0:00:00.000,0:00:18.900
36C3 preroll music
0:00:18.900,0:00:24.582
Herald: Now we come to Bernhard[br]Stoevesandt. "Science for future?". Your
0:00:24.582,0:00:26.712
stage - your talk. Here we go.
0:00:26.712,0:00:31.342
Applause
0:00:31.342,0:00:36.100
Bernhad Stoevesandt: Thank you very much.[br]OK. OK. This is not just my talk. This
0:00:36.100,0:00:40.160
talk has a history. I have a coauthor,[br]Martin Dörenkämper, who is a colleague of
0:00:40.160,0:00:45.560
mine who could not come here, but - so, I[br]will give this talk by myself, but we
0:00:45.560,0:00:51.830
worked together over the year on this talk[br]because this talk has a history. And it's
0:00:51.830,0:00:57.270
a bit of the history of Scientists for[br]Future, which is an association of
0:00:57.270,0:01:03.680
scientists that evolved this year,[br]basically with the movement of those
0:01:03.680,0:01:09.299
students and pupils of Fridays for Future.[br]And there were questions, you know, that
0:01:09.299,0:01:16.460
they took to the street and said, hey, we[br]want a future. We want that things change.
0:01:16.460,0:01:21.820
And they demanded for politics to change.[br]And this did not directly happen, but it
0:01:21.820,0:01:26.719
was questioned, so some - well -[br]professional politicians said, well, they
0:01:26.719,0:01:31.469
should leave it to the professionals. And[br]that's the point where actually a lot of
0:01:31.469,0:01:36.560
scientists and a lot of scientists I know,[br]all where really mad at this because
0:01:36.560,0:01:43.270
they've been doing science and research[br]for so many years. I mean, I don't know if
0:01:43.270,0:01:50.159
you saw the presentations before, how much[br]effort is being put into this, into this
0:01:50.159,0:01:57.659
research to make better and better, better[br]models. And what I will show you, this
0:01:57.659,0:02:03.299
presentation is about the results of the[br]outcome of this and what this means and
0:02:03.299,0:02:08.220
still nothing changes. So they write[br]papers, they write reports and, well,
0:02:08.220,0:02:13.580
nothing happens. And so the only thing we[br]could say was basically, hey, they are
0:02:13.580,0:02:20.130
right. Things need to change. And that's[br]why we got together and formed this
0:02:20.130,0:02:27.130
association. So there's a charta on this,[br]which says basically what we do is we go
0:02:27.130,0:02:32.110
out and we try to inform people on the[br]research, on the state of the art of the
0:02:32.110,0:02:37.670
research and how things are currently. And[br]that's why I'm here. So that's exactly
0:02:37.670,0:02:43.130
what I'm doing here. So we go out to[br]wherever and you can come to us and ask
0:02:43.130,0:02:51.610
for presentations, for discussions to get[br]informed on this topic, on what this
0:02:51.610,0:02:58.820
climate change issue actually means. And[br]this is the disclaimer now, I can tell you
0:02:58.820,0:03:09.580
this is not a good mood talk, okay? So,[br]yeah. Because the topic is very serious.
0:03:09.580,0:03:14.320
So it's a bit different than I usually do[br]it, in the end it will look a little bit
0:03:14.320,0:03:18.510
better than in the beginning, but[br]nevertheless. So where are we currently?
0:03:18.510,0:03:25.820
So this is the current graph. This is all[br]not research by myself. This is mainly
0:03:25.820,0:03:32.960
from IPCC reports, and this is from the[br]report from last year on the 1.5 degree
0:03:32.960,0:03:39.620
report, which was made - basically done,[br]or, put together because in the Paris
0:03:39.620,0:03:48.400
agreement in 2015, it was said, well, we,[br]the world, or, the governments of the
0:03:48.400,0:03:56.520
world, want to keep the climate change -[br]the temperature change - to well below 2
0:03:56.520,0:04:00.900
degrees, if possible, to 1.5 degrees, and[br]the question was, hey, is this actually
0:04:00.900,0:04:07.010
possible? Can we make that? What do we[br]need to do to do this? And so there has
0:04:07.010,0:04:12.459
been a lot of questions about this and a[br]lot of research. A huge number of
0:04:12.459,0:04:17.750
publications came out on this topic: "Hey,[br]what does it mean to have a 1.5 degrees
0:04:17.750,0:04:22.729
warmer earth?" "What does it mean to have[br]a 2 degrees warmer earth?" and "Is this
0:04:22.729,0:04:29.740
actually possible to limit climate change[br]to these temperatures?" And this is the
0:04:29.740,0:04:34.760
current state. I really love this graph[br]because it contains a lot of different
0:04:34.760,0:04:39.710
things. So what we are talking about. So[br]we have a pre-industrial period that we
0:04:39.710,0:04:47.099
use as a reference. So that's the period[br]from 1850 to 1900 here. This is the
0:04:47.099,0:04:51.840
reference period where we say, OK, this[br]was pre-industrial temperature and
0:04:51.840,0:04:57.689
everything afterwards, the changes from[br]that are all referring to this. So 1.5
0:04:57.689,0:05:05.409
degrees or so would be the difference from[br]this period. And then, what climate does,
0:05:05.409,0:05:10.430
it's not always constant. So every year,[br]sometimes it's a bit warmer and sometimes
0:05:10.430,0:05:14.839
a bit colder. So what you need to do is[br]you need to average. This is quite
0:05:14.839,0:05:22.279
important, because, for example, there is[br]this year of - where is it? here - 1998,
0:05:22.279,0:05:27.689
there was a very warm year. And[br]afterwards, for a long period, there
0:05:27.689,0:05:32.430
weren't so many warm years. And then there[br]were some people saying: "Oh, yeah, look,
0:05:32.430,0:05:37.331
the temperature does not change anymore,[br]so everything's fine now". And this, of
0:05:37.331,0:05:42.569
course, isn't true, because you have to[br]look at average periods. So the red line,
0:05:42.569,0:05:48.490
this is the so-called floating average. So[br]you always average with the years and this
0:05:48.490,0:05:54.469
gives us about the current temperature[br]change. So this would be like a typical
0:05:54.469,0:05:59.810
climate period with like 20 years. You[br]usually look at 20 years. But the problem
0:05:59.810,0:06:04.439
we have currently is, that the change was[br]so drastic, that looking for 20 years,
0:06:04.439,0:06:10.379
then you would always have to go far back[br]to periods when well, there was a big
0:06:10.379,0:06:18.240
difference to today. So, the last changes[br]in this report were taken from this 2006
0:06:18.240,0:06:25.289
to 2015 period. And the extrapolation from[br]this was basically, that in 2017 we
0:06:25.289,0:06:32.089
probably reached a 1 degree increase in[br]temperature on a global scale. That's not
0:06:32.089,0:06:37.060
always the same, and in different areas it[br]might be warmer and in different it's
0:06:37.060,0:06:46.019
colder, but that's the global increase.[br]So. So this is where we are currently. So
0:06:46.019,0:06:54.629
we have an increase from 280 parts per[br]million in CO2 to about 410 ppm. This is
0:06:54.629,0:06:59.729
changing. Its not constant, it's a bit[br]going up and down but it's about 410
0:06:59.729,0:07:05.150
in 2019. We have a strong increase in[br]temperature globally, but the biggest
0:07:05.150,0:07:11.640
increase is actually in the winter. It's[br]in the Arctic. And there's a current
0:07:11.640,0:07:19.550
antrophogenic CO2 surplus of about 40[br]gigatons per year. So 40 gigatons - what's
0:07:19.550,0:07:23.759
that? That was actually current, this is[br]already gone because we are now a bit
0:07:23.759,0:07:35.430
higher than that. But this was the average[br]period from 2011 to 2017. OK. Now I go
0:07:35.430,0:07:41.680
directly into this IPCC report from last[br]year. That's 2018. In chapter 2, there's
0:07:41.680,0:07:47.639
this table. I love this table. This table[br]contains a lot of climate science because
0:07:47.639,0:07:56.109
it goes into how much actually can we[br]further emit to reach which temperature
0:07:56.109,0:08:01.680
change. So this would be here the 1.5[br]degrees Celsius, this would be the 2
0:08:01.680,0:08:07.279
degrees Celsius. And then you have[br]probabilities: how likely you can avoid
0:08:07.279,0:08:14.059
this, or is it going to come? So if you[br]want to avoid it with a two sigma, that is
0:08:14.059,0:08:27.499
like a 67% probability to go over 1.5[br]degrees, we have 420 gigatons to emit
0:08:27.499,0:08:33.461
further additionally into the atmosphere.[br]420. As you remember, it's 40 gigatons per
0:08:33.461,0:08:45.090
year. And this was I think from last year.[br]So this refers to basically 2017. So it's
0:08:45.090,0:08:51.630
already two years gone since then. And it[br]has not decreased, but increased actually.
0:08:51.630,0:08:55.680
And then there is a lot of difference, you[br]know, if you go for a 50 percent chance,
0:08:55.680,0:09:00.320
you can you can say, ok, it's a bit more[br]we can emit. And if he goes, well, we just
0:09:00.320,0:09:05.630
want to have a one third chance, then we[br]actually would have double the amount we
0:09:05.630,0:09:13.110
could emit. For 2 degrees Celsius. This is[br]far more, so it's more than 1000 gigatons
0:09:13.110,0:09:20.320
of CO2 equivalents to emit. Now, there[br]are, of course, a lot of uncertainties,
0:09:20.320,0:09:25.030
all kinds of uncertainties that go with[br]that. And one is, for example, the so-
0:09:25.030,0:09:35.770
called Earth System Feedback. The earth[br]itself responds to this emission and also
0:09:35.770,0:09:43.760
emits CO2 and also methane. And this has[br]an also a long term impact. And then there
0:09:43.760,0:09:50.810
are further uncertainties. And these are I[br]mean, this has been also part in the
0:09:50.810,0:09:55.840
previous talks that, of course, climate[br]models do have uncertainties.
0:09:55.840,0:10:03.210
Nevertheless, if we take this into account[br]and say, ok, we want to avoid 1.5 degrees
0:10:03.210,0:10:10.500
Celsius increase in temperature with a 2/3[br]probability. That they call "likely" in
0:10:10.500,0:10:16.370
this report. So it's likely that we are[br]not exceeding 1.5 degrees. We have 420
0:10:16.370,0:10:23.340
gigatons surplus CO2 to emit into the[br]atmosphere in total. 100 gigatons will be
0:10:23.340,0:10:31.480
more or less gobbled up by the earth[br]response. This was in the report. Current
0:10:31.480,0:10:36.500
research shows that this is likely a bit[br]too conservative. So it's probably more,
0:10:36.500,0:10:45.290
but, well. OK. So our emission is about 40[br]gigatons, so the planned CO2 emissions by
0:10:45.290,0:10:53.810
coal power plants that are running, was at[br]that period 200 gigatons CO2. So they are
0:10:53.810,0:11:01.470
built. They are running. 200 gigatons by[br]that. And then we have 100 to 150 further
0:11:01.470,0:11:08.200
gigatons for our planned coal power plants[br]and those under construction. As we count
0:11:08.200,0:11:17.180
this together, we have already exceeded[br]the 420 gigatons CO2. And this is, of
0:11:17.180,0:11:20.320
course, one reason why these coal power[br]plants have to be shut down. But they're,
0:11:20.320,0:11:26.760
of course, not the only source. They are[br]only one source of CO2 emissions we have
0:11:26.760,0:11:35.480
in the atmosphere. And to make this clear,[br]what this means, this is what I go into
0:11:35.480,0:11:44.310
now. What does this mean? This difference[br]from 1.5 degree to 2 degree, and that's
0:11:44.310,0:11:52.060
been a lot of research on that. OK? Now,[br]the first one is, for example, on the
0:11:52.060,0:11:56.500
Arctic. I mean, there's been a lot of[br]talks about ice bears and so on. But of
0:11:56.500,0:12:03.100
course, this is not the only thing to care[br]about. It is quite crucial that there is
0:12:03.100,0:12:08.680
ice there also because the ice, we heard[br]this before in the previous talks, that
0:12:08.680,0:12:15.440
the ice reflects the sun and the less[br]reflection is there, the more warmth is
0:12:15.440,0:12:22.160
being taken up by the earth again. So we[br]have like a feedback system there. Also,
0:12:22.160,0:12:26.600
of course, because of all the... It's not[br]just the ice bear. There's like a whole
0:12:26.600,0:12:33.040
biosphere there. And this biosphere has to[br]somehow survive. Now, the likeliness of an
0:12:33.040,0:12:41.400
ice free Arctic is this graph here of[br]comparing 1.5 degrees - this is this one,
0:12:41.400,0:12:44.610
or these two studies, these are two[br]studies here, one with the dotted line and
0:12:44.610,0:12:50.720
another one with the full line - and 2[br]degrees. And this is how likely it is in a
0:12:50.720,0:12:57.790
certain period of time that this happens.[br]And so you can see, if we consider again
0:12:57.790,0:13:05.890
that it's likely, it's about 45 years it[br]takes for a 1.5 degrees Celsius increase
0:13:05.890,0:13:11.960
that we have an ice free Arctic. So this[br]is actually possible with this increase,
0:13:11.960,0:13:19.490
but it's like once every 45 years. If we[br]go for a 2 degree increase, this one is
0:13:19.490,0:13:25.910
every 10, or, even with the other study,[br]it's more like once every five years that
0:13:25.910,0:13:29.450
this is happening and this is quite[br]frequent. And this, of course, causes
0:13:29.450,0:13:35.810
quite some impact on everything that lives[br]there. Now, this is ice and Arctic.
0:13:35.810,0:13:39.230
There's not so many people living in the[br]Arctic. So there's a lot of further
0:13:39.230,0:13:45.180
studies that have been done. And this, for[br]example, for Africa I will only ...
0:13:45.180,0:13:52.500
because of limited time. I can do this[br]talk for many hours, actually. I will only
0:13:52.500,0:13:58.400
go onto this example here. Extreme heat[br]with record temperatures over close to 50
0:13:58.400,0:14:06.860
degrees and actually even increasing that.[br]That has been there in 2009, 2010 in the
0:14:06.860,0:14:11.350
months from December to February in[br]Africa. These are temperatures where
0:14:11.350,0:14:20.930
people cannot be outside anymore at these[br]temperatures. It's just too hot. And then
0:14:20.930,0:14:24.800
it's showing these curves and these are[br]probability density functions. So these
0:14:24.800,0:14:31.930
curves show how often, like, each of these[br]balconies, I don't know, boxes here are
0:14:31.930,0:14:37.490
showing: How often does this happen? And[br]so here we have "current", the current
0:14:37.490,0:14:43.450
status, that is the temperature from 2006[br]to 2015. That's what they call current. So
0:14:43.450,0:14:48.930
there is already this increase in[br]temperature under these conditions. This
0:14:48.930,0:14:57.540
happens every well, maybe twice every 100[br]years. If we go for 1.5 degrees increase,
0:14:57.540,0:15:02.590
that's the blue line we can see: This is[br]going to happen every more or less third
0:15:02.590,0:15:10.490
year. If we go for 2 degrees, this is[br]going to happen even more often. So this
0:15:10.490,0:15:16.070
is for people living there, it's getting[br]hard to live there. It's just the
0:15:16.070,0:15:24.720
temperature, only that. If we go for, for[br]example, for Australia as an example, that
0:15:24.720,0:15:30.990
we have the same, it's always these[br]curves, here are extreme warm
0:15:30.990,0:15:36.990
temperatures. Well, that's very easy. But[br]in Australia, what's also important there,
0:15:36.990,0:15:44.990
it's the temperature of the water, because[br]of the corals that live there. And hot
0:15:44.990,0:15:51.470
water leads to coral bleaching. So[br]basically, the corals die. And this all,
0:15:51.470,0:15:56.900
of course, as we've seen, the temperature[br]is not every year the same. But there was
0:15:56.900,0:16:02.400
this hot summer and an extreme coral[br]bleaching here. Temperature situation here
0:16:02.400,0:16:10.400
in the summer, in 2012, 2013. And how[br]often does this happen? And we can already
0:16:10.400,0:16:15.000
see here: This would be the natural. So[br]this would be the pre-industrial curve
0:16:15.000,0:16:21.220
here, where this very warm temperatures[br]hardly ever happen. While we can see here
0:16:21.220,0:16:25.740
already: This would be every third year[br]currently, it would be every second year
0:16:25.740,0:16:32.320
in a 1.5 degrees scenario and probably two[br]of three years in a 2 degrees scenario.
0:16:32.320,0:16:36.660
And this means, well, what this means I[br]would go into later. This is an example
0:16:36.660,0:16:42.430
for Europe. well, how often things happen.[br]I don't know if you do, but I always
0:16:42.430,0:16:48.930
remember that one, because I well, I was a[br]lot outside during that period. There was
0:16:48.930,0:16:54.720
a very warm summer we had in 2003. And a[br]lot of people died of that because of the
0:16:54.720,0:17:02.460
heat. I remember being in Cologne at the[br]time and laying outside at 40 degrees and
0:17:02.460,0:17:08.429
I was ill and so I had 40 degrees. So[br]outside 40 degrees was very warm. And so
0:17:08.429,0:17:15.000
naturally, this can happen. It could[br]happen like once every hundred years.
0:17:15.000,0:17:20.149
Currently we have like a situation, well,[br]this would be like every 4th year. And
0:17:20.149,0:17:27.720
this increases then to more than 59% of[br]all the years at 2 degrees Celsius. So
0:17:27.720,0:17:34.891
we're gonna get hot summers. This is the[br]prediction of this study here. Well, what
0:17:34.891,0:17:43.320
does this mean? Well, now I go back to the[br]IPCC reports and the IPCC reports are very
0:17:43.320,0:17:50.360
diplomatic always. And so they have[br]"reasons for concern". And we are all very
0:17:50.360,0:17:55.680
concerned. This sounds very nice, but of[br]course, there's some background to this.
0:17:55.680,0:18:01.790
So they have. And in the summary of this[br]IPCC report from 2018 are there five
0:18:01.790,0:18:07.930
reasons for concern. That's one: unique[br]and threatened systems like corals, or
0:18:07.930,0:18:13.270
extreme weather events. And you can see[br]that does make quite a difference from
0:18:13.270,0:18:19.830
now. And going to warmer temperatures, up[br]here we have the 2 degrees. So you can see
0:18:19.830,0:18:25.480
between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees: That[br]does make quite a difference. Distribution
0:18:25.480,0:18:34.400
of impacts. Basically, this means that[br]those, who suffer most, have contributed
0:18:34.400,0:18:41.370
less. And that's, of course, bad because[br]those who contributed most, well, don't
0:18:41.370,0:18:47.740
suffer as much. And then they won't[br]change. And that's a problem. That's why
0:18:47.740,0:18:54.530
they're concerned on this one. Global[br]aggregate impacts is basically money
0:18:54.530,0:19:03.920
impact. So how much does this cost in the[br]end to to cope with the outcome of this?
0:19:03.920,0:19:12.660
And well, it costs billions of dollars in[br]the end to have a difference between 1.5
0:19:12.660,0:19:19.480
and 2 degrees. Every year, just to cope[br]with the impacts. And then we have large
0:19:19.480,0:19:24.470
scale singular events that could be[br]something like de-icing of Greenland or
0:19:24.470,0:19:29.020
something like that. Well, when that's[br]gone, it's just a singular event because
0:19:29.020,0:19:36.755
it's gone. This is very abstract. So they[br]get a bit closer to that. So warm water
0:19:36.755,0:19:42.070
corals is basically they are having[br]already a problem. Well, I will show this
0:19:42.070,0:19:47.960
later. Well, they expect about 90 percent[br]will die off at 1.5 degrees. Well, they
0:19:47.960,0:19:54.220
will die out at 2 degrees. Most likely.[br]Certain. And this is of course, this is
0:19:54.220,0:20:01.140
a... Well, it's important for nourishment[br]and for people who live from the sea, from
0:20:01.140,0:20:07.750
whatever they fished out of the sea,[br]because corals that's like the childhood
0:20:07.750,0:20:17.029
bed of a lot of fish. So we do get quite[br]an impact in the end on fishery. This is
0:20:17.029,0:20:22.280
why this is so red. Mangroves also get an[br]impact on that, there is about the same
0:20:22.280,0:20:28.620
story. So a lot of small fish grow up[br]there. Well, the Arctic region is getting
0:20:28.620,0:20:34.520
increasing problems with the ice. Well,[br]these are all kind. I will go into this
0:20:34.520,0:20:42.240
later. Coastal flooding will increase from[br]1.5 to 2 degrees. This is, well, flooding
0:20:42.240,0:20:49.590
and rivers and so on. Well, and we'll get[br]some more heat related morbidity. Now,
0:20:49.590,0:20:59.110
there's been a new report this year on[br]land use. And this has been even more into
0:20:59.110,0:21:06.870
this. Now, different scale. Please watch[br]that. So the scale here, it's going up to
0:21:06.870,0:21:15.370
five degrees. And if you look for that,[br]yeah, so it's a bit different. So the
0:21:15.370,0:21:21.559
lower ones, 1.5 and 2 degrees are in[br]there. But problems they see is a dryland
0:21:21.559,0:21:28.429
scarcity and water scarcity in drylands.[br]So that's desertification, a lot
0:21:28.429,0:21:35.360
of that. Soil erosion, which is related to[br]that, vegetation loss is also related to
0:21:35.360,0:21:44.240
that. Yeah, I will come to this later. The[br]wildfire damage, we can see that already
0:21:44.240,0:21:51.020
today. I mean, in the news every time. Now[br]it's Australia and Chile. But before it
0:21:51.020,0:21:57.360
was was more California and so on. So this[br]will go on. This is no coincidence that
0:21:57.360,0:22:04.390
this is happening. We have permafrost[br]degradation. We have a tropical crop yield
0:22:04.390,0:22:09.800
decline. Crop yield is of course... That[br]hurts because well, this leads, of course,
0:22:09.800,0:22:14.570
in the end to food instabilities. And we[br]can see, it does make quite a difference
0:22:14.570,0:22:19.930
already between 1.5 and 2 degrees. But of[br]course, it can get worse. And they... Also
0:22:19.930,0:22:25.010
they are more specific on that, what they[br]mean with this. For example, in wildfire
0:22:25.010,0:22:32.720
damage, they expect an increase in fire[br]weather season currently, over 50%
0:22:32.720,0:22:40.710
increase in the Mediterranean area if it[br]gets above 2 degrees and well, if we go to
0:22:40.710,0:22:47.230
4 or 5 degrees, well, they expect, well,[br]hundreds of million at least, or over 100
0:22:47.230,0:22:53.610
million people additionally exposed. In[br]terms of food supply instabilities: Well,
0:22:53.610,0:22:59.510
what we already see is, well, we have like[br]spikes in the food price. This is not so
0:22:59.510,0:23:04.160
important for us usually. But of course,[br]for people in the world that don't have
0:23:04.160,0:23:12.370
much money and we still have almost it's[br]not quite 1 billion people in the world,
0:23:12.370,0:23:19.490
that live off less than 2$ a day. For such[br]people, this is, of course, quite
0:23:19.490,0:23:28.160
important. If we go closer to 2 degrees,[br]they do expect periodic food shocks across
0:23:28.160,0:23:33.390
regions. So basically that. There will be[br]situations where there will be no food
0:23:33.390,0:23:41.110
available anymore. If we go up to four or[br]five degrees, this would lead to sustained
0:23:41.110,0:23:53.320
food supply distribution problems on a[br]global scale. So this depends on of what
0:23:53.320,0:23:58.059
kind of scenario we are calculating. I[br]will go into this later. One additional
0:23:58.059,0:24:07.250
thing is also to think off on that, we are[br]not only talking about the temperature.
0:24:07.250,0:24:12.931
Also, the water of the oceans take up the[br]CO2, they take up a lot of the CO2, that we
0:24:12.931,0:24:22.990
blow into the air. And this leads to an[br]acidification. And so the pH value of the
0:24:22.990,0:24:30.890
oceans, they decrease and this has an[br]impact on a lot of animals that build up
0:24:30.890,0:24:38.870
calcium carbonate, so shells basically. So[br]all kinds of bi-valves, all kinds of like
0:24:38.870,0:24:45.790
cancers and all that, they depend on[br]building up this calcium carbonate. And if
0:24:45.790,0:24:49.380
they're not able to do this anymore, of[br]course, they don't grow anymore. And they
0:24:49.380,0:24:57.380
are pretty much in the beginning of this[br]food supply, a food chain and the oceans.
0:24:57.380,0:25:05.160
Now, I was reading this 2018 report and[br]somewhere there on page 223, I found them
0:25:05.160,0:25:11.300
this year, where they basically say, ok, we[br]do have this impact and there is this
0:25:11.300,0:25:17.880
aragonite saturation, which is well,[br]basically that's the point, where this
0:25:17.880,0:25:26.010
build up for specific animals is not[br]possible anymore, at this saturation
0:25:26.010,0:25:31.302
point, because the chemical reaction does[br]not work anymore. And this depends on the
0:25:31.302,0:25:35.170
temperature, this depends on the pressure.[br]And the higher the pressure is, the
0:25:35.170,0:25:40.350
earlier this point is reached. Also, the[br]colder the temperature is. And so this is
0:25:40.350,0:25:45.000
what you can see on the right hand side.[br]They investigated this mainly from the
0:25:45.000,0:25:54.500
polar regions on. And so that they... at[br]this point, where this point will reach the
0:25:54.500,0:26:01.030
surface of the ocean from 2030 onwards, so[br]that they're all these animals on the
0:26:01.030,0:26:06.390
surface of the ocean are not building in[br]the polar regions, will have problems to
0:26:06.390,0:26:11.520
build up, actually, their shells in. This[br]has two different impacts, of course, one
0:26:11.520,0:26:17.790
impact, they don't grow anymore. This has[br]a big issue on the food chain in the
0:26:17.790,0:26:23.840
oceans. The second impact is actually that[br]these... This was a one off the carbon
0:26:23.840,0:26:30.810
sinks. They took CO2 and with calcium,[br]they build up these shells and they die
0:26:30.810,0:26:36.690
off at some point and they sink to the[br]ground. And well the CO2 is gone. Well, if
0:26:36.690,0:26:41.240
this is not happening anymore, of course,[br]this type of carbon sink does not work
0:26:41.240,0:26:49.170
anymore. Okay. Now, I've talked about...[br]These are further, I will go skip through
0:26:49.170,0:26:55.629
this quickly. These are all kinds of[br]things that happen. So on this 1.5 degree
0:26:55.629,0:27:01.730
report, they compared for a lot of[br]regions, what will happen. So for 1.5
0:27:01.730,0:27:10.740
degree warming or less, of 1.5 to 2 degrees[br]and 2 to 3 degrees. And there's all kinds
0:27:10.740,0:27:15.080
of things. This is the big table in this[br]report in chapter three. Read these
0:27:15.080,0:27:18.430
reports. Please read these reports.[br]They're good! And they're actually
0:27:18.430,0:27:22.120
scientifically good. I mean, this in terms[br]of if you do it. If you do science, it's
0:27:22.120,0:27:28.020
really really good. Because they have so[br]many so much literature and so many cross
0:27:28.020,0:27:34.770
references and how they do it to be very[br]sure to say, OK, this is what we can say
0:27:34.770,0:27:43.080
with this certainty. This is very, very[br]good science. I think at least. OK. So I
0:27:43.080,0:27:48.530
will not go into all of this. But it has[br]to all kinds of regions severe impacts
0:27:48.530,0:27:55.970
like south east, for South East Asia, for[br]example, they have, you know, this risk of
0:27:55.970,0:28:01.590
increased flooding and they have increased[br]precipitation events and, yes. And, well,
0:28:01.590,0:28:05.320
I think the most significant of this is[br]the significant risk of crop yield
0:28:05.320,0:28:13.610
reductions, which is avoided, if we stay[br]below 1.5 degrees. If we are not staying
0:28:13.610,0:28:22.309
below 1.5 degrees, they estimate 1/3[br]decline in per capita per crop production
0:28:22.309,0:28:32.790
per year, one third less food. That's not[br]good! And if we go even higher, well, this
0:28:32.790,0:28:40.190
is getting worse. For small islands, well,[br]there's actually the small islands are
0:28:40.190,0:28:44.030
well-known, of course, you know, there the[br]sea level is rising, so they have a
0:28:44.030,0:28:48.870
problem. And actually the main problem[br]they have is not that just the water is
0:28:48.870,0:28:56.630
going over the island, but that the salty[br]water is rising and is intruding the fresh
0:28:56.630,0:29:04.210
water reserves they have. So they get a[br]problem with fresh water. And well, this
0:29:04.210,0:29:10.910
is already a problem for them for 1.5[br]degrees, for two degrees, it's like a very
0:29:10.910,0:29:16.430
severe problem. And that's why they are[br]pushing pushing so much for the 1.5
0:29:16.430,0:29:22.160
degrees change maximum. In the[br]Mediterranean, this is very close to where
0:29:22.160,0:29:28.410
we are currently. So they expect a[br]reduction of run-off water, so this is
0:29:28.410,0:29:36.380
rivers, of about 9 percent, it's very[br]likely. Well there's range given, most of
0:29:36.380,0:29:42.450
the time they have this. So there is[br]already a risk of water deficits at 1.5
0:29:42.450,0:29:49.991
degrees increase in temperature. If we[br]increase further, we reach about... at up
0:29:49.991,0:29:59.840
to 2 degrees, we have about 17% less water[br]in the rivers. This is, of course, not
0:29:59.840,0:30:06.280
good. I mean, I mean, especially I mean,[br]okay, in Germany, for example, there's a
0:30:06.280,0:30:15.010
lot of food coming from Spain. And well,[br]they do already have a problem with their
0:30:15.010,0:30:24.631
crops, with water for their crops. And[br]this is getting worse. West Africa and
0:30:24.631,0:30:31.299
Sahel. Well, there is a prediction. Well,[br]there's a prediction of, well, less
0:30:31.299,0:30:43.210
suitable land for maize production by 1.5[br]degrees already by 40% less land. 40%.
0:30:43.210,0:30:51.010
That's a lot. It's not the region where[br]people already have a huge surplus in food
0:30:51.010,0:30:59.120
everyday. So there is an increase in risk[br]for undernutrition already. For 1.5
0:30:59.120,0:31:06.330
degrees in. If we increase, well, this just[br]getting absurd in a way, it says higher
0:31:06.330,0:31:12.840
risk undernutrition, of course, because[br]it's going to get worse. Apart from this,
0:31:12.840,0:31:21.120
that it's too hot to go outside anyways.[br]Well, for southern Africa, it's similar.
0:31:21.120,0:31:26.010
It's not as drastic. So there is already[br]the high risk for undernutrition in
0:31:26.010,0:31:31.330
communities dependent on dryland[br]especially. So savanna areas which are
0:31:31.330,0:31:38.250
rather dry. And this is getting worse[br]again. Well, in the tropics, also, there
0:31:38.250,0:31:43.000
is a risk to tropical crop yields. We[br]already heard that on the other side. On
0:31:43.000,0:31:47.860
the other side, it's also there, these[br]extreme heat waves they're going to face.
0:31:47.860,0:31:57.460
So this is like this was a table and there[br]was a lot of, well, details of what they
0:31:57.460,0:32:03.260
expect from 1.5 to 2 degrees. Now what[br]scientists, scientists are a bit strange
0:32:03.260,0:32:07.939
sometimes because they are also then doing[br]their science and they look at different
0:32:07.939,0:32:13.600
things. And one thing they are actually[br]now worried about, and this is, actually
0:32:13.600,0:32:20.080
it is worrisome, very worrisome, is that[br]actually, well, climate change has been
0:32:20.080,0:32:27.850
always there, because that's been like a[br]cycle and this the so-called interglacial
0:32:27.850,0:32:32.720
cycle the earth has been going through.[br]This has to do with the position to the
0:32:32.720,0:32:38.200
sun and a lot of feedback systems that[br]kick in. If you cool the earth, you have
0:32:38.200,0:32:43.210
more ice build up, then you have more sun[br]being reflected again. You have less
0:32:43.210,0:32:47.620
energy that stays on the surface of the[br]earth and then it gets colder and colder
0:32:47.620,0:32:51.829
and colder up to a certain point where[br]this changes again and goes back. And this
0:32:51.829,0:32:58.780
has been going on for hundreds of years.[br]And the point is, now we've left the
0:32:58.780,0:33:05.559
cycle. And this is the part that's shown[br]up here, that basically we are now on a
0:33:05.559,0:33:09.880
completely different trajectory. And[br]that's the trajectory that is we're
0:33:09.880,0:33:14.289
heating this up and the Earth is[br]responding. And it's also heating itself
0:33:14.289,0:33:21.080
up. And so we are on the path and it's not[br]quite clear. So they built this. They show
0:33:21.080,0:33:28.460
this, this graph here, there is actually[br]the possibility that the earth will go on
0:33:28.460,0:33:36.190
this path to heat itself up without us[br]even. And this is called tipping points.
0:33:36.190,0:33:40.710
So there are several things that happen[br]there. That is, for example, the melting
0:33:40.710,0:33:48.059
or thawing of the permafrost. There is[br]methane hydrates in the ocean storage that
0:33:48.059,0:33:56.360
might be triggered to evolve. There will[br]be a reduction of CO2 intake in the
0:33:56.360,0:34:01.580
oceans. Currently, a lot of CO2 is taken[br]into the oceans, but this will get less
0:34:01.580,0:34:10.089
and less. the more saturation comes in[br]there. We have a die-off of rainforests.
0:34:10.089,0:34:15.310
So. Well, last summer we've seen they have[br]a lot of rainforest burning in the
0:34:15.310,0:34:20.990
Amazons. But this will also happen by the[br]increase of temperature without human
0:34:20.990,0:34:28.039
impact. And in this paper here by Steffen[br]and some others, they said they estimate
0:34:28.039,0:34:39.720
about a rainforest reduction of up to 40%[br]by an increase of of up to 1.5 degrees
0:34:39.720,0:34:47.750
anyways. So we gonna lose rainforest, a[br]lot of rainforest already like that. We
0:34:47.750,0:34:53.170
have a die-off in the boreal forest. This[br]was this summer in Siberia. Well, they
0:34:53.170,0:35:00.160
just don't die off. They get burned. And[br]there are other reasons why they die. And
0:35:00.160,0:35:05.920
so there's a lot of CO2 going to be[br]emitted from forests that are where carbon
0:35:05.920,0:35:12.130
starts currently into the atmosphere. We[br]have a reduction of ice and snow. So
0:35:12.130,0:35:18.690
there's less reflection of the sun into[br]the atmosphere again. And we have a
0:35:18.690,0:35:22.620
reduction of ice warming, so we have an[br]increase in sea level. And this whole
0:35:22.620,0:35:33.450
thing, this is like a communicating[br]system. And one thing triggered, will
0:35:33.450,0:35:42.580
trigger something else. This is sometimes[br]goes by circulations, also by ocean
0:35:42.580,0:35:48.960
circulation and so on. So one thing can[br]trigger the next thing and this might
0:35:48.960,0:35:56.190
trigger the next thing and this will go[br]on. And if this happens, at a certain
0:35:56.190,0:36:03.500
time, at a certain intensity, then we will[br]not have as a human beings with the
0:36:03.500,0:36:10.320
current technology and technology we have,[br]we will not be able to stop that. And
0:36:10.320,0:36:15.230
that's what they are worried about, so[br]these climate scientists, that we should
0:36:15.230,0:36:24.520
not get these tipping points to go too[br]strong. They are already...This is
0:36:24.520,0:36:30.390
already... These are processes that can be[br]already seen, but... Well, currently they
0:36:30.390,0:36:37.200
are on a level where it's, well, it's bad.[br]There was actually 4 weeks ago this paper
0:36:37.200,0:36:43.280
published in Nature Climate Change, where[br]they said, well, we might be wrong with
0:36:43.280,0:36:48.960
our estimation here with this 100[br]gigatons, because these tipping points are
0:36:48.960,0:36:54.490
worse than we thought. So we are actually[br]further there more on the upper limits of
0:36:54.490,0:37:06.320
the bounds where we thought it would be.[br]Yes. So these are very worrisome
0:37:06.320,0:37:16.010
situations. Now, this should trigger us to[br]do something about it, and that's actually
0:37:16.010,0:37:23.760
the point. So things need to be done. But[br]up to now, well, things have not been
0:37:23.760,0:37:30.980
done. But this is like they see it, the[br]climate, greenhouse gas emissions curves
0:37:30.980,0:37:39.320
from 1970 to 2010. And we can see that not[br]only that the curve has been increasing
0:37:39.320,0:37:47.609
more or less the whole period, but also[br]the increase has increased from 2000 on.
0:37:47.609,0:37:59.540
And the main increase here is by CO2. The[br]other gas is here methane. There is a...
0:37:59.540,0:38:07.690
nitrogen gases up here. And well there are[br]CO2 from well, agriculture, forestry and
0:38:07.690,0:38:12.890
land use, this is here. They are more or[br]less constant. Sometimes there are spikes
0:38:12.890,0:38:19.280
like this. Most likely this is like[br]rainforest burning. The only year in the
0:38:19.280,0:38:23.040
recent years where there has been a[br]decrease also in the CO2 emissions was in
0:38:23.040,0:38:32.270
the economic crisis in 2008. Well, there[br]actually was a decrease by 4 percent.
0:38:32.270,0:38:40.840
Yeah. Now, nevertheless, the scientists[br]went on and said: OK, let's calculate, how
0:38:40.840,0:38:46.360
can we manage to get to 1.5 degrees and[br]there are different scenarios. Some say,
0:38:46.360,0:38:53.030
OK, let's go to get to 1.5 degrees. Some[br]say, OK, maybe we need to get to a higher
0:38:53.030,0:38:58.480
temperature and later on change that again[br]to get to 1.5 degrees. So there are all
0:38:58.480,0:39:08.660
kinds of scenarios that you can calculate.[br]Now, if we say, we use this CDR, this is
0:39:08.660,0:39:15.270
carbon dioxide removal. We don't have[br]that. And we say, we use the exponential
0:39:15.270,0:39:23.260
curve each year. We do reduce this the[br]same percentage of our emissions and we
0:39:23.260,0:39:31.349
want to get to 1.5 degrees. And this was[br]the curve from 2018. So we should have
0:39:31.349,0:39:38.460
started this year to reduce our CO2[br]emission by 18% each year globally, 18%,
0:39:38.460,0:39:47.910
if we want to reach 1.5 degrees. If we[br]want to be, we reach 2 degrees, it's still
0:39:47.910,0:39:57.400
5 percent each year. 5 percent. If we do[br]this for Germany, by this, and I think
0:39:57.400,0:40:00.500
this is the most important figure. It's[br]not as important like politicians always
0:40:00.500,0:40:06.020
say, are yeah, by this year, we want to[br]reduce our emissions by 50 percent or
0:40:06.020,0:40:10.349
something like that. But this does not[br]tell you what happens but 2030, what
0:40:10.349,0:40:18.370
happens until 2030? Right? So it's very[br]important to keep in mind that it's likely
0:40:18.370,0:40:24.200
we have a budget and this is actually from[br]a paper, it's global carbon budgets. They
0:40:24.200,0:40:31.870
say they publish each year, how much[br]budget do we have left to to emit? And so
0:40:31.870,0:40:37.300
if we take this budget and say, OK, this[br]is our budget. How are we gonna spend to
0:40:37.300,0:40:42.760
spend going to spend our carbon budget?[br]And this is something that we should ask
0:40:42.760,0:40:47.110
all the politicians. What do you think is[br]your budget? Why do you think this is your
0:40:47.110,0:40:54.750
budget? And there's been actually an[br]article by by climate scientists Stefan
0:40:54.750,0:40:58.850
Ramsdorf in the Spiegel. Where he said,[br]OK, let's estimate we have more than seven
0:40:58.850,0:41:04.210
point about seven point three gigatons CO2[br]overall budget to Germany. And we could
0:41:04.210,0:41:10.089
say if we want to reach one point five[br]degrees, this would mean we continue our
0:41:10.089,0:41:14.910
share of emissions, which would be in[br]Germany, which is like double the average
0:41:14.910,0:41:20.491
of the rest of the world. And we'd say,[br]OK, we have the right to blow out in the
0:41:20.491,0:41:26.270
air twice as much as the average person in[br]the world. Then we still would have 1.5
0:41:26.270,0:41:31.510
gigatons CO2 in Germany to[br]emit. And how are we gonna do that? That's
0:41:31.510,0:41:36.850
the question. Are we do we have this in[br]mind? Of course we can calculate this down
0:41:36.850,0:41:44.730
to each person in Germany. So we end up[br]with about 40 tons per person. So each of
0:41:44.730,0:41:51.030
us can also think of this. I have 40 now,[br]90 tons here. Sorry, 90 tons. That is to
0:41:51.030,0:42:01.319
emit. How am I gonna spend this until the[br]end of my life? Now, if we go back to this
0:42:01.319,0:42:08.530
report, then we have different scenarios.[br]And as you can see, there are different
0:42:08.530,0:42:15.200
ways of doing that. And these are[br]different economic scenarios. So and you
0:42:15.200,0:42:19.070
can see already, that most of these[br]scenarios do have negative emissions at
0:42:19.070,0:42:25.980
some points. Actually, all of them have.[br]Some of them include carbon capture and
0:42:25.980,0:42:32.310
storage here shown as BECCS. And[br]depending on what kind of economic
0:42:32.310,0:42:40.619
scenario you go for, this is more or less.[br]And here it's like up to about 20 gigatons
0:42:40.619,0:42:48.190
per year to be stored in the ground. The[br]green part here, agriculture, forestry and
0:42:48.190,0:42:54.109
land use and other land use. This also, of[br]course, you can reduce CO2 by planting
0:42:54.109,0:43:00.200
trees. This is actually a very efficient[br]way of doing that. But of course, the land
0:43:00.200,0:43:07.839
land area is limited. And this is also[br]true for other things. And of course, the
0:43:07.839,0:43:13.140
land area we can use is decreasing due to[br]climate change. It could always should
0:43:13.140,0:43:22.580
always keep this in mind. Now. The base of[br]all these scenarios, they put this again
0:43:22.580,0:43:27.930
into a table and and puts and I put some[br]pictures to that. So they say: If we want
0:43:27.930,0:43:32.450
to reach to 1.5 degrees, what[br]we have to do, we need a rapid and
0:43:32.450,0:43:40.200
profound near-term decarbonisation of our[br]energy supply. So basically, we have to be
0:43:40.200,0:43:46.380
very, very quick and change our energy[br]supply. This has to be. That's the first
0:43:46.380,0:43:51.590
part. The second part, we need greater[br]mitigation efforts and the demand side. So
0:43:51.590,0:44:02.680
we have to use less and get smaller with[br]things. Third part is well we do have to
0:44:02.680,0:44:13.730
do this within the next 10 years, so we[br]cannot wait. This is very, very urgent.
0:44:13.730,0:44:18.540
Well, this is actually a table that looks[br]like this is a bit, sorry for that. So the
0:44:18.540,0:44:22.849
main thing is that the additional[br]reductions come from CO2 emissions because
0:44:22.849,0:44:28.579
the other greenhouse gas house gases are[br]already included in the two degrees
0:44:28.579,0:44:37.400
scenarios. We need to invest differently,[br]so investment patterns have to change
0:44:37.400,0:44:44.410
strongly. What we also, they are the best[br]options actually for one point five degree
0:44:44.410,0:44:52.660
scenarios are the ones that go with the[br]sustainable development, because if people
0:44:52.660,0:44:59.270
don't have food to eat, they don't have[br]the chance to take care of the climate
0:44:59.270,0:45:07.200
anymore, because first they are trying to[br]survive. So we do have to also care about
0:45:07.200,0:45:16.230
how people can live on this planet. This[br]helps protecting the climate. Well, then
0:45:16.230,0:45:22.300
they say, OK, we probably have to think of[br]climate, the carbon dioxide removal
0:45:22.300,0:45:26.129
somehow at the mit summit of the century.[br]What's the myth of the centuries? So this
0:45:26.129,0:45:31.050
has to be implemented now. And what we[br]also have to do is, we have to switch from
0:45:31.050,0:45:38.240
fossil fuels to electricity and the end[br]user sector. Now CDR, carbon dioxide
0:45:38.240,0:45:44.310
dioxide removal, I will say about that.[br]This is, of course, agriculture, forestry
0:45:44.310,0:45:50.750
and land use. That's very easy planting[br]trees. Then there is BECK. So you use by
0:45:50.750,0:45:58.670
basically biomass to produce some some gas[br]and then you capture the CO2 from burning
0:45:58.670,0:46:03.020
the gas and press this into ground and[br]carbon capture and storage. Or what you can
0:46:03.020,0:46:12.050
also do is use direct air capture as where[br]you use it. These are like these machines.
0:46:12.050,0:46:19.430
So they take CO2 from the air and then you[br]have to store it. And you can see it's such
0:46:19.430,0:46:27.109
a machine here. This was like a model at[br]the time. So these are these have been
0:46:27.109,0:46:33.599
already existing models. This. So[br]basically this can be take 1000 tons of
0:46:33.599,0:46:40.990
CO2 per year. So if we want to go for[br]gigatons, then we would have to build
0:46:40.990,0:46:48.510
millions of these in the end. Problem [br]with that, it's a bit and discuss
0:46:48.510,0:46:58.890
also in this report. So. So basically. So[br]we have an energy usage of that by
0:46:58.890,0:47:06.120
12.9 gigajoules per tonns CO2. So[br]basically, if we want to use put down 15
0:47:06.120,0:47:12.570
tons of 15 gigatonnes of CO2 per year by[br]this, which was in one of the scenarios, we
0:47:12.570,0:47:19.440
would need about 1/4 of the global[br]energy supply only for atmospheric waste
0:47:19.440,0:47:25.590
management. It's called like this. And the[br]funny thing, this was like a professor. We
0:47:25.590,0:47:29.680
had them in our university here in[br]Oldenburg and he he gave this
0:47:29.680,0:47:34.380
presentation. He said, yeah, this sounds[br]so crazy, but the climate change will hurt
0:47:34.380,0:47:44.960
you so much. This will be done. Yeah. And[br]BECCs, that's a different way of doing
0:47:44.960,0:47:51.040
that with a bio gas. So the thing is, if[br]we want to have that at large scale, it
0:47:51.040,0:48:00.000
requires huge amounts of land use to[br]produce this amount of biogas. And the
0:48:00.000,0:48:05.610
other drawback is, of course, that you do[br]have to take care of your storage systems
0:48:05.610,0:48:12.360
to avoid the gas to come out because.[br]Well, CO2 is hard. Is has a higher density
0:48:12.360,0:48:19.470
than than oxygen. And it goes so, it stays[br]on the ground, if there is no wind. And if
0:48:19.470,0:48:26.140
people live there, you don't have anything[br]to breathe anymore. Now, there are, of
0:48:26.140,0:48:30.800
course, different sectors. This for the[br]EU, for example, where where the
0:48:30.800,0:48:37.440
greenhouse gases come from. So the main[br]parts are, of course, agriculture. There
0:48:37.440,0:48:45.270
is transport and the energy industry and[br]this. But there's also other industries.
0:48:45.270,0:48:49.160
And it's important to keep in mind that[br]this is not equal of all different
0:48:49.160,0:48:55.880
countries. But it is also distributed to a[br]dependent strongly on on the income of the
0:48:55.880,0:49:00.590
people in the countries. So the high so-[br]called high income countries here, they
0:49:00.590,0:49:06.910
have the highest share in the CO2[br]emissions by the MID. So so-called
0:49:06.910,0:49:15.230
emerging countries, they're almost at the[br]same level now. While low income
0:49:15.230,0:49:20.270
countries. They mainly have a CO2[br]emissions here from agricultural land land
0:49:20.270,0:49:26.340
use. So the question is, can we make it to[br]one point five degrees? That's a good
0:49:26.340,0:49:33.050
question. So there have been a lot of[br]studies like. Like for Germany and the EU.
0:49:33.050,0:49:41.160
Either on like energy infrastructure,[br]for example, or the whole system. There
0:49:41.160,0:49:49.890
was one study from this year. They looked[br]for 95 percent CO2 reduction by 2050.
0:49:49.890,0:49:55.650
There was one study currently just read[br]you released for the complete EU and
0:49:55.650,0:50:05.500
greenhouse gas neutral EU by 2050. And so[br]obviously, technically there is this
0:50:05.500,0:50:12.240
assumption that this is possible. One main[br]thing of that is, that we have to go far
0:50:12.240,0:50:17.000
more efficient. And one thing and that is[br]use electricity, because electricity is
0:50:17.000,0:50:22.710
very efficient in many things. So[br]currently the prime currently prime energy
0:50:22.710,0:50:27.320
consumption in Germany is about two[br]thousand 3200 terawatt hours
0:50:27.320,0:50:31.640
in total. And the assumption [br]for 2050 where they have this
0:50:31.640,0:50:43.619
100 percent or 95 percent reduction would[br]be 1300 terawatt hours or by the other
0:50:43.619,0:50:49.620
study was even less than that. That[br]depends a bit on the mixture they use. The
0:50:49.620,0:50:54.760
reason for that is, for example, that the[br]efficiency, for example, of battery driven
0:50:54.760,0:51:01.360
cars is much higher than the one, those of[br]combustion driven or other methods. So it
0:51:01.360,0:51:09.050
really depends on which technology you put[br]into use on how good you get. On the EU
0:51:09.050,0:51:16.640
level, that looks a bit like this. So[br]there demand and supply today. And this
0:51:16.640,0:51:23.440
would be, so the reduction is not quite as[br]large, but that would be as they still
0:51:23.440,0:51:30.460
assume that we can reach this type of[br]reduction if we want to. Nevertheless,
0:51:30.460,0:51:40.060
they are not assuming 100 percent CO2[br]free. But they calculate with negative
0:51:40.060,0:51:47.630
emissions by agriculture and forestry. So[br]this is actually in these calculations and
0:51:47.630,0:51:52.901
I really like the one by Robinius and so[br]on. That's the lower one because they
0:51:52.901,0:51:59.260
actually calculated completely with[br]storage systems, with electricity grids
0:51:59.260,0:52:02.960
and all that and how much needs to be[br]invested into this. This is a very
0:52:02.960,0:52:08.290
detailed study. Very, very good one. So[br]this actually technically possible and
0:52:08.290,0:52:12.780
they even calculated this. What happens in[br]the so-called "Dunkelflaute". That's the
0:52:12.780,0:52:18.690
German word for there is no wind and no[br]sun in the winter for a period of time.
0:52:18.690,0:52:24.420
And what happens? And this can actually.[br]And that's what all they assume is that we
0:52:24.420,0:52:29.589
do have a lot of storage for gas and we[br]can use these curr, current strategic
0:52:29.589,0:52:36.440
storage, as for gas in the future to store[br]power to to gas, gas or gas that's won by
0:52:36.440,0:52:44.490
electricity there as a backup. So[br]basically, technically, this is possible.
0:52:44.490,0:52:52.520
So to conclude, so the climate system is[br]already at a critical stage. The prospect
0:52:52.520,0:52:58.650
for a one point five degree warmer [br]earth are already very bitter. And
0:52:58.650,0:53:03.530
while the IPCC reports and all the[br]reports, they are they are they. All of
0:53:03.530,0:53:08.910
them go for it. If you would not exceed 2[br]degrees because we have this thing of the
0:53:08.910,0:53:16.710
tipping points. And several reasons[br]we already have this two degrees. Yeah,
0:53:16.710,0:53:22.840
this carbon dioxide removal is presented.[br]Basically, this is hard to avoid. But
0:53:22.840,0:53:31.339
there are these critical things concerning[br]carbon capture and storage. And whatever
0:53:31.339,0:53:37.010
we need to do is we have to act fast, and[br]that's the main thing. This has to be done
0:53:37.010,0:53:49.550
very quickly. And I must say I'm very[br]sorry. But our government's. Well, yes...
0:53:49.550,0:53:58.990
applause
0:53:58.990,0:54:04.230
So it is not a technical[br]issue. It is a political one. Yes.
0:54:04.230,0:54:05.200
Thank you.
0:54:05.200,0:54:08.450
applause
0:54:08.450,0:54:14.010
Herald: Bernhard, I thank you very much.[br]We have eight minutes for questions. So we
0:54:14.010,0:54:17.310
have a couple of microhones here and the[br]whole. Please line up over there. We have
0:54:17.310,0:54:22.490
those eight minutes. I'm sure there will[br]be questions. The signal angel is
0:54:22.490,0:54:29.450
signaling over there, that we have a[br]question from the Internet.
0:54:29.450,0:54:34.339
Question: Do you see nuclear power plants[br]as a temporary solution to slow the
0:54:34.339,0:54:40.410
emission of CO2 and we had quite some[br]discussion in the Internet. There was
0:54:40.410,0:54:45.599
number one answered. You need more than 10[br]years to build new nuclear power plants.
0:54:45.599,0:54:50.790
And the response was, well, you could we[br]get the shutdown once back on the power
0:54:50.790,0:54:54.050
line. So is that the realistic scenario,[br]in your view?
0:54:54.050,0:54:59.150
Bernhard: Well, there is actually this[br]this is a current discussion going on. And
0:54:59.150,0:55:05.230
the issue with that is, it's not that easy[br]to us to get old power plants back into
0:55:05.230,0:55:11.010
running. Because, well, they have a certain[br]type of lifetime. And if you want to put
0:55:11.010,0:55:15.499
them back on into the into the system,[br]then you somehow would have to exceed the
0:55:15.499,0:55:21.690
lifetime. And that are some, of course,[br]some security issues. And if you want to
0:55:21.690,0:55:27.260
avoid them, then you have to put a lot of[br]money and effort into getting them to run.
0:55:27.260,0:55:32.740
And you need also a lot of time to do[br]that. And so this the question is, would
0:55:32.740,0:55:40.560
this be worth it? And I would say probably[br]they are faster methods to do it. You
0:55:40.560,0:55:46.410
could do it. There are, of course, the[br]risk and I mean after Fukushima and
0:55:46.410,0:55:54.420
Chernobyl. Basically, we we've all seen[br]what the risks are. So and I would say
0:55:54.420,0:56:00.030
it's probably not the best and fastest way[br]to do it. There are other ways they could
0:56:00.030,0:56:02.900
be worth doing it.[br]Herald: OK. Then we're going to hop over
0:56:02.900,0:56:06.839
to microphone number one.[br]Mic 1: First, I want to thank you for
0:56:06.839,0:56:11.590
your talk. It was very informative. And[br]yeah, my question is as follows. There was
0:56:11.590,0:56:17.380
a talk at the university where I study in[br]Darmstadt one and a half years ago from a
0:56:17.380,0:56:23.620
person who compared the IPCC predictions[br]with what really happened with the real
0:56:23.620,0:56:28.510
temperature increase and the damage which[br]causes the climate change. And what she
0:56:28.510,0:56:35.170
found out that the IPCC always, nearly[br]always underestimated the effect of the
0:56:35.170,0:56:41.329
temperature increase and what it causes.[br]Have you ever heard of this criticism and
0:56:41.329,0:56:49.351
do you think this is still the case?[br]Bernhard: I hope not. The issue is, of
0:56:49.351,0:56:59.290
course, that the IPCC reports, as always,[br]very, very carefully taking decisions and
0:56:59.290,0:57:04.630
is very carefully looking at this. And[br]there are more conservative and the rather
0:57:04.630,0:57:11.079
are lower than the than the actual[br]temperatures in the end, probably because
0:57:11.079,0:57:16.250
there is, of course, also a lot of[br]pressure, political pressure on them. And
0:57:16.250,0:57:21.940
so if they would predict something and[br]they would over predict, then people would
0:57:21.940,0:57:27.930
immediately say, come and say, hey, you[br]are doing panicking and so on. And so
0:57:27.930,0:57:36.130
that's why it is most likely that they try[br]to be as accurate as possible. But they
0:57:36.130,0:57:42.820
rather choose the lower the. The lower[br]estimates.
0:57:42.820,0:57:46.460
Question: Yeah. That was the[br]serious thing as well.
0:57:46.460,0:57:50.569
Bernhard: That's let's say it's a very[br]it's a I mean in the end it's this summary
0:57:50.569,0:57:56.550
for policymakers. I showed some slides[br]from that. That is actually voted on by
0:57:56.550,0:58:04.130
the buyer of governmental agents. So they[br]bring this intergovernmental round of the
0:58:04.130,0:58:11.110
U.N. They are a U.N. entity. And so and[br]the governments actually say you have to
0:58:11.110,0:58:17.460
approve this. And so that's why it's very,[br]very diplomatic. And the terms of. So they
0:58:17.460,0:58:22.880
are doing reasons for concern, you know.[br]So it's I mean, people are concerned about
0:58:22.880,0:58:26.410
all kinds of things. Thanks.[br]Herald: All right, then we hope over to
0:58:26.410,0:58:29.750
microphone two, please.[br]Mic 2: OK. First, thank you for your
0:58:29.750,0:58:36.141
talk. All good mood is gone now. And if[br]it's mainly a political problem, do you
0:58:36.141,0:58:41.940
have any idea how we can force politicians[br]to make the right decisions now? Because
0:58:41.940,0:58:45.960
what we are doing at the moment, like[br]protesting and voting, doesn't seem to
0:58:45.960,0:58:52.660
work.[br]Berhard: Well, I some applause I think
0:58:52.660,0:58:58.099
actually I'm very happy because I think[br]protesting works, but it does not work in
0:58:58.099,0:59:04.120
the same way that people who usually take[br]it to the streets think it works. It puts
0:59:04.120,0:59:08.609
a lot of pressure onto them. But it's one[br]pressure on. They also have pressure from
0:59:08.609,0:59:13.530
other sites, you know, and then they look[br]at, you know, what are the my voters. And
0:59:13.530,0:59:19.289
if their voters, are not the ones that are[br]on the streets. Well, they might be not as
0:59:19.289,0:59:26.319
important. And so I think the main thing[br]is that needs to be done is to go out to
0:59:26.319,0:59:32.470
the people. And thus going to the street[br]is one way of doing that. And tell that,
0:59:32.470,0:59:37.460
you know, and talk to the people and talk[br]especially to those who are not there on
0:59:37.460,0:59:42.369
the streets yet. Well, the potential[br]voters of those who think, well, I don't
0:59:42.369,0:59:46.930
have to care so much about because these[br]are not my voters. And we just have to go
0:59:46.930,0:59:52.470
out and talk. And I think this will put up[br]the pressure together with taking it to
0:59:52.470,0:59:57.780
the streets and protesting and doing[br]whatever talking to politicians. I mean,
0:59:57.780,1:00:02.779
we have a you know, Angela Merkel is our[br]our chancellor in Germany, and she is a
1:00:02.779,1:00:08.280
physicist. I mean, she knows I mean, this[br]is she understands all this. You know,
1:00:08.280,1:00:13.900
it's not that she doesn't know. It's just[br]the pressure from the wrong side yet.
1:00:13.900,1:00:18.180
Herald: All right. And we have time for[br]one last question. Microphone three,
1:00:18.180,1:00:20.960
please.[br]Mic 3: Yes. Thank you very much for my
1:00:20.960,1:00:25.380
side, for the informative talk. From the[br]description of the talk, I was expecting
1:00:25.380,1:00:30.520
more on the, it said something about the[br]resilience, about climate skepticism. Yes.
1:00:30.520,1:00:35.180
To be more resilient about their[br]arguments. And I was in discussion with
1:00:35.180,1:00:40.880
many other people, also climate skepticism[br]and they sometimes said, they didn't
1:00:40.880,1:00:44.970
criticize the entropy eugenic. Well, they[br]didn't criticize the climate change at
1:00:44.970,1:00:49.500
all. But the anthropogenic part of it. And[br]what they said that there is like an
1:00:49.500,1:00:54.020
increase of solar activity the last[br]decades, which increases to the
1:00:54.020,1:01:00.540
temperature. And that also like the[br]diagram is like only from 1860. But if you
1:01:00.540,1:01:06.390
consider like the last millennials, there[br]have been higher values of CO2 in the
1:01:06.390,1:01:10.701
atmosphere, but the temperature did not[br]correlate. So how do you argue with this,
1:01:10.701,1:01:15.680
this kind of argument?[br]Berhard: Yes, that's a good one. Yeah. I
1:01:15.680,1:01:25.430
didn't go into these these because they[br]are the sometimes the easy ones. But the
1:01:25.430,1:01:38.329
thing is that there are... I did this talk[br]this way because it helps. If you go into.
1:01:38.329,1:01:42.500
Climate, skeptics say this and they say a[br]lot of different things. If I could do a
1:01:42.500,1:01:50.210
whole talk on what climate skeptics say.[br]If you do that, then in the end, people
1:01:50.210,1:01:58.790
keep in mind, oh, yeah, this there is some[br]skepticism on this. And this is, I did a
1:01:58.790,1:02:05.660
lot of these things because by this now[br]people can go out and say, OK, this is
1:02:05.660,1:02:10.540
currently the state of the art of the[br]research. I did not go into the climate
1:02:10.540,1:02:15.480
skeptic detailed answers. Of course there[br]are. I mean, I can make, for example,
1:02:15.480,1:02:20.480
thunder radiation is already in the[br]climate models, the changes in thunder
1:02:20.480,1:02:25.420
radiations. The variations of the[br]centuries before actually being
1:02:25.420,1:02:31.050
precalculators in the climate models[br]currently, because only if you're able to
1:02:31.050,1:02:37.170
run if you if you're able to mimic that in[br]climate models today, for today, all of
1:02:37.170,1:02:42.900
the past. If you're able to do that, then[br]you're able to do to run it for the
1:02:42.900,1:02:48.280
future. And this is how climate models[br]work. And so all this, all these
1:02:48.280,1:02:53.620
variations are taking in. So I'm sorry.[br]Herald: Oh, time is up.
1:02:53.620,1:02:57.450
Bernhard: But we can talk about this also[br]later on. I didn't get too much to the
1:02:57.450,1:03:01.110
climate skeptics now. So much.[br]Herald: All right. We don't have time for
1:03:01.110,1:03:06.840
any more questions, Bernard. Applause[br]That's your Applaus, thank you very much.
1:03:06.840,1:03:13.240
postroll music
1:03:13.240,1:03:33.830
Subtitles created by c3subtitles.de[br]in the year 2020. Join, and help us!