WEBVTT - If 1.5C is dead, what happens next?

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:03.440
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to zero. I am aksha darti. This week a

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:21.919
<v Speaker 1>climate science mystery. One year is out and a new

0:00:22.000 --> 0:00:25.160
<v Speaker 1>year is here. And if you're observing the broad trends

0:00:25.200 --> 0:00:28.240
<v Speaker 1>of climate change, that might be enough to worry you.

0:00:29.320 --> 0:00:32.320
<v Speaker 1>The ten hottest years on record have all occurred in

0:00:32.320 --> 0:00:36.920
<v Speaker 1>the past decade, and twenty twenty four isn't bucking the trend.

0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:41.360
<v Speaker 1>In December, the European Union's Kupernikus unit said that when

0:00:41.360 --> 0:00:44.839
<v Speaker 1>the final numbers are tallied, it is virtually certain that

0:00:44.880 --> 0:00:48.360
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty four will be the hottest year ever and

0:00:48.680 --> 0:00:52.080
<v Speaker 1>for the first time, the global average temperature for the

0:00:52.240 --> 0:00:55.680
<v Speaker 1>entire year is likely to go past the threshold of

0:00:55.760 --> 0:01:01.200
<v Speaker 1>one point five degrees celsius above pre industrial levels. In

0:01:01.200 --> 0:01:05.440
<v Speaker 1>his New Year's message, UN Secretary General Antonio Guteriz said,

0:01:05.640 --> 0:01:11.280
<v Speaker 1>this is quote climate breakdown in real time. If you've

0:01:11.280 --> 0:01:14.160
<v Speaker 1>been following this, it might be my numbing to hear

0:01:14.200 --> 0:01:18.120
<v Speaker 1>scientists repeat hottest year, hottest year, hottest ear like a

0:01:18.160 --> 0:01:23.959
<v Speaker 1>broken record year after year. But it's pretty significant if

0:01:24.000 --> 0:01:27.560
<v Speaker 1>you go past one point five C and something worth

0:01:27.720 --> 0:01:31.920
<v Speaker 1>unpacking because it's going to affect all of us. One

0:01:31.920 --> 0:01:34.400
<v Speaker 1>point five C is the goal under the Paris Agreement

0:01:34.680 --> 0:01:38.920
<v Speaker 1>that all governments agreed on. It's also resulted in corporations

0:01:39.280 --> 0:01:41.440
<v Speaker 1>tying their net zero goals to the one point five

0:01:41.480 --> 0:01:44.280
<v Speaker 1>sea target. So this week I wanted to speak with

0:01:44.280 --> 0:01:47.760
<v Speaker 1>two Bloomberg Green reporters who have followed this closely, Eric

0:01:47.840 --> 0:01:50.680
<v Speaker 1>Rosston in New York and Zarah Heirgee in Washington, d c.

0:02:00.080 --> 0:02:00.240
<v Speaker 2>Oh.

0:02:07.920 --> 0:02:10.520
<v Speaker 1>Eric, let's start with you, because you and I both

0:02:10.600 --> 0:02:13.600
<v Speaker 1>know that this one point five c breach is important,

0:02:13.720 --> 0:02:17.200
<v Speaker 1>and yet it is not quite the breach of the

0:02:17.240 --> 0:02:18.399
<v Speaker 1>Paris Agreement, right.

0:02:18.800 --> 0:02:21.360
<v Speaker 2>It is significant. There's been so much attention in recent

0:02:21.440 --> 0:02:24.760
<v Speaker 2>years to the one point five degree goal, and there's

0:02:24.800 --> 0:02:29.840
<v Speaker 2>also been increasing concern as global temperatures are approaching it.

0:02:29.840 --> 0:02:33.680
<v Speaker 2>It's important to remember, though, that the Paris goal is

0:02:34.040 --> 0:02:38.880
<v Speaker 2>understood to be an average like over twenty years. They're

0:02:38.919 --> 0:02:43.320
<v Speaker 2>concerned about a one point five degree c temperature rise,

0:02:43.400 --> 0:02:47.080
<v Speaker 2>and so this is not great, but technically it's not

0:02:47.560 --> 0:02:48.800
<v Speaker 2>the ballgame.

0:02:49.360 --> 0:02:51.840
<v Speaker 1>Still going about one point five degree celsius for the

0:02:52.000 --> 0:02:55.040
<v Speaker 1>entire year is pretty dramatic, but there was also a

0:02:55.040 --> 0:02:58.040
<v Speaker 1>build up towards it, with phenomena like al Ninio contributing

0:02:58.120 --> 0:03:00.560
<v Speaker 1>to it. Do we know how much of the one

0:03:00.560 --> 0:03:02.720
<v Speaker 1>point five ce was climate change and how much was

0:03:02.840 --> 0:03:03.520
<v Speaker 1>other stuff.

0:03:03.840 --> 0:03:07.280
<v Speaker 2>It's a great question, and I suppose the answer is no,

0:03:07.680 --> 0:03:10.400
<v Speaker 2>which is what makes it a great question. Climate change

0:03:10.440 --> 0:03:13.240
<v Speaker 2>is always adding more heat, and so when you get

0:03:13.240 --> 0:03:15.920
<v Speaker 2>in al Nino and global weather is a little hotter

0:03:16.000 --> 0:03:19.480
<v Speaker 2>than normal, you're more likely to get a record temperature,

0:03:19.840 --> 0:03:22.080
<v Speaker 2>as we did in twenty twenty three and now in

0:03:22.160 --> 0:03:25.959
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty four as well. And consequently, when there's a

0:03:26.040 --> 0:03:28.240
<v Speaker 2>La Nina, which is a cooling phase, you get the

0:03:28.280 --> 0:03:31.280
<v Speaker 2>warming signal, but there's like a little speed bump, and

0:03:31.360 --> 0:03:34.800
<v Speaker 2>so those years tend to be like the fifth hottest years. Ever,

0:03:35.360 --> 0:03:38.000
<v Speaker 2>what's concerning this year has less to do with the

0:03:38.160 --> 0:03:41.360
<v Speaker 2>actual final numbers one point five. It has to do

0:03:41.680 --> 0:03:45.680
<v Speaker 2>with the fact that that simple rule of thumb climate

0:03:45.760 --> 0:03:49.240
<v Speaker 2>change plus La Nina, climate change plus El Nino, it

0:03:49.240 --> 0:03:54.000
<v Speaker 2>doesn't explain what's happening. And scientists can't explain with confidence

0:03:54.120 --> 0:03:58.520
<v Speaker 2>yet why this year is so much hotter than it

0:03:58.560 --> 0:04:01.040
<v Speaker 2>has been a past and what makes it a kind

0:04:01.080 --> 0:04:04.600
<v Speaker 2>of who done it is? They've assembled some suspects, but

0:04:04.680 --> 0:04:08.240
<v Speaker 2>they just can't say which one or which combination is

0:04:08.320 --> 0:04:12.200
<v Speaker 2>responsible for the numbers. They're seeing from twenty twenty four.

0:04:12.640 --> 0:04:15.840
<v Speaker 1>A scientific mystery. I'm all is up for one, but

0:04:16.360 --> 0:04:19.600
<v Speaker 1>somehow when it comes to climate science, not really.

0:04:20.200 --> 0:04:24.760
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, well, it's ominous because climate change is bad and

0:04:24.800 --> 0:04:27.680
<v Speaker 2>we don't want more of it. But it's also concerning

0:04:27.880 --> 0:04:32.840
<v Speaker 2>because notwithstanding the twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four records,

0:04:33.480 --> 0:04:37.960
<v Speaker 2>scientists are afraid that it could signal an acceleration in warming.

0:04:38.200 --> 0:04:42.240
<v Speaker 2>And if that's the case, we're not looking anymore at

0:04:42.440 --> 0:04:45.320
<v Speaker 2>a couple of years that were in aberration. We're looking

0:04:45.360 --> 0:04:51.960
<v Speaker 2>at a potential scenario that's worse than the pathway scientists

0:04:52.040 --> 0:04:53.400
<v Speaker 2>had assumed we've been on.

0:04:54.200 --> 0:04:57.160
<v Speaker 1>So acceleration, I mean, there was a period about ten

0:04:57.240 --> 0:05:00.760
<v Speaker 1>years ago where people were talking about this quote unquote

0:05:00.839 --> 0:05:04.880
<v Speaker 1>hiatus when warming had slowed down. Of course, that turned

0:05:04.920 --> 0:05:09.440
<v Speaker 1>out to be spoonious data. Is there any worry that

0:05:09.480 --> 0:05:12.600
<v Speaker 1>this acceleration might also be kind of spurious?

0:05:13.279 --> 0:05:16.680
<v Speaker 2>A number of scientists have told me that what they're

0:05:16.760 --> 0:05:22.279
<v Speaker 2>seeing now with these faster moving temperatures feels similar to

0:05:22.640 --> 0:05:25.320
<v Speaker 2>that period of the hiatus ten or fifteen years ago

0:05:26.000 --> 0:05:29.400
<v Speaker 2>that turned out to be sort of a data artifact,

0:05:29.600 --> 0:05:33.279
<v Speaker 2>like temperatures just kind of started moving up again, and

0:05:33.440 --> 0:05:37.360
<v Speaker 2>also there were important updates to the data itself that

0:05:37.520 --> 0:05:39.480
<v Speaker 2>sort of corrected what turned out to be a kind

0:05:39.480 --> 0:05:41.880
<v Speaker 2>of bias. I think scientists, a couple of them have

0:05:41.960 --> 0:05:44.760
<v Speaker 2>told me that they're more concerned about this because they

0:05:44.880 --> 0:05:49.479
<v Speaker 2>understand it better. All through that hiatus period, one of

0:05:49.520 --> 0:05:52.560
<v Speaker 2>the things you heard was, well, we're not sure what

0:05:52.640 --> 0:05:55.080
<v Speaker 2>it is, but really you can have like fifteen or

0:05:55.120 --> 0:06:00.599
<v Speaker 2>twenty years of flatline temperatures and still not echo the

0:06:00.640 --> 0:06:04.920
<v Speaker 2>prediction range for climate change. What's different now is that

0:06:05.040 --> 0:06:07.440
<v Speaker 2>they have these suspects, and so there's there's a much

0:06:07.480 --> 0:06:12.800
<v Speaker 2>stronger physical underpinning to the concerns, even though again they're

0:06:12.880 --> 0:06:16.760
<v Speaker 2>just not sure what's causing the spikes.

0:06:17.200 --> 0:06:19.720
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so who done it? Who are the suspects, and

0:06:20.080 --> 0:06:23.080
<v Speaker 1>what do we know about them, and which ones are

0:06:23.160 --> 0:06:26.360
<v Speaker 1>sort of the highly suspected and which ones we might

0:06:26.360 --> 0:06:27.480
<v Speaker 1>want to drop out.

0:06:28.520 --> 0:06:31.080
<v Speaker 2>So there is, as I said, there's climate change that

0:06:31.120 --> 0:06:33.919
<v Speaker 2>makes things hotter. There is an al Nino through through

0:06:33.960 --> 0:06:36.920
<v Speaker 2>the spring of twenty twenty four, and that made things hotter.

0:06:37.560 --> 0:06:42.120
<v Speaker 2>The sun has entered the sort of increasing output of

0:06:41.800 --> 0:06:45.200
<v Speaker 2>it of its eleven year cycle, and so that adds

0:06:45.279 --> 0:06:47.560
<v Speaker 2>like a little bit of heat, but sort of a

0:06:47.680 --> 0:06:51.159
<v Speaker 2>rounding error. The real culprit does have to do with

0:06:51.200 --> 0:06:56.039
<v Speaker 2>these sulfur aerosols that humans put out. So nothing is

0:06:56.120 --> 0:06:59.279
<v Speaker 2>clean in climate change, right, there's no free lunch. And

0:06:59.360 --> 0:07:02.800
<v Speaker 2>so after you negotiation, the world's shipping industry a few

0:07:02.839 --> 0:07:06.240
<v Speaker 2>years ago was able to make a path to reduce

0:07:06.839 --> 0:07:09.880
<v Speaker 2>the sulfur content of the fuels they use. And that's

0:07:09.920 --> 0:07:11.400
<v Speaker 2>great because that means less pollution.

0:07:12.600 --> 0:07:17.800
<v Speaker 1>However, because this sulfur pollution causes air pollution, especially at ports,

0:07:18.080 --> 0:07:21.560
<v Speaker 1>and that's really bad for humans. But there's a climate

0:07:21.640 --> 0:07:25.200
<v Speaker 1>effect that comes from those sulfur particles too.

0:07:25.760 --> 0:07:28.560
<v Speaker 2>Right, So that sulfur pollution is acid rain, right, and

0:07:28.600 --> 0:07:30.320
<v Speaker 2>so that's what we wanted to get rid of in

0:07:30.480 --> 0:07:33.800
<v Speaker 2>the West in the eighties and nineties. But there is

0:07:33.840 --> 0:07:37.880
<v Speaker 2>this cooling effect. So all that shipping pollution actually had

0:07:37.920 --> 0:07:39.920
<v Speaker 2>a little cooling effect. So when there was an eighty

0:07:39.960 --> 0:07:45.080
<v Speaker 2>percent drop off in the sulfur pollution from shipping, there

0:07:45.160 --> 0:07:47.800
<v Speaker 2>was no longer these chemicals to sort of reflect heat,

0:07:47.840 --> 0:07:50.240
<v Speaker 2>and so it got a little warmer, particularly in the

0:07:50.240 --> 0:07:53.920
<v Speaker 2>North Atlantic. Another thing that I think people just haven't

0:07:54.000 --> 0:07:58.680
<v Speaker 2>talked about enough is a really monumental decline in these

0:07:58.720 --> 0:08:03.120
<v Speaker 2>aerosol emissions from China. So between the shipping regulations and

0:08:03.320 --> 0:08:07.160
<v Speaker 2>China and further progress in the US and Europe, we're

0:08:07.200 --> 0:08:12.960
<v Speaker 2>seeing the disappearance of these cooling chemicals and that consequently

0:08:13.560 --> 0:08:14.840
<v Speaker 2>is making things a little bit hotter.

0:08:15.600 --> 0:08:17.920
<v Speaker 1>But is that a one time thing? Because like once

0:08:18.000 --> 0:08:21.160
<v Speaker 1>the a results have disappeared and have led to this

0:08:21.240 --> 0:08:25.560
<v Speaker 1>additional warming, will they continue to contribute to warming like

0:08:25.640 --> 0:08:28.280
<v Speaker 1>carbon dioxide does, which is a greenhouse gas that keeps

0:08:28.320 --> 0:08:29.360
<v Speaker 1>on absorbing the heat.

0:08:29.960 --> 0:08:33.079
<v Speaker 2>It's a short term phenomenon, right, The atmosphere is catching up.

0:08:33.520 --> 0:08:37.000
<v Speaker 2>There's conversations about whether we should spray the stratosphere with

0:08:37.040 --> 0:08:40.800
<v Speaker 2>these chemicals on purpose in order to cool the atmosphere.

0:08:40.679 --> 0:08:42.480
<v Speaker 1>Quote unquote geo engineering.

0:08:42.920 --> 0:08:45.559
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And one of the problems with that is if

0:08:45.559 --> 0:08:47.840
<v Speaker 2>you ever stopped doing that, you'll get a heat spike

0:08:47.920 --> 0:08:51.160
<v Speaker 2>like we're doing now. A big paper that made us

0:08:51.160 --> 0:08:54.400
<v Speaker 2>splash and added a lot of explanation to what we've

0:08:54.400 --> 0:08:56.720
<v Speaker 2>been seeing. Paper came out a month or two ago

0:08:57.280 --> 0:09:02.280
<v Speaker 2>about how they ben like we're missing clouds. Low lying

0:09:02.400 --> 0:09:06.120
<v Speaker 2>clouds do us a huge favor because they reflect a

0:09:06.120 --> 0:09:08.199
<v Speaker 2>lot of sunlight, just sort of in the way that

0:09:08.280 --> 0:09:11.440
<v Speaker 2>polar at ice caps do, and so the fact that

0:09:11.480 --> 0:09:15.760
<v Speaker 2>we're starting to miss these low lying clouds, it's a

0:09:15.800 --> 0:09:20.520
<v Speaker 2>real red flag for scientists because again, if that's just

0:09:20.640 --> 0:09:25.559
<v Speaker 2>a blip and they come back, then we're on our

0:09:26.000 --> 0:09:30.079
<v Speaker 2>warming trajectory we've been familiar with. But if that marks

0:09:30.760 --> 0:09:34.520
<v Speaker 2>a change in the Earth's system itself, then we could

0:09:34.520 --> 0:09:37.640
<v Speaker 2>be in line for more warming than we expected.

0:09:38.040 --> 0:09:41.440
<v Speaker 1>And Zara, we talk about these temperature goals because well,

0:09:41.480 --> 0:09:44.280
<v Speaker 1>they are goals and they are very important, but there

0:09:44.280 --> 0:09:48.120
<v Speaker 1>are some real life implications off this level of warming,

0:09:48.679 --> 0:09:51.360
<v Speaker 1>and particularly in twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four,

0:09:51.400 --> 0:09:54.760
<v Speaker 1>we saw some of the most extreme weather events around

0:09:54.800 --> 0:09:58.600
<v Speaker 1>the world. So beyond the fact that there is an

0:09:58.720 --> 0:10:01.959
<v Speaker 1>arbitrary one point five seagull, why does it matter that

0:10:02.040 --> 0:10:04.679
<v Speaker 1>we pay attention to these reports?

0:10:06.679 --> 0:10:09.560
<v Speaker 3>So I guess there are a couple of reasons. First is,

0:10:10.200 --> 0:10:11.920
<v Speaker 3>you know, when we think about one point five C

0:10:12.360 --> 0:10:14.880
<v Speaker 3>as a goal and one point five C being broken

0:10:15.000 --> 0:10:17.880
<v Speaker 3>in a particular year, I think something that all of

0:10:17.960 --> 0:10:19.920
<v Speaker 3>us have heard when we've talked to scientists is like

0:10:20.080 --> 0:10:22.679
<v Speaker 3>last year with sort of a preview and what a

0:10:22.720 --> 0:10:26.679
<v Speaker 3>warmer world looks like. So when you have a full

0:10:26.800 --> 0:10:29.760
<v Speaker 3>year where the temperature is basically above one point five CE.

0:10:29.800 --> 0:10:33.040
<v Speaker 3>We saw the impacts of that in terms of extreme

0:10:33.120 --> 0:10:36.559
<v Speaker 3>whether at least some of the impacts, and how destructive

0:10:36.679 --> 0:10:40.199
<v Speaker 3>and uncomfortable it is. It's a reminder that we don't

0:10:40.240 --> 0:10:42.520
<v Speaker 3>want to live in that all the time. I mean,

0:10:42.760 --> 0:10:45.560
<v Speaker 3>when it's really hot, when we're getting devastating hurricanes, when

0:10:45.600 --> 0:10:50.560
<v Speaker 3>we're getting brutal floods. That's not good. It kills people,

0:10:50.600 --> 0:10:53.560
<v Speaker 3>it's bad for economy. I mean, it's it's not a

0:10:53.559 --> 0:10:56.200
<v Speaker 3>great way to live, and it's a reminder of what

0:10:56.400 --> 0:10:59.760
<v Speaker 3>is at stake in the long run as these impacts

0:10:59.800 --> 0:11:04.040
<v Speaker 3>get worse. And so when we think about this goal

0:11:04.320 --> 0:11:07.360
<v Speaker 3>and passing this goal, because that is the trajectory that

0:11:07.440 --> 0:11:11.120
<v Speaker 3>we are on undeniably and something that's come out of

0:11:11.160 --> 0:11:14.400
<v Speaker 3>my reporting, you know, this is what worth talking about,

0:11:14.440 --> 0:11:17.160
<v Speaker 3>having to deal with more and more these kind of

0:11:17.200 --> 0:11:19.880
<v Speaker 3>impacts all the time, and how disruptive they are.

0:11:20.440 --> 0:11:24.240
<v Speaker 1>And the one point five C goal again is one

0:11:24.280 --> 0:11:26.800
<v Speaker 1>that we talk about at cop meetings where there are all

0:11:26.720 --> 0:11:30.440
<v Speaker 1>these countries coming together wanting to find new ways of

0:11:30.480 --> 0:11:33.079
<v Speaker 1>addressing the challenge. But we also talk about it at

0:11:33.120 --> 0:11:36.120
<v Speaker 1>corporate level because a lot of the net zero targets

0:11:36.160 --> 0:11:38.800
<v Speaker 1>are tied to one point five C or a lot

0:11:38.800 --> 0:11:41.240
<v Speaker 1>of the banks are trying to fund things so that

0:11:41.280 --> 0:11:44.160
<v Speaker 1>they can keep temperatures below one point five C. How

0:11:44.240 --> 0:11:49.240
<v Speaker 1>should they be thinking about perhaps changing their goals, finding

0:11:49.280 --> 0:11:52.240
<v Speaker 1>new ways talking about a new goal, like what is

0:11:52.320 --> 0:11:54.920
<v Speaker 1>it that they should think about if we have gone

0:11:54.960 --> 0:11:55.959
<v Speaker 1>beyond one point five c?

0:11:56.559 --> 0:11:59.360
<v Speaker 3>H One point five c as a goal is such

0:11:59.440 --> 0:12:02.440
<v Speaker 3>a tricky thing, and there are so many like caught

0:12:02.559 --> 0:12:05.800
<v Speaker 3>up emotions in it. I think a lot of scientists

0:12:05.800 --> 0:12:08.199
<v Speaker 3>sort of hate it as a goal because in a

0:12:08.240 --> 0:12:12.840
<v Speaker 3>way it feels rather arbitrary in the sense that there's

0:12:12.920 --> 0:12:15.920
<v Speaker 3>nothing that is different at one point four to nine

0:12:16.320 --> 0:12:19.800
<v Speaker 3>versus one point five versus one point five to one c.

0:12:20.160 --> 0:12:23.360
<v Speaker 3>You know, those small increments. We can't actually tease out

0:12:23.480 --> 0:12:26.160
<v Speaker 3>a lot of differences there, and so to them it's

0:12:26.559 --> 0:12:30.600
<v Speaker 3>just we need to talk about trying to reduce or

0:12:30.679 --> 0:12:33.360
<v Speaker 3>keep warming down as much as possible, and every tenth

0:12:33.360 --> 0:12:38.200
<v Speaker 3>of degree matters. But obviously goals are important, and one

0:12:38.240 --> 0:12:41.080
<v Speaker 3>point five C has been this rallying cry that we

0:12:41.120 --> 0:12:45.880
<v Speaker 3>saw really truly drove momentum on climate action, and it

0:12:45.960 --> 0:12:50.160
<v Speaker 3>is something that as you said, governments and companies can use.

0:12:50.360 --> 0:12:53.240
<v Speaker 3>They like to have a number that they can push towards.

0:12:53.600 --> 0:12:55.200
<v Speaker 3>You know, one of the things that I think about

0:12:55.200 --> 0:12:58.280
<v Speaker 3>a lot that has been really important about one point

0:12:58.360 --> 0:13:00.880
<v Speaker 3>five C is I was taught with Sam at the

0:13:01.280 --> 0:13:05.480
<v Speaker 3>Gross from the Brookings Institution, and she was saying, you know,

0:13:05.679 --> 0:13:07.840
<v Speaker 3>it wasn't that long ago that we were on a

0:13:07.880 --> 0:13:11.600
<v Speaker 3>traructory of three C four C degree and now we're not.

0:13:12.040 --> 0:13:15.840
<v Speaker 3>And that's sort of because we set on this goal

0:13:15.960 --> 0:13:18.920
<v Speaker 3>and people really tried to reach it. But the thing is,

0:13:18.920 --> 0:13:22.880
<v Speaker 3>the goal was always really ambitious and potentially always out

0:13:22.880 --> 0:13:26.640
<v Speaker 3>of reach, and now we're sort of hitting up against

0:13:26.720 --> 0:13:29.240
<v Speaker 3>that point when it's really becoming clear that we're not

0:13:29.320 --> 0:13:31.400
<v Speaker 3>going to reach it. And so the question is does

0:13:31.440 --> 0:13:35.720
<v Speaker 3>it lose its value as a goal, and do we

0:13:35.800 --> 0:13:38.720
<v Speaker 3>need to have a new goal? But in the sense,

0:13:38.800 --> 0:13:40.959
<v Speaker 3>you know, the thing that's tricky about this, and this

0:13:41.040 --> 0:13:44.280
<v Speaker 3>is something that David Victor, who's a professor at the

0:13:44.360 --> 0:13:48.080
<v Speaker 3>University of California at San Diego, told me, is right now,

0:13:48.200 --> 0:13:52.840
<v Speaker 3>there's no context out there where groups can talk about

0:13:52.920 --> 0:13:55.560
<v Speaker 3>things other than one point five SE and not be

0:13:55.679 --> 0:14:00.280
<v Speaker 3>accused of backsliding. And I think there are people who

0:14:00.320 --> 0:14:03.280
<v Speaker 3>would love to discuss a goal that's a little bit different,

0:14:03.360 --> 0:14:06.080
<v Speaker 3>that seems a little bit more realistic, like a one

0:14:06.120 --> 0:14:08.880
<v Speaker 3>point six or a one point seven or a one

0:14:08.920 --> 0:14:11.560
<v Speaker 3>point seven to five, But at the end of the day,

0:14:12.559 --> 0:14:16.240
<v Speaker 3>you still the actions that you're going to take to

0:14:16.440 --> 0:14:20.240
<v Speaker 3>meet that goal versus one point five are pretty similar,

0:14:20.400 --> 0:14:22.280
<v Speaker 3>and that you need to figure out how you're going

0:14:22.360 --> 0:14:27.479
<v Speaker 3>to cut your emissions really fast, and companies and governments

0:14:28.120 --> 0:14:31.400
<v Speaker 3>aren't doing enough of that, so it sort of doesn't

0:14:31.440 --> 0:14:33.920
<v Speaker 3>matter what their goal is because they need to be

0:14:34.040 --> 0:14:40.920
<v Speaker 3>doing more. And that's sort of the bottom line.

0:14:42.000 --> 0:14:45.080
<v Speaker 1>After the break, more from my conversation with Zara and Eric.

0:14:46.000 --> 0:14:48.280
<v Speaker 1>And by the way, if you've been enjoying this episode,

0:14:48.400 --> 0:14:50.240
<v Speaker 1>please take a moment to rate and review the show

0:14:50.240 --> 0:14:53.760
<v Speaker 1>on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. It helps other listeners find

0:14:53.800 --> 0:15:03.320
<v Speaker 1>the show. This is a place where science and politics

0:15:03.480 --> 0:15:07.920
<v Speaker 1>interacts in interesting ways. So the arbitrary nature of this goal, Eric,

0:15:08.000 --> 0:15:11.760
<v Speaker 1>the fact that this is one point five C not

0:15:12.080 --> 0:15:15.320
<v Speaker 1>one point six C, just give us a history. Why

0:15:15.400 --> 0:15:17.400
<v Speaker 1>is it that we have these goals one point five

0:15:17.440 --> 0:15:17.960
<v Speaker 1>C and two C.

0:15:19.120 --> 0:15:23.360
<v Speaker 2>Well, while you're right, while it started out arbitrary, it's

0:15:23.400 --> 0:15:28.960
<v Speaker 2>become less arbitrary. And that's because the UN diplomatic body

0:15:29.320 --> 0:15:33.320
<v Speaker 2>that hosts the All nations to talk about climate change

0:15:33.320 --> 0:15:38.040
<v Speaker 2>every year, they asked the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

0:15:38.160 --> 0:15:41.640
<v Speaker 2>very specifically in Paris when they were doing the Paris Agreement,

0:15:41.760 --> 0:15:47.040
<v Speaker 2>to really study and understand the difference between one point

0:15:47.080 --> 0:15:50.160
<v Speaker 2>five C and two degrees C, and that led to

0:15:50.880 --> 0:15:54.880
<v Speaker 2>a super influential report in twenty eighteen that really for

0:15:54.920 --> 0:15:59.960
<v Speaker 2>the first time puts specificity into what one point five

0:16:00.040 --> 0:16:03.760
<v Speaker 2>I've seen means versus two degree cee versus one degree C,

0:16:03.880 --> 0:16:06.520
<v Speaker 2>which is now in the rear view window. So it's

0:16:06.560 --> 0:16:11.320
<v Speaker 2>somewhere between arbitrary and it's not a threshold, as Zara said,

0:16:11.400 --> 0:16:13.480
<v Speaker 2>you know, it's not a threshold. It's not a cliff.

0:16:14.120 --> 0:16:16.480
<v Speaker 2>But every ton of CO two that we put up

0:16:16.480 --> 0:16:18.640
<v Speaker 2>in the air matters.

0:16:18.920 --> 0:16:21.200
<v Speaker 1>But we are also living in twenty twenty five, sort

0:16:21.240 --> 0:16:23.760
<v Speaker 1>of a year after all these elections that happen around

0:16:23.800 --> 0:16:27.160
<v Speaker 1>the world, and we are seeing many parts of the world,

0:16:27.160 --> 0:16:30.360
<v Speaker 1>including where you live Zara in the US, put in

0:16:30.440 --> 0:16:33.080
<v Speaker 1>leaders who are likely to be very hostile to climate policy.

0:16:33.160 --> 0:16:35.920
<v Speaker 1>So at the exact time that we are in the

0:16:35.960 --> 0:16:39.720
<v Speaker 1>hottest year reaching one point five CE we're also getting

0:16:39.760 --> 0:16:42.200
<v Speaker 1>politicians who are unlikely to be doing much on climate.

0:16:42.720 --> 0:16:44.440
<v Speaker 1>How should people make sense of this moment?

0:16:46.000 --> 0:16:48.560
<v Speaker 3>I'm still trying to make sense of this moment. I mean,

0:16:48.600 --> 0:16:52.120
<v Speaker 3>I think it's awkward, but it really gets at something

0:16:52.200 --> 0:16:54.760
<v Speaker 3>we've seen over and over again when it comes to

0:16:54.840 --> 0:16:58.000
<v Speaker 3>climate politics, and it's really sort of coming to a head,

0:16:58.000 --> 0:17:02.120
<v Speaker 3>which is that bringing down emissions and dealing with the

0:17:02.160 --> 0:17:08.520
<v Speaker 3>climate crisis is hard, it costs money, and it's scary.

0:17:09.160 --> 0:17:12.399
<v Speaker 3>I do think it's important to remember that the last

0:17:12.480 --> 0:17:17.439
<v Speaker 3>time that Donald Trump was elected president in the US,

0:17:18.000 --> 0:17:22.520
<v Speaker 3>there were some surprising outcomes that sort of led to

0:17:22.680 --> 0:17:26.119
<v Speaker 3>the we are all in coalition and kind of a

0:17:26.160 --> 0:17:29.440
<v Speaker 3>bumping up of the one point five c rallying cry

0:17:29.600 --> 0:17:32.199
<v Speaker 3>and people sort of pushing back on that, and so

0:17:32.240 --> 0:17:36.560
<v Speaker 3>there's always sort of this push and pull. But what's

0:17:36.880 --> 0:17:39.600
<v Speaker 3>hard about this is there is you know, you can

0:17:39.760 --> 0:17:42.760
<v Speaker 3>have climate action from the bottom up and the top down,

0:17:43.000 --> 0:17:45.440
<v Speaker 3>and I think we've seen that the most effective action

0:17:46.040 --> 0:17:48.800
<v Speaker 3>really involves that top down. And when you're not having

0:17:48.840 --> 0:17:54.800
<v Speaker 3>countries setting new regulations like that's going to push back progress.

0:17:55.359 --> 0:17:59.399
<v Speaker 3>And so people recognizing that as much as you have

0:17:59.480 --> 0:18:03.560
<v Speaker 3>politicians talking and downplaying these issues. They're not going to

0:18:03.640 --> 0:18:07.240
<v Speaker 3>go away with the type of policies that they're advocating,

0:18:07.320 --> 0:18:11.240
<v Speaker 3>and they're just pushing down the road the problems that

0:18:11.280 --> 0:18:13.359
<v Speaker 3>are going to grow and arise out of this.

0:18:13.800 --> 0:18:16.560
<v Speaker 1>Eric, you talked about the twenty eighteen report where scientists

0:18:16.600 --> 0:18:19.040
<v Speaker 1>sort of work through what one point five C means.

0:18:19.359 --> 0:18:22.359
<v Speaker 1>And in some way, scientists are very good at doing that.

0:18:22.440 --> 0:18:24.480
<v Speaker 1>If you give them a goal, they'll tell you what

0:18:24.600 --> 0:18:27.840
<v Speaker 1>is needed to meet it. So is one point five

0:18:27.920 --> 0:18:32.120
<v Speaker 1>SE still possible even though technically everybody says we are

0:18:32.119 --> 0:18:32.720
<v Speaker 1>going to preach it.

0:18:32.800 --> 0:18:36.760
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So scientists started talking about overshoot when they realized

0:18:36.920 --> 0:18:39.879
<v Speaker 2>we may not stay within our carbon budget and temperatures

0:18:39.880 --> 0:18:44.760
<v Speaker 2>may rise beyond one point five sea or even higher temperatures,

0:18:45.080 --> 0:18:49.439
<v Speaker 2>And it became a word that's it's sort of an

0:18:49.520 --> 0:18:53.320
<v Speaker 2>impetus to find ways to correct the problem that we've

0:18:53.320 --> 0:18:53.960
<v Speaker 2>now created.

0:18:54.560 --> 0:18:57.360
<v Speaker 1>And so these are technologies like director capture, which will

0:18:57.400 --> 0:18:59.840
<v Speaker 1>remove carbon dioxide from the air. What else is there

0:19:00.080 --> 0:19:02.480
<v Speaker 1>this list of dealing with overshoot?

0:19:02.640 --> 0:19:06.760
<v Speaker 2>The biggest tool in our toolbox, though, is not polluting more.

0:19:06.800 --> 0:19:08.440
<v Speaker 2>You know, we're still putting up more than one hundred

0:19:08.520 --> 0:19:11.639
<v Speaker 2>million tons of co two a day from fossil fuel

0:19:11.720 --> 0:19:15.479
<v Speaker 2>and cement making, and that is the main thing we

0:19:15.520 --> 0:19:18.360
<v Speaker 2>need to do to prevent overshoot. You can't address overshoot

0:19:18.400 --> 0:19:20.920
<v Speaker 2>until you stop making the problem worse.

0:19:21.800 --> 0:19:24.800
<v Speaker 1>If we do eventually get serious about these goals and

0:19:24.880 --> 0:19:27.200
<v Speaker 1>you know, want to still stay beyond one point five,

0:19:27.280 --> 0:19:31.159
<v Speaker 1>see overshoot might be an option. But if the politics

0:19:31.200 --> 0:19:34.880
<v Speaker 1>is hard right now, how much harder is it going

0:19:34.920 --> 0:19:36.639
<v Speaker 1>to be when you're trying to convince people you have

0:19:36.680 --> 0:19:40.040
<v Speaker 1>to do all these weird wacco things that are going

0:19:40.080 --> 0:19:43.480
<v Speaker 1>to be necessary in a world of overshoot.

0:19:44.160 --> 0:19:46.800
<v Speaker 3>I mean, I think the assumption is that overshoot is

0:19:46.840 --> 0:19:49.760
<v Speaker 3>already on the table. When a lot of people are

0:19:49.800 --> 0:19:53.440
<v Speaker 3>talking about one point five still being alive, they're actually

0:19:53.480 --> 0:19:57.480
<v Speaker 3>the unspoken part is they are assuming or banking on overshoot,

0:19:57.480 --> 0:19:59.600
<v Speaker 3>this idea that we are going to go above one

0:19:59.600 --> 0:20:02.879
<v Speaker 3>point five and then have the tools necessary to eventually

0:20:02.920 --> 0:20:07.280
<v Speaker 3>bring it down. The concern about focusing too much on

0:20:07.400 --> 0:20:12.080
<v Speaker 3>overshoot is that then we sort of lose sight of

0:20:12.119 --> 0:20:14.719
<v Speaker 3>the fact that we need to bring emissions down, not

0:20:15.119 --> 0:20:17.639
<v Speaker 3>just invest in the technologies that can help pull it

0:20:17.680 --> 0:20:20.640
<v Speaker 3>out of the air and rely on that or overly

0:20:20.680 --> 0:20:23.560
<v Speaker 3>rely on that because we don't know a lot about

0:20:23.560 --> 0:20:26.040
<v Speaker 3>how that will work. And so I feel like the

0:20:26.080 --> 0:20:28.960
<v Speaker 3>answer is we have to do both. That's not actually

0:20:29.640 --> 0:20:31.720
<v Speaker 3>a pitch you have to make to people. I think

0:20:31.760 --> 0:20:34.359
<v Speaker 3>that's just where we are today, and you're sort of

0:20:34.359 --> 0:20:37.520
<v Speaker 3>starting to see it with the policies that came underway

0:20:37.640 --> 0:20:40.240
<v Speaker 3>with the Biden administration and how actually a lot of

0:20:40.280 --> 0:20:45.080
<v Speaker 3>the companies and industries that are going to need or

0:20:45.080 --> 0:20:48.840
<v Speaker 3>rely on overshoot are the ones getting text credits and

0:20:48.880 --> 0:20:51.760
<v Speaker 3>sort of investing on it. And the problem is you

0:20:51.760 --> 0:20:54.800
<v Speaker 3>don't want them to overinvest on that versus not actually

0:20:55.320 --> 0:20:58.960
<v Speaker 3>changing anything to their business. But I think we actually

0:20:59.000 --> 0:21:01.840
<v Speaker 3>need to talk about it it more as something that

0:21:01.920 --> 0:21:05.720
<v Speaker 3>is on the table now and just dig into a

0:21:05.720 --> 0:21:07.800
<v Speaker 3>little bit more about what that looks like. But I

0:21:07.840 --> 0:21:10.359
<v Speaker 3>don't think it's a matter of if or when, Like

0:21:10.440 --> 0:21:13.040
<v Speaker 3>we're here and we're dealing with it, and it's just

0:21:13.119 --> 0:21:15.480
<v Speaker 3>maybe changing what that means and what we need to

0:21:15.520 --> 0:21:16.040
<v Speaker 3>do about it.

0:21:16.680 --> 0:21:20.280
<v Speaker 1>Well, climate change one point five and twenty twenty five,

0:21:20.320 --> 0:21:22.600
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be a messier. Thank you both for

0:21:22.960 --> 0:21:25.680
<v Speaker 1>at least setting the stage for what is going to

0:21:25.720 --> 0:21:28.120
<v Speaker 1>be a messier and we'll talk a lot more about it.

0:21:28.280 --> 0:21:40.359
<v Speaker 1>Thank you, thank you, thank you for listening to Zero.

0:21:40.720 --> 0:21:43.200
<v Speaker 1>And now for the sound of the week, which I

0:21:43.200 --> 0:21:47.080
<v Speaker 1>should want you is not a gunshot. That's the sound

0:21:47.119 --> 0:21:50.520
<v Speaker 1>of a balloon filled with hydrogen exploding. Now take a

0:21:50.560 --> 0:21:53.040
<v Speaker 1>listen to what it sounds like when the same size

0:21:53.040 --> 0:22:01.000
<v Speaker 1>balloon has hydrogen mixed with oxygen exploding this episode, Please

0:22:01.040 --> 0:22:02.840
<v Speaker 1>take a moment to rate or review the show on

0:22:02.880 --> 0:22:06.320
<v Speaker 1>Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Share this episode with a friend

0:22:06.840 --> 0:22:10.040
<v Speaker 1>or with someone who likes breaking records. You can get

0:22:10.080 --> 0:22:13.000
<v Speaker 1>in touch at zero port at Bloomberg dot net. Zero's

0:22:13.040 --> 0:22:16.080
<v Speaker 1>producer is might Lee Raw. Bloomberg's head of podcast is

0:22:16.080 --> 0:22:19.640
<v Speaker 1>Sage Bauman, and head of Talk is Brendan Newnan. Our

0:22:19.680 --> 0:22:23.320
<v Speaker 1>theme music is composed by Wonderly Special Thanks to Sharon Chen,

0:22:23.760 --> 0:22:27.840
<v Speaker 1>Shwan Wagner, Ethan Steinberg, and Jessica beck I am Aksha

0:22:27.920 --> 0:22:29.280
<v Speaker 1>Drati Back soon.