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