 for future question mark your stage your talk here we go okay this is not just my talk this talk has a history I have a co-author Martin Dernkampo is a colleague of mine who could not come here but so I will give this talk by myself but we worked together over the year on this talk because this talk has a history it's and it's a bit of a history of scientists for future which is an association of scientists that evolved this year basically with the movement of the students and people of Fridays for future and they were questioned you know that they took to the street and said hey we want a future we want that things change and they demanded for politics to change and this did not directly happen but it was questioned so some well professional politicians said well they should leave it to the professionals and that's the point where actually a lot of scientists and a lot of scientists I know all where they were all really mad at this because they've been doing science and research for so many years and we've been I mean I don't know if you saw the presentations before how much effort is being put into this and to this research to make it better and better better models and what I will show you the prayer this presentation is about the results of the outcome of this and what this means and still nothing changes so right papers they write reports and well nothing happens and so the only thing we could say it was basically hey they are right things need to change and that's why we got together and formed this association so they there's a charter on this which says basically what we do is we go out and we try to inform people on the research on the state of the art of the research and how things are currently and that's why I'm here so that's exactly what I'm doing here so we go out to wherever and you can come to us and ask for for presentations for discussions to get informed on this topic on what does this climate change issue actually mean and I this is the disclaimer now I can tell you this is not a good mood talk okay so this yeah this a bit because the topic is very serious so it's a bit different than I usually do it so in the end look a little bit better than the beginning but nevertheless so where are we currently so this the current graph it's also from the and I will this is all not research by myself this mainly from IPCC reports and this is from the report from last year on the 1.5 degree report which was made basically done or put together because in the Paris Agreement in 2015 it was said well we the world or the the governments of the world want to keep the the climate change to the temperature change to well below two degrees if possible to 1.5 degrees and the question was hey is this actually possible can we make that what do we need to do to do this and so they have been has been a lot of question questions about this and a lot of research a huge number of publications came out on this topic hey what doesn't mean to have a 1.5 degrees warmer earth what doesn't mean to have a 2 2 degrees warmer earth and is this actually possible to limit climate change to these temperatures and this is the current state so this is I really love this graph because it had contains a lot of different things so what we're talking about so we have a pre-industrial period that we use as a reference so that's period from 19 from 1850 to 1900 here this the reference period where we say okay this was pre-industrial temperature and everything afterwards the changes from that are all referring to this so 1.5 degrees or so would be the difference from from this period and then client what kind of does it's not always constant so every year you have sometimes it's a bit warmer and sometimes a bit colder so what you need to do is you need to average this is quite important because then for example and there is this year of where is it here 1998 there was a very warm year and after afterwards a lot of for long period there weren't so many warm type of warm years and then there were some people saying oh yeah look the temperature does not change anymore so everything's fine now and this of course not true because you have to look at average period so the red line this is the so-called floating average so you always average with the years and this gives us about the current temperature change and so this would be like a typical climate climate period which is like 20 years you usually look at 20 years but the problem we have currently is that the change is so drastic that looking for 20 years then you would always have to go far back to periods when well there there was a big difference to today so the last changes in this report were taken from this 2006 to 2015 period and the extrapolation from this was basically that in 2017 we probably reached a one degree increase in temperature on a global scale there's not always in the the same and different areas it might be warmer and different it's colder but that's the global increase so so this where we are currently so we have an increase from 280 parts per million in CO2 to about 410 this changing this is not constant but it's a bit going up and down but it's about 410 in 2019 we have a strong increase in temperature globally but the biggest increase is actually in the winter it's in the Arctic and there's current anthropothenic surplus is about 40 gigatons per year so 40 gigatons is was that that was actually current that was this already gone because we are now a bit higher than that but this was the average period for from 2011 to 2017 okay now I go directly into this IPCC report from last year this 2018 and chapter 2 there's this table I love this table this table contains a lot of climate science because it goes into how much actually can we further emit to reach which temperature change so this would be here the 1.5 degrees Celsius this would be 2 degrees Celsius and then you have probabilities how likely you can avoid this or is it going to come so if you want to avoid with a 2 sigma that is like a 67% probability to go over 1.5 degrees we have 420 part gigatons to emit further additionally into the atmosphere 420 as you remember it's for a 40 gigatons per year and this was I think this was since this is from last year from so that this refers to 2000 basically 2017 so this already two years gone since then and it has not decreased but it increased actually and then there's a lot of different you know if you go for a 50% chance you can can say I'll say okay it's a bit more we can emit and if you go with what we just want to have and one third chance then we actually would have double the amount we could emit for two degrees Celsius this is far more so it's more than 1000 gigatons of CO2 equivalents to emit now there are of course a lot of uncertainties all kinds of uncertainties that go with that and one is for example the so-called earth earth earth system feedback that is the earth itself responds to this emission and also emits CO2 and are also methane and this has an also a long-term impact and then there are further uncertainties and these are I mean this has been also part in the previous talks that of course climate models do have uncertainties nevertheless if we take this into account and say okay we want to avoid 1.5 degrees Celsius increase in temperature with a two-thirds probability that's they call this likely in this report so it's likely that we are not exceeding 1.5 degrees we have 420 gigaton surplus CO2 to emit into the atmosphere in total 100 gigatons will be more or less gobbled up by the earth response this is actually this was in the report current research shows that this is likely a bit too conservative so it's probably more but well okay so the our emission is about 40 gigatons so the plant can CO2 emissions by coal power plants that are running was at the point at that period 200 gigaton CO2 so they are built they are running 200 gigatons by that and then we have 100 to 150 further gigatons for plant coal power plants or those under construction if we count this together we have already exceeded the 420 gigaton CO2 and this is of course one reason why these coal power plants have to be shut down but they're of course not the only source they're only one source of CO2 emissions we have in the atmosphere and to make this clear what this means and this is what what I go into this now what does this mean this 1.5 degree difference to 2 degree and there's been a lot of research on that okay now the first one is for example first example is here on the Arctic I mean there's been a lot of talks about ice bears and so on but of course this is not the only thing to care about it is quite crucial that there is ice there also because the ice we had this before in the previous talks that the ice reflects the Sun and the less there this reflection is there the more warmth is being taken up by the earth again so we have a like a feedback system there also of course because of all the it's not just the ice bear there's like a whole biosphere there and this biosphere has to somehow survive now the likeness of an ice free Arctic is this graph here of the comparing 1.5 degrees this is this one or these two studies these are two studies here one with the dotted line and with the full line and two degrees and this is how likely is this in a certain period of time that this happens and so you can see if we consider again that it's that it's likely it's about 45 years it takes for at a 1.5 degrees Celsius increase that we have an ice free Arctic so this is actually possible with this increase but it's like once every 45 years if we go for two degree increase this is once every 10 or even with the other study it's more like once every five years that this is happening and this is quite frequent and this of course causes quite some impact on every everything that lives there now this is ice and Arctic there's not so many people living in the Arctic so there's a lot of further studies that have been done and this for example for Africa I will only because of limited of time I can do this talk for many hours actually I will only go on to this example here extreme heat with record temperatures over close to 50 degrees and actually even increasing that that has been there in 2009 2010 and the month from December to February in Africa and these are temperatures where people cannot be outside anymore at these temperatures it's just too hot and then I have they that's showing these curves and these are probability density functions so these curves show how often like each of these Balkans I don't know Bob's here are showing how often does this happen and so here we have current that the current stages is the temperature from 2006 to 2015 that's what they call current so there is already this increase in temperature under these conditions this happens every well maybe twice every hundred years if we go for 1.5 degrees increase that's the blue line we can see this is going to happen every more or less third year if we go for two degrees this is going to happen even more often so this is for people living there it may it's getting hard to live there it's just just the temperature only only that if we go for for example for Australia as an example that we have the same it's it's always these these curves here extreme warm temperatures well that's very easy but in Australia what's also important there it's it's the temperature of the water because of the the corals that live there and hot water leads to coral bleaching so basically the corals die and this all of course as you've seen the the temperature is not always every year the same but there was this hot summer and an extreme coral bleaching here temperatures situation here in the summer in 2012 2013 and how often does this happen and we can already see here this would be the natural so this would be the pre industrial curve here where this very warm temperatures hardly ever happen well we can see here already this would be every third year currently would be every second year in 1.5 degree scenario and probably two of three years in a two degree scenario and this well with this means I will go on to this later this is an example for Europe well how often things happen I don't know if you I always remember that that one because I I well was a lot outside during that period there was a very warm summer we had in 2003 and a lot of people died of that because of the heat and I remember being in cologne at the time and laying outside at 40 degrees and I was ill and so I had 40 degrees so outside was 40 degrees was very warm and so naturally this would could be this can happen it could happen like once every hundred years currently we have like a situation where this would be like every fourth year and this increases than to more than 59% of all the years of two degrees Celsius so we're gonna get hot summers this is the prediction of this study here well what does this mean well and now I go back to the IPCC reports and the IPCC reports are very diplomatic always and so they they have reasons for concern and we are all very concerned the sounds very nice but of course there's some background to this so they have in the summary of this IPCC report from 2018 they have five reasons for concern that's one as unique and threatened systems like coral corals extreme weather events and you can see that does does make quite a difference from now and going to warmer temperatures up here we have the two degrees so you can see between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees that does make quite a difference distribution of impacts that's actually basically the this means that those who suffer most have contributed less and that's of course bad because those who contributed most well don't suffer as much and then they won't change and that's a problem that's that's why they're concerned on this one global aggregate impacts is basically money impact so how much does this cost in the end to to cope with the outcome of this and well it costs billions of dollars in the end to have a difference between 2 to 1.5 and 2 degrees every year just to cope with the impacts and then we have large-scale singular events that could be something like like de-icing of Greenland or something like that when it's gone it's just a singular event because then it's gone this very abstract so they get a bit closer to that so warm water corals is basically they having already a problem well I will show this later well they expect about 90% will die off at 1.5 degrees well they will die out at 2 degrees most likely certain and this is of course this is a well it's important for nourishment and for people who live from the sea from whatever they fish out of the sea because in corals there's a lot of it's like the childhood bed of a lot of fish so they have a quite we do get in quite an impact in the end of fish in on fishery this is why this is so red mangroves also get an impact on that that there's about the same story so a lot of small fish grow up there well the Arctic region is getting increasing problems with the ice well these are all kind I will go into this later coastal flooding will increase from 1.5 to 2 degrees this is well flooding in rivers and so on well and we will get some more heat related morbidity now there's been a new report this year on on land use and this has been even more into this now different scale please watch that so where am I here so the scale here is is going up to five degrees and if you look for that yeah so it's a bit different so the lower ones 1.5 and 2 degrees are in there but problems they see is a dry land scarcity and water scarcity and dry lands so that's desertification a lot of that soil erosion which is related to that vegetation losses also related to that vegetation losses of yeah I will come to this later the wildfire damage we can see that already today I mean in the news every like now it's Australia and Chile but before it was was more California and so on so this will go on this is no coincidence that this is happening we have permafrost degradation we have tropical crop yield decline well crop yield is of course that hurts because well this leads of course in the end to food instabilities and we can see it doesn't make quite a difference already between 1.5 and 2 degrees but of course it can get worse and they also they are more specific on that what they mean with this for example in wildfire damage they have expect an increase in fire and weather season currently over 50% increase in the Mediterranean area if it gets above 2 degrees and well if we go to 4 or 5 degrees this will they expect well hundreds of million at least or over 100 million people additionally exposed in terms of food supply instabilities well that what we already see is well we have like spikes in the food price this is not so important for us usually but of course for people in the world that don't have much money and we still have almost it's not quite 1 billion billion people in the world that live of less than $2 a day for such people this is of course quite important if we go closer to 2 degrees they do expect periodic food shocks across regions so basically that there will be situations where there will be no food available anymore if we go up to 4 or 5 degrees this would lead to sustained food supply distribution problems on a global scale so this depends on of what kind of scenario we are calculating I will go into this later one additional thing is also to think of on that we are not only talking about the temperature also the water of the oceans take up the CO2 they take up a lot of the CO2 that we blow into the air and this leads to an acidification and so the the the pH value of the oceans they decrease and this has an impact of on a lot of animals that build up calcium carbonate so shells basically so all kinds of bivalves all kinds of like cancers and all that they depend on building up this calcium carbonate and if they're not able to do this anymore of course they don't grow anymore and they are pretty much in the beginning of a food supply a food chain in the oceans now now I was reading this 2018 report and somewhere there on page 223 I found them this year where they basically say okay we do have this impact and there is this Argonite saturation which is well basically that's a point where this build up for a specific animals is not possible anymore at this saturation point because the chemical reaction does not work anymore and this depends on the temperature this depends on the pressure and the higher the pressure is the earlier this point is reached also the colder the temperature is and so with this is what you can see here on the right-hand side they investigated this mainly from the pole regions on and so that they're this point where this this well this point is reach will reach the surface of the ocean from 2030 onwards so that they're all these animals on the surface of the ocean are not building in the polar regions will have problems built to build up actually the shells in this has two different impacts of course one impact if they don't grow anymore this has a big issue on on the food food chain in the oceans the second impact is actually that these this is was a one of the carbon sinks they took CO2 and with calcium they build up these shells and they die off at some point and this is they sink to the ground and well the CO2 is gone well this if this is not happening anymore of course the carbon sink this type of carbon sink does not work anymore okay now I've see I've talked a lot these are further I will go skip through this quickly this are all kinds of things that happen and they so in this 1.5 degree report they compared for a lot of regions what will happen so for 1.5 degree warming or less of 1.5 to 2 degrees and 2 to 3 degrees so and there's all kinds of things this is a big table in this report in chapter 3 read these reports please read these reports a good and they're actually scientifically good I mean this in terms of if you do it if you do science it's really really good because they have so many so much literature and so many cross-references and how they do it to be very sure to say okay this is what we can say with this certainty this is very very good science I think at least okay so I will not go into all these all of this but it has to all kinds of regions severe impacts like South Southeast Asia Southeast Asia for example they have you know this risk of increased flooding and they have increased precipitation events and yes and well I think the most significant what this is the significant risk of crop yield reductions which is avoided if we stay below 1.5 degrees if we're not staying below 1.5 degrees decrease they say here they estimate 1.3 decline in per capita per crop a corporate production per year 1.3 less food that's not good and if we go even higher well this is getting worse for small islands where there's actually the small islands are well known of course you know they the sea level is rising so they have a problem and actually the main problem they have is not that just the water is going over the island but that the the salty water is rising and in intruding the freshwater reserves they have so they get a problem with freshwater and well this is already a problem for them what for 1.5 degrees for two degrees it's like this very severe problem and that's why they were push pushing so much for the 1.5 degree change maximum and the Mediterranean this is very close to where we are currently so they expect a reduction of run of water so this is in rivers of about 9% is very likely but there's a range given as most of the time they have this so there is already a risk of water deficits at 1.5 degrees increase in temperature if we increase further we reach about as to up to two degrees we have about 17% less water in the rivers this is of course not good I mean I mean especially I mean okay in Germany for example there's a lot of food coming from Spain and well they do already have a problem with for the with their crops with water for the crops and this is getting worse West Africa and Sahel well there is the prediction well there's a prediction of well less suitable land for mice production by 1.5 degrees already by 40% less land 40% that's a lot it's not the region where people already have huge surplus and food every day so there is an increase in risk for under nutrition already for 1.5 degrees aim if we increase well this just getting absurd in a way it says higher risk for under nutrition of course because it's gonna get worse apart from this that it's too hot to go outside anyways well for Southern Africa it's similar it's not not as drastic so there is already the high risk for under nutrition in communities dependent on dry land especially so Savannah areas with which are rather dry and this is getting worse again when the tropics also there's a risk to tropical crop yields we already heard that and the other side on the other side it's also there these extreme heat waves they're gonna face so this is this is like this was like a table in there with a lot of well details of what's what they expect from 1.5 to 2 degrees now what scientists scientists are which strange sometimes because they're also then doing their science and they look at different things and one thing they are actually now worried about and this is actually it is worrisome very worrisome is that actually well climate change has been always there because there has been like a cycle and this the so-called glass ill inter interglacial cycle the earth has been going through this has to do with a position to the Sun and a lot of feedback systems that kick in if you cool the earth you have more ice build up then you have more Sun being reflected again you have less energy that stays on the surface of the eye of the earth and then it gets colder and colder and colder up to a certain point where this changes again and goes back and this has been going on for hundreds of years and the point is now we've left the cycle and this is the the part that's shown up here that basically we are now on a completely different trajectory and that's the trajectory that is we are heating this up and the earth is responding and it's also heating itself up and so we we are on a path and it's not quite clear so they build this they show this this this graph here there is actually the possibility that the earth will go on this path to heat itself up without us even and that this called tipping points so there are several things that happen there that is for example the melting or thawing of the permafrost there is methane hydrates in the oceans storage that might be triggered to evolve there will be a reduction of CO2 intake in the oceans currently a lot of CO2 is taken into the oceans but this will get less and less the more saturation comes in there we have of a die-off of rainforest so well last summer we've seen that have a lot of rainforest burning in the Amazons but this will also happen by the increase of temperature without human impact and in this paper here by Stefan and some others they said they estimate of about rainforest reduction of 40 up to 14% by an increase of up to 1.5 degrees anyways so we're gonna lose rainforest a lot of rainforest already like that we have a die-off in the boreal forest this was the summer in Siberia well they just don't die off they just they get burned and there are other reasons why they die and so there's a lot of CO2 going to be emitted from forests that are where carbon is stored currently into the atmosphere we have a reduction of ice and snow so there's a more reflection of the Sun less reflection of the Sun into the atmosphere again and we have a reduction of ice volume so we have an increase in sea level and this whole thing this is like a communicating system and one thing triggered will trigger something else this is sometimes goes by by the by circulations by also by by ocean circulations and so on so one thing can trigger the next thing and this will my trigger the next thing and this will go on and if this happens at a certain time at a certain intensity then we will not have as a human beings with the current current technology and technology we have we will not be able to stop that and that's what they are worried about so this climate scientists that we should not get these tipping points to go too strong they are already this this is already these are processes that can be already seen but well currently they are on a level where it's well it's bad there was actually four weeks ago this paper published in nature climate change where they said well we might be wrong with our estimation here with this 100 gigatons because these tipping points are worse than we thought so we are actually further there more on the upper limits of the bounds where we thought it would be yes so these are very worrisome well situations now this should trigger us to do something about it and that's actually the point so things need to be done but up to now well things have not been done but this like the see the climate climate greenhouse gas emissions curves from 1970 to 2010 and we can see that not only the the curve has been increasing more or less the whole period but also the increase has increased from 2000 on and the main increase here is by co2 the other gases here is methane there's anti and car and nitrogen nitrogen gases appear and well they're co2 from well agriculture forestry and land use this is here they are more or less constant sometimes there are spikes like this most likely this this is like rainforest burning the only the only year in the recent years where there has been a decrease also in the co2 emissions was in the economic crisis in 2008 where they actually was decreased by 4% now nevertheless the scientists went on and said okay let's calculate how can we met manage to get to 1.5 degrees and there are different scenarios some say okay let's go to get to 1.5 degrees some say okay maybe we need to get higher to a higher temperature and later on change that again to get to 1.5 degrees so they're all kinds of scenarios that you can calculate now if we say we use this is CDR I will go this carbon dioxide removal we don't have that and we say we use a exponential curve each year we do use this the same percentage of our emissions and we want to get to 1.5 degrees and this was the curve from 2018 and 2000 so we should have started this year to reduce our CO2 emission by 18% each year globally 18% if we want to reach 1.5 degrees if we want to be it reach two degrees it's still 5% each year 5% if we do this for Germany we by this and I think this is the most important figure it's not as important like politicians always say oh yeah by this year we want to reduce our emissions by 50% or something like that but this does not tell you what happens like for 2030 what happens until 2030 right so it's very important to keep in mind that it's like we have a budget and this is actually from a paper it's global carbon budgets they say they publish each year how much budget do we have left to to emit and so if we take this budget and say okay this is our budget how are we gonna spend to spend going to spend our carbon budget and this is something that we should ask all the politicians what do you think is your budget why do you think this is your budget and there's been a actually an article by by climate scientist Stefan Rammstof in the Spiegel we said okay let's estimate we have more than 7.3 gigatons CO2 overall budget in Germany and we could say if we want to reach 1.5 degrees this would mean we continue our share of emissions which would be in Germany which is like double the average of the rest of the world and we say okay we have the right to blow out in the air twice as much as the average person in the world then we still would have 1.5 gigatons CO2 in Germany to emit and how are we gonna do that that's the question are we do we have this in mind of course we can calculate this down to each person in Germany so we end up with about 40 tons per person so each of us can also think of this I have 40 90 tons here sorry 90 tons that is to emit how I am I gonna spend this until the end of my life now if we go back to this report then we have different scenarios and as you can see there are different ways of doing that and these are different economic scenarios so and you can see already that most of these scenarios do have negative emission at some points actually all of them have some of them include carbon capture and storage here as shown as BEX and depending on what kind of economic scenario you go for this is more or less and here it's like up to about 20 gigatons per year to be stored in the ground the green part here agriculture forestry and land use and other land use this also of course you can reduce CO2 by planting trees this actually a very efficient way of doing that but of course the land you land area is limited and this is also true for other things and of course the land area we can use is decreasing due to climate change you could always should always keep this in mind now the base of all these scenarios they put this again into a table and I put and I put some pictures to that so they said if we want to reach to 1.5 degrees what we have to do we need to wrap it and profound near-term decarbonization of our energy supply so basically we have to be very very quick and change our energy supply this has to be that's the first part the second part we need greater mitigation efforts and the demand side so we have to use less and get smaller with things third part is well we do have to do this within the next 10 years so we cannot wait this is very very urgent well this is actually a table that looks like this bit sorry for that so the main thing is that the additional reductions come from CO2 emissions because the other greenhouse gas are already included in the two group degree scenarios we need to invest differently so investment patterns have to change strongly what we also they the best options actually for 1.5 degree scenarios are the ones that go with the sustainable development because if people don't have food to eat they don't have the chance to take care of the climate anymore because first they're trying to survive so we do have to also care about how people can live on this planet this helps protecting the climate well then they say okay we probably have to think of climate the carbon dioxide removal somehow at the mid of the center towards the mid of the century so this has to be implemented now and what we also have to do is we have to switch from fossil fuels to electricity and the end use of sector now CDR carbon dioxide removal I will say a bit about that this is of course agriculture forestry and land use that's very easy planting trees then there's becks so you use by basically biomass to produce some some gas and then you capture the CO2 from burning the gas and press this into ground and carbon capture and storage or what you can also do is use direct air capture as where you use these are like these machines so they take CO2 from the air and then you have to store it and you can see it's such a machine here this was like a model at the time so these are these have been already existing models this so basically this can be take 1,000 tons of CO2 per year so if we want to go for gigatons then we would have to build millions of these in the end problem was that with that it's a bit in discussed also in this report so so basically so we have an energy usage of that by 12.9 gigajoules per ton CO2 so basically if we want to use a put down 15 tons of 15 gigatons of CO2 per year by this which was in one of the scenarios we would need about one fourth of the global energy supply only for atmospheric waste management it's called like this and the funny thing this was like a professor we had them and our University here in Altenberg and he gave this presentation he said yeah this sounds so crazy but the climate change will hurt you so much this will be done yeah and Bex that's a different way of doing that with a biogas so the thing is if we want to have that at large scale it requires huge amounts of land use to produce this amount of biogas and the other drawback is of course that you do have to take care of your storage systems to avoid the gas to come out because well CO2 is has a higher density than then oxygen and goes so it stays on the ground if there's no wind and if people live there you don't have anything to breathe anymore now there are of course different sectors this for the EU for example where where the greenhouse gases come from so the main parts are of course agriculture there's transport in the energy industry and this but there's also other industries and it's important to keep in mind that this is not equal over all different countries but it's also distributed to dependents strongly on on the income of the people in the countries so the high so-called high-income countries here they have the highest share in the CO2 emissions while the MIT so-called emergent countries they're almost at the same level now while low-income countries they mainly have a CO2 emissions here from agriculture and land use so the question is can we make it to 1.5 degrees that's a good question so there have been a lot of studies like like for Germany and the EU either on like energy infrastructure for example or the whole system there was one study from this year they looked for 95% CO2 reduction by 2050 there was one study currently just released for the complete EU and greenhouse gas neutral EU by 2050 and so obviously technically there is this assumption that this is possible one main thing of that is that we have to go far more efficient and one thing in that is use electricity because electricity is very efficient in many things so currently the prime currently prime energy consumption in Germany is about 2,000 3,200 terawatt hours in total and the assumption for 2050 where they have this 100% or 95% reduction would be 1,300 terawatt hours or by the other study was even less than that that depends a bit on the mixture they use the reason for that is for example that the efficiency for example of battery driven cars is much higher than the ones those of combustion driven or other methods so it really depends on which technology you put into use on how good you get on the EU level the looks a bit like this so this their demand and supply today and this would be so the reduction is not quite as large but there would be a stay still assume that we can reach this type of reduction if we want to now the less they're not assuming 100% CO2 free but they calculate with negative emissions by agriculture and forestry so this is actually in these calculations and I really like the one by Rubinius and so on that's the lower one because they actually calculated completely with storage systems with electricity grids and all that and how much needs to be invested into this this is a very detailed study very very good one so this is actually technically possible and they even calculated this what happens in the so-called Dunkelflute that's a German word for there's no wind and no sun in the winter for a period of time and what happens and this can actually and that's what all they assume is that we do have a lot of storages for gas and we can use these course current strategic storages for gas in the future to store power to to gas gas so gas that's one by electricity there as a backup so basically technically this is possible so to conclude so the climate system is already at a critical stage the port prospect for a 1.5 degree warmer earth are already very bitter and well the IPCC reports and all the reports there are they all of them go for it if you we should not exceed two degrees because we have this thing of the tipping tipping points and several reasons we already have these two degrees yeah this carbon dioxide removal is presented basically this is hard to avoid but there are these critical things concerning carbon capture and storage and whatever we need to do is we have to act fast and that's the main thing this has to be done very quickly and I must say I'm very sorry but our government well yes so it is not a technical issue it is a political one yes thank you thank you very much we do have eight minutes for questions so we have a couple of microphones here in the hole please line up over there we have those eight minutes I'm sure there will be questions the signal angel is signaling over there that we have a question from the internet do you see nuclear power plants as a temporary solution to slow the emission of CO2 and we had quite some discussion in the internet there was the another one answered you need more than 10 years to build new nuclear power plants and the response was well you could we get the shutdown once back on the power line so is that a realistic scenario in your view well there is actually this this is a current discussion going on and the the issue with that is it's not that easy to to get old power plants back into running because well they have a certain type of lifetime and if you want to put them back on into the into the system then you somehow would have to exceed the lifetime and that are some of course some security issues and if you want want to avoid them then you have to put a lot of money and effort into getting them to run and you need also a lot of time to do that and so this the question is would this be worth it and I would say probably there are faster methods to do it you could do it they are of course the risk and I mean after Fukushima and Chernobyl basically we we've all seen what the risks are so and I would say it's probably not the best and fastest way to do it there are the ways that could be worth doing it okay then we're gonna hop over to microphone number one yeah first I want to thank you for your talk it was very informative and yeah my question is as follows there was a talk at the university where I study in Damschat one and a half years ago from a person who compared the IPCC predictions with what really happened with the real temperature increase and the damage which causes the climate change and what she found out that the IPCC always nearly always understood and made it the effect of the temperature increase and what it causes have you ever heard of this criticism and do you think this is still the case I hope not the issue is of course that the IPCC reports as always very very carefully taking decisions and is very carefully looking at this and they are more conservative and the rather are lower than the than the actual temperatures in the end probably because there's of course also a lot of pressure political pressure on them and so if they would predict something and they would over predict then people would immediately say come and say hey you're doing panicking and so on and so that's why it is most likely that they try to be as accurate as possible but they rather choose the lower the lower estimates yeah that what was she was saying as well yeah that's it's a very it's a I mean in the end it's at this summary for policy makers I showed some slides from that that is actually voted on by the by governmental agents so they bring this into a governmental round of the UN they are UN entity and so and the the governments actually say approve have to approve this and so that's why it's very very diplomatic and in the terms of so they are doing reasons for concern you know so it's I mean I'm people are concerned about all kinds of things thanks all right then we hop over to microphone to please okay first thank you for your talk all good mood is gone now and if it's mainly a political problem do you have any idea how we can force politicians to make the right decisions now because what we are doing at the moment like protesting and voting doesn't seem to work well I I think actually I'm very happy because I think protesting works but it does not work in the same way that people who usually take it to the streets think it works it puts a lot of pressure on to them but it's one pressure on they also have pressure from other sides you know and then they look at you know what are the my voters and if their voters are not the ones that are on the streets well they might be not as important and so I think the main thing is that needs to be done is to go out to the people and this going to the street is one way of doing that and tell the you know and talk to the people and talk especially to those who are not there on the streets yet while the potential voters of those who think well I don't have to care so much about because these are not my voters and we just have to go out and talk and I think this will put up the pressure together with taking it to the streets and protesting and doing whatever talking to politicians and I mean we have a you know Angela Merkel is our our chancellor in Germany and she's a physicist I mean she knows I mean this is she understands all this you know it's not that she doesn't know it's just the pressure from the wrong side yet alright and we have time for one last question microphone three please yes thank you also very much for my side for the informative talk from the description of the talk I was expecting more on the it said something about the resilience about climate skepticism yet to be more resilient about their arguments and I was in discussion with many other people also climate skepticist and what they sometimes said they didn't criticize the anthropogenic and what they didn't criticize the climate change at all but the anthropogenic part of it and what they say that there is like an increase of solar activity the last decades which increases to the temperature and that also like the diagram is like only from 1860 but if you consider like the last millennials there have been higher values of co2 in the atmosphere but the temperature did not correlate so how do you argue with this these kind of arguments yes that's a good one yeah I didn't go into these because they are the sometimes the easy ones but the thing is that there are I did this talk this way because it helps if you go into our climate skeptics say this and they say a lot of different things so you could do a whole talk on what climate skeptics say if you do that then in the end people keep in mind oh yeah this there is some skepticism on this and this is I did a lot of these things because by this now people can go out and say okay this is currently the state of the of the research I did not go into the climate skeptic detailed answers of course there are I mean I can like for example Sunday radiation is already in the climate models the changes in Sunday radiations the variations of the of centuries before are actually being pre-calculated in the climate models currently because only if you're able to run if you if you're able to mimic that and climate models today for today or the past if you're able to do that then you're able to do to run it for the future and this is how climate models work and so all this all these variations are taking in so I'm sorry but we can talk about this also later on I didn't get too much to the climate skeptics now thank you very much all right we don't have time for any more questions