Have this conversation. [laughter] [applause] [laughter] thank you. And linderman was not a top ranking scientist but he was, of churchills social class and political convictions, and most usefully he was skilled in the art of flattery. When criticized for his unhealthy closeness to linderman, churchill responded love me, love my dog. Even so, churchill always retained a healthy skepticism. In a 1937 article published oddly enough in the news of the world, the article titled live in a world controlled by scientists, churchill wrote, there are secrets to mysterious man in his presence taken no. Secrets which once penetrated may be fatal to Human Happiness and glory. But the busy hands of the scientists are already fumbling with the keys of all the chambers hitherto forbidden to mankind. I think the words have a very contemporary relevance. While perhaps not all would today concur to churchills conviction that our rooms best left a lot. I think most would agree with him that moral development, self control and legal institutions led well behind our formidable scientific insight and technological prowess. It would be much better, churchill declared, to call a halt in material progress and discovery rather than to be mastered by our own apparatus, our own technology and the forces which it directs. A engineered world would be one in which the conditions of our daily life are set by experts far away where human nobility, as churchill might have put it come is no longer possible, but only because we would be inhabiting an artificial world but because we made it necessary to inhabit an artificial world. Given that humans are proposing to engineer the climate because of a cascade of institutional failures and self interest behaviors, any suggestion that the deployment of a social will be done in a way that fulfilled the strongest principles of justice and compassion would lack credibility, to say the least. We find ourselves in a situation where you engineering has been proposed because of our penchant for deceiving ourselves and inflating our virtues. Fhs Global Solution cannot be found, who can believe in a just geoengineering regime. David conference for the solar system would more effectively in some parts of the world than in others. In some areas it may exacerbate drought. In others, floods. The temptation of those who control the heat shield to manipulate it anyway to put their own interests first would be ever present and almost irresistible. No wonder nations of the south are leading early moves mainly to the convention of biological diversity to impose restrictions on Geoengineering Research. So whatever the motives and professionalism of Geoengineering Research is, and i certainly dont question davids, the idea is already attracting a range of actors with a diversity of purpose and standpoint, not all of them admirable. I think its naive of researchers to imagine that they can isolate themselves in a cocoon of scientific neutrality, nor can they absolve themselves of responsibility for how their schemes might be used or misused in the future. We are, after all, talking about technologies designed to regulate the condition of life. Once the political corporate and military players become involved, the transfer the transfer experts will is how control of how its used. Actually i think its more complicated than that. Those experts, when it comes to crunch, will have a choice to go with the authorities plan or to get out. The exemplars here i think are Robert Oppenheimer and again Edward Teller. Both of whom play vital roles in the Manhattan Project to build the first a ton of weapons. Oppenheimer, often called the father of the atom bomb, spent much of the post hiroshima years trying to mimic the spread of Nuclear Weapons. So while oppenheimer worked to restrain the monster that it helped to create and thereby earned the ire of the authorities, Edward Teller worked to place himself at the very center of a Nuclear Arms Race and attain the kind of power that country and of by other scientists. And he could do so because he was the most aggressive advocate of Nuclear Weapons. Including the use of Nuclear Explosions for Civil Engineering projects creating new harbors with nuclear bombs, for example. When controlling the World Climate become central to the exercise of global strategic and military power as Nuclear Weapons did in the postwar era, which part will today Geoengineering Research is take, oppenheimers or turn once . If davids efficacy persuades one or more governments to embark on it and Global Climate control becomes a strategic weapon, or if it goes badly wrong but is pursued nevertheless where it will where will it stand . Lets go a bit deeper on the politics of geoengineering. Because i think it goes to the very heart of anxieties that many people have about embarking on solar geoengineering. Failures of political structures and moral weaknesses have prevented us from reducing Carbon Emissions consistent with the scientific warning. Yet these very same failures provide the political and social landscape from which those planes packed with overt acid will be launched. The first question must be whether geoengineering leaps over these moral and political obstacles, or whether they will, in fact, corrupt or undermine attempts at installing this global solar shield. So what were the obstacles to plant a that have led us to be talking about plan b . I think there are perhaps five of them. The first obstacle has been the power of the fossil fuel lobby. Geo engineering leads over these hurdles or at least pushes it off into the future. But it may also corrupt plan b because autofill tube is unlikely to back you engineering as a substitute for carbon abatement rather than a means to buy some time until we have enough political and economic incentives to introduce Renewable Energy sufficiency and so on. Exxon, Conoco Phillips and shell are dipping their toes into the researching of geoengineering. The secondary has been the weakness of political leaders and institutions with governments trading off signs against interest and there is no reason to believe that geoengineering will escape that i admire. Instead, people will become mired in it opened up new divides, one in which the Clear Authority of Climate Science, including geoengineering science, will be lost again. The third difficulty has been the elusiveness of global agreement. For some, the capacity of geoengineering to abyei the need for international consent is its defining virtue. Yet it may well take it from a situation of anguished indecision to one of outright conflict. The fourth is Climate Science to not. As i suggested, geoengineering has a mysterious power to bypass the objections of even the most fervent deniers, but at what cost. They will not accept strategy of using geoengineering to buy time, which is effectively what david advocates. Buying time is nearly buying time to do what they have resisted. They want a substitute for parents on fossil fuels, one that insulates the prevailing systems in change. They want to prove those greenies run. Davids slow ramp up scheme does not disarm denial capitulates to it and he may soon find he has to give up his insistence that geoengineering is acceptable only if its accompanied by emission cuts. Hes gone halfway in his new book by arguing it should cause us to ease the pressure to cut emissions. Finally, and ill finish on this point, one of Public Resistance to carbon taxes and the like, which has surely been a major obstacle to political progress in responding to the science, in my country as well is here. Solar geoengineering effortlessly leapfrogs this obstruction economists, including scott fear, have told us it will be incredibly cheap. By buying a time, david expects the technological process will avert the need for price penalty on fossil fuels in order to achieve decarbonization. But what a gamble this is. In the United States without a carbon penalty, we are seeing substantial investment and low emission technologies to be sure, quite rapid investment, but we are also seeing a massive and frightening expansion of new oil and gas fields. And around the world, huge new coal mines. We may find that it is fossil fuels rather than cheap renewables that fly in the window of opportunity opened up by geoengineering. Now, the verdict seems straightforward. Solar geoengineering cannot leapfrog the obstacles to decarbonization. One way or another most of the forces that have blocked plan a. Are likely to be double play and be. Only in the ideal world of a World Without politics does solar geoengineering have a chance of working as david describes it in his book. A techno fix event is an attempt to apply a technological solution to a problem that is essentially social and political. Sometimes techno fixes work. Often the same political and social problems just reappear in another form. And that is what will happen in my estimation if davids solar geoengineering advocacy succeeds. Thanks very much. [applause] thank you, clive, very much. We will turn it over to david keith. Thanks a lot. I will start by saying, scott did a great job introducing the basic idea. And i would just say one crucial difference, scott said instead of having emissions. And icon editing almost everybody else involved with this, has been Crystal Clear about that wouldnt work. It may or may not make sense to do that but if it doesnt make sense as well as cutting emissions, nothing you do to reduce the amount of sunlight and this sort geoengineering does anything to change longterm risk of putting carbon any atmosphere. So theres no way that these counties get you out of the long remedy to stop putting carbon in the atmosphere. Im going to First Responders do things i said he for circling back to say things about the hard underlying social questions and questions about how to take about relationship of people and nature that are raised here. Clive makes an assertion first of all, very serious and sensible problems but he in a way i dont understand implies that i and other people like me hold views that we dont hold, never held in consensus say that we dont hold. I dont understand why he is doing that. I want to bring some of those out. Lets start with a simple technical one. He said alan robot was the first person to raise this objection about the detectability of the signal. Not only is that not true, actually was myself and doug and kim who published the paper calculating how long that is. Its not deniers, its 20. Its even harder. So if you do that kind of slow route that it would take more like 20 years to attack the signal, not 10. Theres other signals it detects and but it should give you some pause and this may not be the simplistic figure objection that you heard, or maybe something about clydes star he was leaving out when you go find it. You can seek let you that the first people to raise this was us. Clive says its naive for scientists to isolate themselves and you can tune of scientific neutrality. Yeah, thats why i quit my job in physics 25 years ago because the connections to Nuclear Weapons and begin to work on socially development things. Thats what i walked out of the lab and spent a lot of time working with lawyers and activists learning how to teach in Public Policy institutions, doing Implicit Research on the ways in which science is not isolated from the world and the ways in which political and social worse shape what happens in science. I spent a lot of my career working on that. So its kind of odd. I mean, i have lots of things i do wrong and make mistakes, and the fundamental thing is it shouldnt be personal. But clive has taken the time to say its opposite of what actually thing. I think you have to ask yourself why. The answer is simple. Easier to attack dogs when they are strong. There are very good reasons that we shouldnt geo engineer but painting a straw dog, make people say things they dont say, i think its a kind of weak way to do it and i think its because its actually very hard to engage the really serious choices that these technologies bring a. I think there are, in fact, some very substantive views and there are some the same ones that clive has brought up to the fact that no doubt decisions will not and should not be made by scientists. One thing i spent a lot of my career doing is emphasizing while scientists may know more facts than other people, their values ought to count absolutely no more than anybody elses in Public Office decisions. Thats why we worked in decisionmaking context, a lot of the work at Carnegie Mellon is to try to find ways to figure out Public Values and incorporate them into decisions. Because technocrats when they begin to design something always subconsciously building a set of dice into one thing right after it. And not the way i think Public Policy ought to work. A few others to illustrate this, im sorry to do this personal stuff but i think its relevant. A few other clues that might make you think theres something a little odd about the way slide presented that. The first person that im aware of to write about the military history of a kind of old cold war climate was me. Thats not as i got all right but that was precise because i was deeply concerned about these military connections that i spent a lot of time writing about that. David as he is doing has written a book about the. The first person i would use the term moral hazard in this context was me in the same article in 2000. Because of concerns very realistic and i think wellfounded and correct concerns that these technologies may well lead to less emphasis on cutting emissions and will certainly lead to their abuse by parties like the harvard institute. I dont find any missed at all about their stats. They are paid front man for fossil fuel industry and they will of course deny the Climate Science and they will embrace things like this is the means to do. Nothing surprising. Thats what theyre paid to do. Lets not confuse our conversation about what the real issues are here. Finally, and they just have to keep doing this and then i will stop, clive says i believe it will divert the need to put a price on carbon. Im mystified since i spent so long doing the opposite arguing that absolute best have a price on carbon to reduce. In order to effectively mobilize efforts, and no amount of technological innovation is going to solve our problems without social consensus. When you solve them, Just Technology never does the job. So im kind of puzzled by that and i hope that a response, clive will think of the but less of a kind of painting me as a guy who doesnt get it all and think about whats wrong with these ideas, and i think there are good things wrong with them, and what we as a species, as a people act on to do. Its a hard question we should be engaged with, not exactly who said what to whom. Let me restate. I would say the hard problems here are basic science is hard and interesting and fun to play with but the really hard questions are also true. Theres a pretty good Scientific Consensus that giving small amounts of this would have nearterm benefits, and longterm benefits that are substantial and our worldwide for most people. That doesnt mean you should necessarily do. There are good reasons not to do it but thats a fair summary. We can talk about the science more if youd like. The really hard questions are who decides to use this power. How will we manage the fact that some people will most certainly use it as an excuse to avoid emission cuts. How specifically do we construct policies that enable us to get some of the benefits this technology appears to offer, real benefits to people now living in this generation in terms of reduced Climate Change benefits both the people and benefits we dont have and another way to provide, given the timescales of carbon in the environment. Under what conditions is it ethical to do this . And how does it change our leadership in the Natural World . I want to talk about that for a minute and then close. Arguments for Environmental Protection have become increasingly technocratic. Part of this has nothing to do with geoengineering but theyre tied together in my mind anyway and hopefully you will find them useful. When somebody, maybe a researcher who loves her rain forest, maybe they worked on insects in the rain forest and spent the career and they just love the. When they go to testify to positions of power, to congress or what have you, they often talk about ecoservices holding carbon or the fact that there may be lots of genetic material that can be producing wonder drugs, overall this is called under the rubric Ecosystem Services and thats the language in which most people talk. One of the Committee Talks about that in terms of thinking about the cute danger that climate poses to people. Not only to people and not all problems are there just because they pose acute dangers to people. I think clive is an extreme version of this. Take all the morelli out of it and it makes an easy choice. Thats nice, it docks all the moral questions about intergenerational equity and Mother Nature comes on its own insulin. I would say arguments about the utility of nature have merit. We are cutting folks who care about the Natural World are cutting