From air pollution but its not do anything different moral consequence. If people die as a deliberate act, thats different from consequence of people dying from not putting on enough scrubbers on power plants. They both matter but there is a difference. Most law and philosophy. Those are two of the most prominent acid rain is certainly almost a risk for easy calculations to show the. I think the big concerns are the ones we have in products. Make a more general point, and that is complexity. It seems to me that although for the last 20 years climate scientists have made enormous advances in understanding how the climate system works, its all so true in a sense that we know less than a sense eskridge a look at it, it just becomes vastly more complex. As we know, as soon as we start by but claiming that in changing the climate we start time of the of the component, so were talking about the earth as a whole as a total system that would be edited with and changed in certain ways as result of solar geoengineering. And inevitably the our impacts that we can barely guess at. Its certainly true, but you can also argue that a bunch of the risks are tied with how quickly you change a rate of enforcement on the fundamental driver of climate but if he changed slowly, you are reducing the kind of fundamental driver that is creating the risk. Thats not an airtight argument. Its also true that and this isnt an excuse, we are dealing with a system under high stress of many kinds. Weve altered the nitrogen cycle more than weve altered the carbon cycle. So all these stresses are that once. Were in the kind of dynamic equilibrium which is dangerous, very dangerous as clive rightly says but that means you should refer back. Its not like were all sitting here in some equilibrium social system and then drying to just tinker with this for fun. That would be crazy. We are in a dangerous disequilibrium. Where no easy way to land and we are at least i and others are looking at this as a potential way to reduce the risks you cannot illuminate them, of how we land, how we get back to stability. A question you. If you could identify yourself. I have a question, both of you have on what i feel beautifully, intellectually rigorous he argued your point which is good on this important topic. I think i understand davids point2. Com not sure i understand clives point. Im going to make a very emotional is a very emotional example to crystallize that. So i think my understanding of davids point is basically september 11 has happened. Might happen again. Very, very dangers. The only thing we can do to prevent it is to do a massive invasion into privacy, maybe even go to waterboarding and et cetera, which is all the things that hopefully we can control them to all and all the risk and negative aspects with that are smaller than the risks of another 9 11. [inaudible] [laughter] what i dont understand about clives point is are you saying that 9 11 versus the massive invasion of privacy, are you saying the risks, theres other options to prevent 9 11 that are better quote unquote and invasions of privacy . Or are you saying the risks that you very elaborately listed around the invasions of privacy, waterboarding, et cetera, in other words, geoengineering, are so big that you dont want to go anywhere near that, even if theres no other way to prevent 9 11 . Well, rather than trying to link it to that example, ill just make the point that the two options in this case are not separable. That talking about geoengineering as a response to Climate Change, changes the way people think about how we should respond to Climate Change. Other than geoengineering. In other words, it can, it may reduce the incentives to pursue a mission reduction. David, in his book, actually argues that the logic of his position of gradual deployment is that we should engage in less abatement because it makes sense. I couldnt quite understand the argument. I read it two or three times, but it did worry me that david was arguing that, he says that i expect a world where geoengineering is tested and available, will be one that spends less less on reducing, and we were geoengineering was known to be impossible. And so this is kind of think those who want to see solar geoengineering as a substitute for cutting Greenhouse Gas emissions. So what im saying is that both even before its pursued, it changes the social and political environment. That if we did pursued and deployed it for then it would radically change the way politics at least carried out. And what im trying to do by drawing on some historical lessons is try to get a sense of what kind of world would that be like . What would be the profound transformation in the political infrastructure that would mean that we cannot simply consider the scientific arguments before pursuing solar radiation. In the same way that the arrival of atomic bomb changed the nature of politics and geostrategy. [inaudible] there are other options to control. Of course. Thats a big of course. [inaudible] yet, but, i mean, i mean this discussion is premised on the assumption that the world has failed, cutting Greenhouse Gas emissions which every sensible person believe we should be doing at a far greater scale. I dont feel any embarrassment by making that statement. And so, the world has failed and that is why people are now talking about pursuing plan b. And i guess my greatest anxiety is that plan b, which seems to be by most people but not by david it seems, sort of a stopgap measure until the world comes to its senses will, in fact, become a substitute for doing what we must do which is cut Greenhouse Gases. Okay. Now, johannes and then he our second. Im with columbia. I actually want a followup on the previous discussion of clives response to the question. So it seems to me that your argument, geoengineering and abatement substitute make sense if you believe that without geoengineering we will get abatement. But with geoengineering we dont your. [inaudible] so im wondering in what kind of area do we [inaudible] but then the political will disappears just because we did a bit of geoengineering . Could you clarify a bit on what are the conditions under which geoengineering is significant enough provided we have political will to do some abatement . Just say that again. So what he was using is your concern is that geoengineering abatement. But to get to abatement in the first place, the world has to change a lot. Do you believe the steps [inaudible] well, if one is deeply skeptical as i am about geoengineering, in particular the kind you engineering so we can do about today there are other benign forms of geoengineering we havent really talked about, although there is the discussion of carbon capture. People like me who are deeply skeptical, in a way it is an obligation on us to pursue more vigorously plan a. And thats what i do, you know, among other things, to try to persuade the world, relevant people, that plan a come reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions is essential to head off a radically transform the world that would cause enormous suffering for a very long time. But it seems to me, and, of course, thats what most environment groups are doing now. But its interesting most environment groups are not willing to talk about geoengineering. They dont want to talk about they dont want to know that. Just like the adaptation in late 1990s when environment groups didnt want to talk about at that statio patient because thiw that as a capitulation because it accepts that there would be enough climatic change to warrant adaptation. Most people who are involved in this field at this stage dont want to talk about geoengineering because they feel as though it provides an out, an excuse by decisionmakers on capitol hill not to pursue carbon taxes, emissions trading, the things that environment groups are pushing hard for. But i am extremely worried about the moral hazard argument, the wing which talk about geoengineering and research in geoengineering will undermine, reduce Carbon Emissions and other Greenhouse Gases. Thats the message of the book, earthmasters, the way this is a developing problem, the kind of political actors, those with commercial edges, those with ideological interest are being drawn to geoengineering, as to a pot of honey. Because it kind of sals their commercial or ideological problems. To ensuring to publish baghdad. It is pretty clear that the vast majority of people actually doing that now are from a kind of, you know, our green earth. That doesnt mean, to be clear that its all okay. That doesnt mean that some of the very valid concerns about the way they spoke at you syndicate out in the world are invalid. But you cant have it both ways. You have to be at least a little bit object is. They dont think as per trade in your book, i think. That is not to say that in the long run youre not correct. It will ultimately yield because thats what happens. One more comment along with a deadline. Clive says quite correctly that just talking about it, authors of the conversation and i cant everybody else involved to not darn well should be acutely aware of it. Our moral crucifixes are just doing what were doing. Not even experiment. Just talking about it that we may get the world in a worse place further away from cutting emissions. But the flipside is also true. So by pushing against that come as quite another people are doing, as wellintentioned as both of us are, if it turns that this is something you really need to protect, theres consequences to slowing down our ability to research, which is mostly what weve done the last 30 years in an attempt not to look at it. So we are dealing with fire here on either side. Real dangers and will consequences whichever we do. Okay, we are getting towards the end. Gentlemen, if you could introduce yourselves. Thank you so much. Michael thompson, American University in washington. Im the last question, ive been doing some research about them study on the topic, which i think is important to separate out the money for public advocacy for research and money going into scientific research. At least in d. C. It is true that talk from our research of certain types are coming from think tanks that lean towards the right. Thats just been our observation. My question is very brief. The elephant in the room as Ocean Acidification. It would be nice if you both address that he had Ocean Acidification doesnt do anything [inaudible] if we anyway reduce the impetus for emissions abatement, it is not only about Climate Change of land, but Ocean Acidification. Our energies this done passes on a whole host of risks to our great grandkids. So why not send, all fixes for rio things ive ever heard of. Not an argument on its own not to use it yet in fact come all sorts of fixes for anything you can imagine are profoundly affected and allow something through and that is not a reason and it fell to discount them. If there were to pursue slow and slow down proposals in fact, the ocean churned out by that stage and Carbon Dioxide are more so id like you to answer this observation. Particularly if it is the case as you argue in your that pursuing aerosol spraying in the way you suggest should result in less abatement activity in the world. I find it mystifying that you would argue that engaging in geoengineering the way youve been proposed out to permit the will to take the accelerator off emission reductions. If we burn all available fossil fuels, i dont know a polite way to say this. No amount of the stick allergies are going to save us. Its as simple as that. Theres no excuse to take one guy off emissions. So lets be careful about what i said. If you read the whole thing, i think i ran your writer. But here is what i think i was trying to say. The book doesnt do such a bad job. If this is the amount we should cut, obviously that itself, i am kind caring a lot about the environment might like to be a lot faster than some other people. But is there some answers you get a standard utilitarian cost benefit, which i carefully say i dont believe, but it is an important one so i address it. The amount is somewhat reduced as a little bit less. Both of those numbers are much bigger than the amount we are cutting now. So i in no way said what we should do is business as usual keep emitting carbon. My whole career is about doing the opposite to cut emissions. If you subscribe to that costbenefit framework, you should do a little last emissions cutting, which is much more than we are doing now. That is only if you describe to the framing, which in the book i say i dont. I mean, i read this page is extremely carefully. After where you said i expect a world where geoengineering available will be one that spends less on reducing emissions. You son a couple pages criticizing a robust terms of those organizations, which produce reports saying we must not allow passwords or work on geoengineering to divert any describe those as confused amendment by saying in any case, there is no basis to geoengineering should not alter the amount admissions out to be cast. So what is your position . Briefly. My position is we need to find nonglib arguments. I think that is the real heart challenge. The fact is this angered machinery of the normal way we do the stuff in the textbook says the answer that i say in the vote, that clive correctly quotes. That is not an answer i like. The question is how to get beyond the goodness and think about actual sensible reasons to argue for the strong emissions cut that both of us want to see. Thats an excellent point to add. I want to first thank the person who has enabled this entire meeting, joanna kessel, who is organized everything. Not easy. [applause] up next on a panel that you can avoid voters by the government featuring war correspondent. This program is just over an hour. That was a tremendously kind and moving introduction. Im grateful to have a chance to spend sometime with you. I know ann is as well. I think i lost the point task. So i am going to speak first. I will try to do that recently because i am a seeker to hear from ann as you are. So we are each year to talk about luck and i think in many respects, our books are radically different from one another. He can buy a copy of each one when we are done and make up your own mind. I actually think the books are quite complementary league and each in its own way affirms the message or purpose of the other one. My book is called breach of trust. The basic point is to suggest that the relationship between the u. S. Military and American Society and i think justin just alluded to this but that basic relationship is pervaded by dishonesty. Rhetorically, we all support the troops. In fact this, collect vliet, we allowed the troops to be subjected to serial abuse as authorities in washington commit the troops to deed list and unwinnable wars. This is an example i think of what a martyr and theologian dietrich on offer once referred to as cheap grace. Cheap grace is grace that is on an errand and undeserved and that in essence turned a blind eye toward things that are fundamentally wrong or even evil. My book is kind of a history book anyway. It tries to reach a the changes are systems that have occurred since vietnam and evaluate consequences of those changes. Did they change of course is one that occurred at the end of vietnam and that was the creation of the socalled all volunteer force, which despite that phrase we should think of as a professional army were to use the phrase that the founders of this republic wouldve used, a standing armament. Via much, it seems to me our fellow citizens today via the creation of the all volunteer force as having been a good thing. Certainly come in the creation of the all volunteer force as a result of the, our reliance on professional soldiers has had the effect of releasing to defend of any responsibility to contribute to the nations defense. And it has in fact lifted a burden from us as citizens. One of the consequences of lifting that are from us a descendent house then to give washington a free hand in deciding when and where to commit u. S. News. American people effectively have forfeited ownership over what used to be called the American Army and that army has now become washingtons army. But in their use of that army come to civilian and military elites in washington have proven to be both reckless and incompetent. The worlds best military, certainly we are told we have the worlds best military. And by many measures, there is no question we do have the worlds best military. The worlds best military is supposed to win wars and indeed it is supposed to win wars quickly and decisively. The end of the cold war, along with Operation Desert Storm back in 1991 read that expectation of the military that would win quickly and decisively. But events in those days, particularly events since 9 11 have told a radically different story. We know how to start wars. But based on the evidence presented in afghanistan and iraq, we dont know how to win them. We dont even know how to end them. Wars tend to drag on indefinitely. It is important i think to recognize the extent to which the American People are complicit in this outcome, in this tendency. The American People now half de facto defined their own involvement in american wars in terms of what in the book are referred to as the three nose. The first is that we will not change. That is to say we will not change the way we live our lives simply because the nation is at war. And we will not pay. That is to say we will not change our way of life of our raise our taxes, reduce our entitlements, you know, in order to ensure the restaurant is stand the war conduct did. And of course, we will not believe. Put simply, war has become not our problem. Its become somebody elses problem. The consequence is that as a consequence of losing control of our military as a consequence of indulging in the three nos. Weve ended up with too much war into few warriors. 1 of the population wears the burden of what has become, for all practical purposes, permanent war. The other 99 of us are spectators. I personally believe this distribution of service and sacrifice is not democratic. It is also not moral. It is in fact the inverse of the complaint registered by the occupied movement of a couple years back. Namely what we have is the 1 being exploited by the 99 . The side effects are likewise unfortunate. The disparity between washingtons appetite for war and societys willingness to provide warriors has created an opening or profit minded private security firms that are termed as mercenaries to enrich themselves, even if they promote pervasive waste and corruption. Now lets acknowledge that war has always been a moneymaking opportunity for s