emissions as well. So at five to eight years of current emissions, we have wiped out the budget for 1.5-degree C. So by the time that we get to review the IMDCs, that we all know in every country we knew was inadequate that we put into Paris, by the time we review those, we'll have wiped out the lower temperature threshold that's embedded within the Paris Agreement. In a sense, it held its own demise within the report, within the document. The Paris Agreement undermined its ability to achieve 1.5 by not having a review procedure in one year or two years' time. Now, whether we did that knowingly or not, I think many of us from the scientific community would say we would try to point this out, but I think many others would not. So I don't know how. It would be interesting to know behind the scenes what really went on and whether the wealthier countries were aware that this was going to be the case a lot. So 1.5-degree C is not achievable, unfortunately. For 2-degree C, and I'm not going to put all the slides behind this, but you can ask me about that in your writing. Again, based on the IMDCs' simple ideas, the 66% chance of 2-degree C is also lost. Let's just find out what that really means. At 2-degree C, many people will die. There will be poor, there will be low emitters, so they're not part of the problem. There will be non-writes typically, not all, but many of them, and they'll live a long way from here. We also know that there'll be a gender issue, so we know when we stress communities that people that suffer most are the women and then the children. So there is a race dimension, a gender issue, and an age issue related to this that we must not forget. And we are gaining rest from ourselves. We are knowingly doing this and have been for a quarter of a century. So we have the whites on here, because it's nice for us, but no three impacts on that will be felt by the poor people around the globe. 66% of the chance of 2-degree C has gone. We've blown that. Now, given the 2-degree C is dangerous, and I would use this analogy with flying, which I hope you know what I was doing with it, and said about climate change. But would you ever go on a plane if you only had a 66% chance of landing safely? You wouldn't, would you? But that's only got 400 people on the plane or whatever the plane might be. This one's got 7.3 billion people on it. And yet we're prepared to take that risk. We're not even prepared to take that risk. We're prepared to take the chance of landing safely. That would require us to be in a warlike footing. In the elections you had here recently, was climate change at the forefront of the debate? Yes. Of course it isn't the... It's not in some policy. That's good. Not many of them are debates. Not in debates, but in policy-directed, in the forefront of the debate. It needs to be at the forefront of our debates in the UK. Of course we've discussed it all time in the UK about the referendum and so forth. Climate change is there at the forefront of all these discussions. I haven't heard yet, but maybe we'll be warned about that. We would have a warlike footing. There is nothing like that. We have no sense of climate change being that serious. So that poverty has gone. We are now in for an outside chance of two degrees centigrade with all the indications that that entails. An outside chance is the best that we have. My concern... I'll come back to that later slide. The question then is that actually for policy makers that's not particularly helpful. We're talking about a global issue and obviously if you're an Irish policymaker or if you're quite a company, what does that mean for me? What does that mean to me as a leader in my country or within the company or organisation? You can work that out because we're told to do this on the basis of the best science. You can just do some quite simple mathematics here. We have a carbon budget. Now there's a range of budgets and you can look at the range of budgets but the analysis holds really across the full range. We have a range of budgets for a 30% chance an outside chance of two degrees centigrade. We take that from the IPCC. We also can estimate depending on what we assume for the poorer parts of the world what their emissions will be for the poorer parts of the world over the coming century or really over the coming few decades. So we can do that. Number two, for number one, and you get what's left for us. That's a very small, very weak equity dimension in there. We think first about how can the poor people manage to have successful economies and support by successful societies and what they're supposed to provide and then from that we'll work out what will be there for the poorer parts of the world that are poor for the poor by now as a way. So let's imagine that the poor parts of the world compete with their global emissions which is dominated by China by 2025. Now that is an enormous request but what I think is viable now I'm actually using an interesting paper out by the LSE to suggest that that sort of time frame is viable. China said in Paris in the year 2040 that it would be quite late but I think we're not going to change what we're seeing at the global economy at the moment suggests that that is a viable peaking date for global emissions but that in itself of course is not enough. You don't have to bring the emissions down. Let's imagine they bring the emissions down and there are several mitigation policies that reach 10% per annum by 2035. That's three times higher than most economists or some of the economists which suggests it's compatible with economic growth. Three times higher than the standard score included. So that is a huge request at these parts of the world and given that they're going to some of the China possibly 6% per annum is the latest estimate that's a 16% improvement in carbon intensity year on year 16%. Just think what you're discussing in Ireland. I know the Welsh Government talking about 3% a lot failing on that. Now they've fully decarbonised their energy system by about 2050 and when I say that, that's not electricity. Electricity and energy both end in E outside E and end in Y but they're very different. 80% of the energy we consume in Ireland in the UK most industrialised parts of the world is not electricity. 80% is not electricity. Only 20% is electricity and it's much harder to decarbonise than 80% and that's probably why I have to electrify it. That just means that by 2050 planes, refrigerators, cars, ships, everything is zero carbon not low carbon. Low carbon isn't low enough. That's the zero carbon quality temperature rises will keep coming up. So you can work out the carbon budget for that and you have the carbon budget from the IPCC you take one away from the other and you come to the point, what does that mean for Ireland? Well in terms of reduction rates and we're reviewing this in relation to the flames I've seen in courts information we've got and of course a slight slow down what the significance slow down in emissions over the last two years at a global level. We have to have at least 10% per annum reduction in emissions 10% every single year. What are you discussing in Ireland? Nothing like that. An order of magnitude lower I would think. It's going up. It's going up. It's going up. 75% reduction in emissions by 2020 50% reduction and then this is across all of your sectors. 75% reduction by 2025 90% reduction by 2030 and basically Ireland along with the wealthy parts of the world for an outside chance of two degrees centigrade would need to have zero emissions in its energy system by about 2035. So by and large the wealthy parts of the world have to have them fully decarbonised by 2035 and they are where they are about pushing the envelope for the budgets a little bit we issued a bit earlier than that and 2050 for the poor parts of the world. So it's a very different message than the one we normally get to here. What do we submit? What has Ireland signed up to in Paris along with the rest of Europe? 40% reduction by 2030 less than half of what is necessary for an outside chance of two degrees centigrade and we're the wealthier on the wealthier parts of the world with Ireland in particular on the UK and in your wealth potential as well. How do these be met in south? With these sorts of official accounts this is working group three of the IPCC that's the more political report on the IPCC on mitigation but science reports which are much less political. Mitigation costs would be so low that global economic growth would not be strongly affected. Now, most of them have now got pie and have the UK to eat it all that wonderful literature we all like hearing. The UK account is very similar to that to key to two degrees C we must cover UK reasons by these 80% by 2050 while that's what nothing to do with climate change that's a random number of 2050. But the good news is that reductions of that size are possible without sacrificing the benefits of economic growth and rising prosperity so you can see George Osborne smiling all the way to the carbon bank with that. So we all want that sort of future we all wanted to think that was the case and yet that's completely at odds with what I've just tried to show you which is just applying some basic maths and numbers in the IDC report. So just basic arithmetic shows that these are wrong. Now, why is it that we have to say or how is it that we have to say these things? I need to repeat it by the sterns of this world and by the dead ends of this world in the UK but lots of people say this idea of the wind, wind, wind growth that's the way we're going to resolve this problem. Now I suggest we've left it to like probably in 1990 but not sure in 2016. The first of these is a reliant on a negative emission technology that we call BEX is the most common one that people talk about and that's biomass, energy, carbon capture and storage. By and large we're going to chrome trees or plant some scampus, switch grass other forms will be up below other things like this that as they grow will suck CO2 out of the air through the normal process of growing biomass. We will then harvest that, chip it put it into pellets whatever it might be chip it all the way around the world and burn it in the world's power stations that's a fairly major request or task in itself to do with that. We're going to capture the carbon dioxide from the chimney of those power stations the best that we can using carbon capture and storage caplers like wind scampus and so forth. We're going to liquefy the CO2 or at least almost that to a face change state compress it and pump it underground somewhere along the way away and hold it there for a few thousand years. That's what we're aiming to do because we can't be bothered to as I often point out to find a way of travelling six miles thick of a newspaper that doesn't rely on 70 kilograms of human being getting in a thousand kilograms of car rather than find a way to do simple things like that or to stand in the room without the lights on giving a presentation we are going to do this today. So all I'm saying is that the things we normally I'm not going to do is that it happens anyway because the curtains are open. They close the curtains during the daylight and they are light on. Now this has never worked at scale we've never had anything like this at scale there are huge technical and economic unknowns to this particular policy or policy believe there are huge efficiency penalties probably 15 to 25% efficiency penalty if you bolted this on the back end of your power station most power stations are only 35 to 55% efficient anyway then you bolt this on the back end and then you lose 4 to 6% of the grid before you put into a very inefficient appliance in your home so most of them you've simply lost that process limited biomass availability planes expect to use it for flying us around the world shipping inspects to use it the car industry was already using it in fuel we're going to be growing food for 9.3 9.7 billion people by 2050 and the Kevicon industry expects to use biomass for a feed stock into and its industry as well so all of that is expected to be grown on around planets and we have to have our fingers crossed but in the interim what we choose to carry on doing very little about climate change that are ongoing levels of high levels of emissions in the atmosphere will not create a whole suite of other sets of feedbacks that are not factored to climate models that are sufficiently uncertain to do so but for instance the melting of the permafrost and the releasing of methane in the atmosphere so we have to keep our fingers crossed these will not become severe the very bad climate change whilst we wait some magician to come up with these technologies in 2050 just to give some sort of scale on what this looks like the IPCC carbon budgets for a reasonable tax of 2 degrees C assume we're planting out an area of 1 to 3 times that at the size of India as I say on this that in the UK we probably think it is India because we have a colonial past we've got past a few times actually we won't be planting it in the UK we'll be planting it in the UK we'll be planting it in the UK we'll have to take some of your wind up we'll have to take your biomass as well 1 to 3 times the size of India year after year decade after decade we have to store hundreds of billions of carbon dioxide just enormous quantities of carbon dioxide securely underground for a thousand or more years now that is a huge request and the Paris Agreement is fundamentally premised on that working and so is the Committee on Climate Change evidence to the UK government the UK government has carbon budgets in vaguely shining law I think the only government in the world that has carbon budgets so it's a significant credit to it that the budgets are very weak and they rely on that technology working they re-look at the recent advice to government the Committee on Climate Change fifth report only one reference to the BEX and negative research is in there is in the footnote much smaller text than the rest of the pages but all of that looks quite optimistic when you consider the second technology that is required to the time machine now that sounds quite flippant we know what seriously is thinking the IPCC or advice to governments that we actually require a time machine to go back in time well unfortunately it is and I'll come back to that in a second it's to remind us out here this is what Feynman said and this is what I'm trying to say we are actively deliberately trying to fool nature we have taken the view that economics is more important than the second law of thermodynamics that's 15 or 14 billion one of those is 13 to 14 billion years that we've used physics not we've used it but physics has been in existence since the big bang that we survived all that time and yet we've got these short term ephemeral economic models that we think now are going to help new physics of a feeling in the end of the day that physics will win out and that we will fail if we think we're going to fool nature and there's another paper here and I'll just feel free to take that one as well as published in nature so it's what I'm saying here let's look at the IPCC scenario database there are 400 scenarios in that database these are future emissions scenarios for a 50% chance or better 2 degrees C of those 86% include negative emissions 86% the other ones that have been there assume global emissions will peak in 2010 and I can't remember the exact number of this and I remember discussing it with a colleague in Norway but I think it's somewhere about 70% of the emissions in that particular group including the negative emissions and an assumption that will peak emissions in the past and the UK government's policy is based on the unit of gap reports in our nations gap reports and in that 80% from 80% of our scenario is the underping of the policy assume a 2010 peak in global emissions 2010 so we do require a time machine to fit with the advice that we're giving our governments so when we think about this there's far too many academics that are saying something while they're listening for their silence rather than focus on urgent and deep mitigation today which will have hugely profound political and economic and social challenges that is going to be very difficult for our society to deal with those sorts of rates of change rather than doing that we're relying on our kids coming up with a non-existent technology in 2050 that will suck huge quantities of CO2 at the end and store it somewhere safely do we think that's a reasonable, reasonable approach so that's what we're all relying on