295: Technology vs Transition?: What Tony Blair gets right - and wrong - about net zero

Sebastian Manatt: [00:24:52] The reactions to this commentary are largely both an accurate, scientifically and incredibly unhelpful. The reality is much more complex. First, humanity has emitted over a trillion tons of excess CO2 since 1750, heating up the atmosphere unsustainably. Even if emissions were cut to zero tomorrow. These historic emissions will keep warming the planet. Second, humanity will always have emissions, which cannot be reduced or avoided. The IPCC estimates these at 5 to 15 gigatons per year, depending on the scenario. Think agriculture or certain industrial processes for both historic and hard to abate emissions. Carbon removal is the only solution we have, and the less successful we are decarbonizing, the more severe we will need. This is a simple and hard reality. Most people fail to grasp a simple way to think about it. Decarbonization is around 90% of the job we need to get done. Carbon removal is 10%. This should be reflected in public and private financing. Despite the attention CDR might be getting. Cdr is currently receiving less than 0.3% of all climate financing and falling way short of what is needed. As such, we need to urgently stop pitting CDR against emission reductions instead. We need both. Period.

Tom: [00:26:10] So Sebastian's comments here, very much close to our heart before the break, that actually we need to stop having this either or one or the other type of narrative. What about if you think about this and the fact that CDR does need more attention?

Paul: [00:26:22] It's clearly right. I don't disagree with him at all. You know the key point. He said Cedar County was even less than 0.3% of all climate financing. The reason for that is because unlike things like renewable energy or electric vehicles, Cedar doesn't deliver direct utility to people, so people won't pay for it essentially, other than through the kind of voluntary taxation that is the voluntary market.

Tom: [00:26:47] I mean, it depends how you define utility. Of course, a livable planet is the ultimate utility. But yeah. So take your take your point.

Paul: [00:26:51] Oh yes, that's true. But I mean, in a way, I think that actually does go to the heart of the matter. This is a national security issue. It's a global security issue. You know, I personally through my tax money fund, an air force, an Army, nuclear submarines. I do that through the magical instrument of the state, which aggregates 68 million people's taxes into a program of defense. And I think that's essentially what we're looking for here. You know, government to to sort of step forward and perform its role because it's very, you know, the private sector is not as good at solving problems that people will pay for and extremely bad at solving problems that no one will pay for.

Christiana: [00:27:28] I have a very banal analogy to understand this picture a bathtub that is almost full. It is getting dangerously up to the brim, and if it gets to the brim and overflows, it's going to overflow the entire room, house, etc.. That's our atmosphere. We're almost to the point where we will overflow what we can actually hold. So in order to stay within non dangerous levels, we have to both close the faucet, which is substitute fossil fuels for clean energy so that we are not dumping more and more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and also open up the drain at the bottom and let some of it out. So to say, you know, we can do only one or the other or should be doing one or the other. It's just way too late for that. Maybe 20 or 30 years ago we could have said that. But at this point we have to do both with the difference. By the way, in this banal analogy that if you put water into a bathtub, even if you put a hot water, eventually it cools down. In the case of the atmosphere, it doesn't cool down. It continues to heat for a long, long time. So both closing the faucet and opening the drain at the bottom is absolutely key

Paul: [00:29:07] Yeah, 100%.

Tom: [00:29:08] Okay. Thank you Christiana. Now another comment which came through, which I thought was really interesting was when we're going to share now from Kate Hewitt, which talks about the policies to phase out fossil fuels that involve lifestyle changes that may be unpalatable for citizens and voters. And the case made by Tony Blair and this report is that that is basically impossible for us to achieve. But is that really the case? And if so, should it stop at trying? Let's have a listen to this listener comment.

Kate Hewitt: [00:29:31] One aspect of the report that bothered me was the claim that any strategy aiming to limit consumption is doomed to fail, and there are examples, given a little way into the report of air travel and meat consumption as topics on which even proposed policies that focus on demand have supposedly alienated the public. Now, if that's true, then we're in trouble because these are sectors aviation and agriculture, in which technology alone isn't going to bring us anywhere near zero emissions in the next 25 years, and rolling out huge quantities of carbon removals to balance out growing emissions from these sectors will also be very difficult. So it's pretty clear that to achieve net zero in these sectors, we need to be talking about demand. What is it then, that makes the Tony Blair Institute so certain that that's a strategy that's doomed to fail? Well, the evidence given doesn't seem to me to go much beyond observing that there are projections for growth. So my question is why do we have to accept that, therefore there's nothing anyone can do about it? There were probably at one time growth projections for cigarettes or asbestos. Right. But we didn't just then say, oh, well then the government can't possibly do anything about those products. And while it feels hard to have some of these conversations for sure, that surely doesn't mean that it's impossible. And when, for example, citizens juries have engaged with a cross-section of the public, they've often found that people are both surprised about some of these impacts, and that they're actually much more willing to support policies to limit consumption than we might assume. So I really think that governments need to be working on how to engage honestly with the public about how we as a society can live our lives differently and better to tackle climate change, because I don't think they've really tried that yet.

Tom: [00:31:28] It's such a good point. Such a good point. Thank you so much for taking that in. So what do we agree? They haven't really tried that yet.

Christiana: [00:31:33] Well I wouldn't say they haven't really tried that yet. We haven't done this yet. Right. It's not only governments. It's all of us who are trying to advocate for responsible climate policy and responsible behaviour. I do agree that we have failed at this, and what we have particularly failed at is to see where the overlap is between, for example, personal health and climate sustainable diets. Why is that not absolutely crystal clear that the more plant based diet anyone has. The more healthy we are as individuals and as a society. So where the low hanging fruit is here is to be able not to push against people's interest, but actually be able to point out where personal interest coincides with planetary interests.

Paul: [00:32:41] I agree with that. I agree with the questioner. I think she makes very valid points. And there's a couple of different things there. I mean, in terms of what we can do about, for example, meat consumption, I do see increasing evidence that human meat consumption can be reduced and reduced and reduced without people necessarily even noticing, because there are so many new products coming that that kind of essentially provide substitutes. The degree to which aviation can evolve, and we can have different sorts of power sources and aeroplanes are extremely interesting. And whether we can run trains at very high speed and vacuum tubes with very low energy. But then also, I think that the key point is we do change behavior in society, often using things like tax. And above all, we change behavior with what she highlights, which is the sort of the government's ability to kind of communicate the issue. It's right that Blair is wrong to say, you know, forget talking to people about their survival. They're not interested. They are interested. They just don't grasp the severity yet.

Tom: [00:33:39] Yeah, I think that's a really interesting point because I agree, Christiana, this is about like we haven't done this yet collectively. But I also feel like and Paul, you've talked about this a lot over the years. This is a moment for global mobilization and certainly national mobilization by individual countries that aligns government communications platforms, that aligns tax incentives, that aligns all of the tools of the state to actually move the way in which society functions to something that benefits all of us. And that doesn't mean that it needs to be like a deep shift in values, necessarily. It just means that we need to actually value the things we already say we value. So I agree with this, and I feel like it would be much more interesting to see more leadership around government saying, you know what, we're really going to do this and we're going to bring you with us and we're going to make it in your interests rather than people just saying, well, you know, asking anyone to do anything that isn't in their short term next quarter economic interests is by definition, impossible.

Tom: [00:34:31] I mean, it's a very bleak view of human nature, isn't it? So, of course, it's not true to say that not all states have dealt with this. I mean, there have been interesting examples, and they've often come from moments of radical democracy, things like citizens assemblies. So there are examples of how this has been implemented at the national level. I mean, I'd love to just ask, what are the political pathways through this? I mean, if Blair is right that we're losing this argument around net zero and you see this in certain countries, not all. How do we reframe the net zero push to be more relevant? And I mean, it should maybe be about a national renewal project rather than a collective sacrifice or a global endeavor. A couple of weeks ago, we got this message from journalist and former BBC news science editor David Shukman, great friend of the podcast and former guest. And he sort of phrases this similar question, but honestly much better than I did. So let's have a listen to this first.

David Shukman: [00:35:22] Hi David Shukman here. Big fan. Loved the episode on acronyms. It was so good. I'm afraid you've got to keep it going as a series, because it seems to me it really matters so much. I don't know if you remember, a couple of years ago, I asked if you could talk about climate change without using words ending with the syllable shun. So no mitigation, adaptation, ambition, emissions, none of that. And Christiana I remember, showed that you can do it. And it seems to me it really counts now to try and find ways of doing this in the age of Trump. I mean, as your interview with Ben Rhodes pointed out, why is it that populists have conquered the market? Ineffective Slogans make America great again. America first and with Brexit. Taking back control, whatever you think of them are really effective. And where are the climate equivalents? And it seems to me that as long as sort of climate people are talking about, I don't know, greenhouse gases and normal people are talking about trying to keep their families safe, we're not going to make progress. We've got to find a way of unifying these two languages, which are, after all, about the same thing, namely a quest for lives that are affordable, dignified, and, above all, safe. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Many many thanks.

Tom: [00:36:46] I think David's question goes right to the heart of this right? Which is how do we actually present net zero as something which reflects people's desires for a better life? I mean, one of the interesting observations about the different slogans that you mentioned Make America Great Again, take back control. They're all about harkening back in a nostalgic way to time's gone past, and that really resonates with people. But we've not found the way to cut through on climate writ large or haven't found it consistently. So let's just talk about that for a few minutes. What are some of the indicators around where we find that pathway?

Christiana: [00:37:22] Well, I think I think he's picking up what we said before that we tend to put out very complex vocabulary and intersectionality and interrelationships. And, you know, all of these and, and and we know that that represents the reality that it is very complex to do these quote unquote systems change. But what the heck is systems change? How do we do all of this? So we do trip over our language and our understanding of the concepts. And the recent research says done by John Marshall and his team. That something as simple as protect what you love. I mean, that is a pretty simple message, and it speaks to all of us where we can really act and where and honestly where it hurts the most. Who doesn't want to protect what we love? Whether that is plants, animals, our families, our descendants? Protect what you love. I keep on coming back to that because it is such a simple message and so powerful and can have so many different avenues of access to it. So it's not just climate people. We could have a much broader tent of people who are really committed to protecting what we love, whether it is the rule of law, whether it is our descendants, whatever it is.

Paul: [00:39:07] I mean, I agree with all of that, Christiana, and particularly this sort of protect what you love. I can't help thinking that's a that's a conservative value, you know, because it's the conservative audience that we seem to be losing. And yet, you know, it's in the word conservation, isn't it? I also think that we one way to get around this is to add a lot of positive energy. And, you know, I do I'm dazzled looking out a £1.3 billion wind farm as I do to think about free energy. And I don't know if David Lammy or something could become the leader of the free energy world. You know, the world is also about to lay the internet over the energy system of the world, and that's about a fusion of digitization with efficiency. Now, energy efficiency, I want to point out, is also can be called somewhat more glamorously, the first fuel as nations become electro states and as they become super efficient electro states, who will be the leaders in the first fuel of efficiency with the enormous export potential? You know, the climate transition, this technological transition is happening to every country. And it's a choice. You know, climate change, like the internet gets bigger every year. It never goes away. And you need to get your industry behind it, you know, do you want to construct the menu or do you want to be on the menu. That's kind of the choice people are facing. So I feel that, as Gore said, al Gore said, this is bigger than the Industrial revolution. It's moving at the speed of the digital revolution. And let's own the language of technological advance and growth and dream of what we can do and think of the opportunities for these new technologies and the vast value creation. I'm sorry I say it every week. The vast value creation of BYD or Tesla does show that there are gold mines in this decarbonization, and we just don't have the confidence to seize it. And the language of opportunity, I think.

Tom: [00:40:47] Yeah, I mean, I think, I do think this is such a great point from David, and I think we really need to learn from it. And we have real clues from the work of John Marshall and others. But, you know, going back a couple of weeks, we had Li Shuo on. He talked about how the fact that China 30% of China's growth now comes from clean energy industries. We have an issue in the UK because this is where this conversation is based around low productivity and low growth. Net zero should be framed. And to be fair, Ed Miliband is trying to do this as a project of national renewal where we can get back to building big things. Overcoming productivity challenges in the economy. Using narrative that reminds people of the things that they loved about the world they grew up in, and how shifting to homegrown energy industries of the future actually renews the country and enables us to move forward and remember all the things we love. But we need to use language that connects to what people make sense to me. When the big bill was finally passed in the US, it was the Inflation Reduction Act. I mean, we don't need to wear the badge of these things on us because actually, in a way, the mitigation possibilities of a climate bill are the co-benefits, the real point of them. We need to change this now is making people's lives better, bringing down costs. Homes are warmer and cozier, the country being renewed, a sense of shared purpose and progress. Oh, and by the way, that reduces emissions when we flip it around the other way, saying we want to reduce emissions and all these other things are co-benefits, nobody really believes us. But if we flip it around and put people at the centre of it, then I think we have an opportunity to actually cut through and not put a target on our backs. That makes us vulnerable politically to different.

Christiana: [00:42:27] Totally, totally agree with that, Tom, that, you know, we really do have to put life at the centre of this people and other living beings at the centre of this. And we definitely don't do that with a term that is as weird as net zero. I mean, yeah, just, you know, just just it is the weirdest term. What does that mean? It means an amount that is left over after everything has been deducted from it. And zero means zero. So what on earth is it?

Tom: [00:43:01] What? Zero.

Christiana: [00:43:02] Zero. It is just the. We have the weirdest terms that are, you know, arguably accurate, but completely understandable. Not inspirational whatsoever.

Tom: [00:43:17] So would you, Christiana, if you had the choice and you could keep the impulse but remove the term? Would you be happy to move beyond net zero and let that phrase go from the climate world?

Christiana: [00:43:27] Let net zero go? Yes, I would wash away net zero. I would wash away decarbonization, by the way, because it's also a negative term. Yeah. Why can't we speak positively constructively? We always go into these negative terms.

Paul: [00:43:45] So what we're moving towards, not what we're moving away from.

Christiana: [00:43:47] Exactly.

Tom: [00:43:49]  All right. Paul, you look like you have something on your mind.

Paul: [00:43:51] Well, there was one last listener response from Leena Prestwich. She asked an interesting question.

Tom: [00:43:56] Okay, let's have a listen to that.

Leena Prestwich: [00:43:57] Hello. Outrage and optimism. Leena here from London. I would love to know your thoughts on what are three things that we could do at varying scales of commitment. So from the everyday, small things that we can do when we're talking to people in our local communities, families, etc., to the more committed joining a particular organization or effort to really take the temperature out of the net zero conversation, it's very successfully, obviously being hijacked by the right. But yeah, I would just love three concrete things that we could do that all your listeners can do to take the heat out of the net zero conversation. Thanks very much.

Christiana: [00:44:42] Okay. She wants three things and there's three of us. Each one says one.

Paul: [00:44:48] Well, I think you shouldn't be kicking people's backsides about their carbon footprint. I mean, my own experience is often when I've removed carbon from my life, it's improved the quality of my life, and being positive, I think is much more important and draws people towards you. People in climate change and can sometimes seem like they're carrying a burden for others. But actually, personally, I feel like I have been blessed with a kind of gift. And you know, I'm happy to share it with anyone who wants it. But I think it's moving from a sort of, um, a kind of compulsion of guilt to the kind of joy of opportunity and, you know, getting involved in low carbon businesses.

Christiana: [00:45:26] Sorry, Paul, you haven't answered the question. What specifically can everyone and anyone do?

Paul: [00:45:33] Don't kick people's backsides for their carbon footprint. That is not how you're going to attract people.

Christiana: [00:45:38] Okay, that's answering a question with the negative, but that's okay.

Paul: [00:45:43] And what you should positively do is get involved in all the exciting opportunities. And this is the moment for me to plug Mitchell and Dickinson Insulation for listed properties in the UK.

Tom: [00:45:52] Excellent business as a former customer.

Paul: [00:45:54] And it hasn't made me any money yet. But it's been such fun to be involved directly in insulating thousands of homes. It's been one of the great pleasures of my life. So on the one hand, don't kind of bully people but get involved in providing the solutions. I think has been a that's my specific advice.

Christiana: [00:46:11] Well, from my side to be terribly practical about it, plant based diet, absolutely, very completely under our control. What we put in our mouth, what we buy or what we plant in front of our of our little home plant based diet. And it doesn't mean that we go completely vegan from Sunday to Monday morning, but start the process. Start, you know, eating less meat, less animals one day a week than two days a week. It's all a process and it's all about training taste buds. It's about more innovative cooking and having much less of a negative impact on our planet. So from a very practical point of view, that would be my choice.

Paul: [00:47:04] Love that. And by the way, the way that takes the heat out of the debate is that it's actually a more healthy diet. You know, very large amounts of meat is extremely bad for us. So it's, you know, rather than being some kind of cause it's actually just good for your for your body, for your longevity, for your health.

Tom: [00:47:21] And it's also, I mean, speaking of, you know, the nostalgic nature of some of these campaigns, actually, the period of human history where we've eaten meat so much every day throughout the week is very small throughout much of human history. People did eat meat, of course, but it was much more of a once a week, twice a week kind of thing. You know, nobody's saying we're trying to take anybody's meat away, but cutting down will improve your health. It'll be much closer to how we've always lived and eaten meat and will just be generally better for the world. So I think that's a really good one, Christiana, just to layer an additional one. And I'm slightly going to cheat now because it's not really one specific thing, but this is what I always talk about in the book when people would in our book Christiana, when people would ask me what to do. I think it's interesting to map how you touch power in your life. Everyone touches power in different ways. Some of us, you know, might be an employee. We might be on a parent committee, we might have a pension fund, we might sit on a local council, you know, whatever it might be. We all touch power in different ways, and we can all leverage that power in different ways. This is why it's always hard to say. Here's a practical, specific thing that everyone can do. You know, if somebody has a pension and can write to the pension fund holder, that's very powerful. If somebody sits on the board of a local theatre group and tries to use that theatre to try to tell a more compelling, positive story about this transformation, that's very powerful.

Tom: [00:48:35] How someone lives in a democracy and can vote for the future. That's very powerful. So look at what is the specific ways that you individually touch the power, institutions and structures of the world, and you can use all of those touch points in a positive way. But I've got one very front of mind, which is perhaps a little different to what we might think, which is to pay attention to what really brings you joy in the natural world. And I say that because the swallows arrived back in Devon this week. They didn't come last year, so we bought our house just outside Totnes about five years ago, and we sort of largely bought it because there are hundreds of swallow nests all around the eaves of the house and throughout the summer. It's just an absolute rite of chattering of these little swallows and raising their chicks. And they're darting and flying around. And they came for three years, and last year they didn't come. And I was so upset about it, I almost couldn't talk about it. And I started looking into research about how they would fly down across Africa and places they'd get stuck and changes in weather patterns, and they've come back, and it's almost like everything else is fine in my life now that I can just, like, lie on the lawn and watch the swallows darting overhead. And it brings me so much happiness and joy and commitment to do everything else, and everything else in engagement flows from that.

Paul: [00:49:47] Oh, that's a beautiful story. And this idea of providing your own energy is a super big lesson.

Christiana: [00:49:53] That is beautiful. You know, guys, you know that I'm talking to you from Fiji, and I'm here because we're offering this retreat for climate and nature activists and leaders. And just yesterday we had two hours free. So we popped off and stuck our head underwater to see what we could see. And not everywhere. Of course, but right here, where we are in savasana, the coral reef is completely destroyed by a cyclone that hit Fiji three years ago. And the corals were destroyed. And so much organic matter has actually now floated down to the bottom that there's this slimy green stuff on top of what is left of the corals. And I was so sad to see that. So, so sad. And then as I continued to swim, I saw a couple of little corals that are struggling through basically a coral cemetery, struggling through to come back to life. And it just made me so happy to see that. So very similar to Tom's suggestion, I just take inspiration and suggest that we all be much more attentive to both the death in nature and the birth in nature, because nature is going through that cycle constantly, and we should become much more aware of both parts of that cycle and understand that we are part of that cycle and that we can take a lot of joy and gratitude from those parts of growth and resilience, and certainly understand and take responsibility when we see evidence of destruction. So getting close to nature, similar to Toms, getting close to nature and learning the lessons from nature would be the one that I put on the table.

Tom: [00:52:12] Love that. Thank you. Christiana. Yeah. Wonderful. Well, I mean, that feels like a very fitting place for us to end. Thank you both. It's been a joy as ever to talk to you. Thank you, everyone for listening. Thanks for the great questions. Sorry if we didn't play yours. We got many in as we always enjoy. So we'll do periodic calls out for questions and comments. And we're always deeply grateful when when you provide some thank you for those you did provide them and we will be back as ever next week. See you then. Thanks for joining us.

Christiana: [00:52:39] Bye. Bye bye.