79. Solar Geoengineering Would Be Radical. It Might Also Be Necessary.

What does it mean to live a rich life?

It means brave first leaps, tearful goodbyes,

and everything in between.

With over 100 years' experience navigating the ups and downs of the market and of life, your Edward Jones financial advisor will be there to help you move ahead with confidence.

Because with all you've done to find your rich, we'll do all we can to help you keep enjoying it.

Edward Jones, member SIPC.

Honey, do not make plans Saturday, September 13th, okay?

Why, what's happening?

The Walmart wellness event.

Flu shots, health screenings, free samples from those brands you like.

All that at Walmart.

We can just walk right in.

No appointment needed.

Who knew we could cover our health and wellness needs at Walmart?

Check the calendar Saturday, September 13th.

Walmart Wellness Event.

You knew.

I knew.

Check in on your health at the same place you already shop.

Visit Walmart Saturday, September 13th for our semi-annual wellness event.

Flu shots subject to availability and applicable state law.

Age restrictions apply.

Free samples while supplies last.

My guest today, David Keith, is among the world's experts on the subject of solar radiation management, also known as solar geoengineering.

He's a professor of applied physics at Harvard and co-founder of Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Research Program.

Solar geoengineering is a very tempting thing because if you want quick reduction in real harms to some of the world's poorest ecosystems, it might achieve it.

But on the other hand, it is absolutely true that if the world just chose to embrace solar geoengineering and forgot to cut emissions, we are screwed.

Welcome to People I Mostly Admire with Steve Levitt.

There are few areas of science that are as controversial as geoengineering.

Supporters believe it could be a valuable tool for fighting climate change, but opponents say it's dangerous, unproven, and will weaken the will of society to take the other hard steps required to save the planet.

In January of this year, over 60 scientists signed an open letter calling for a complete prohibition on government funding for solar geoengineering research and a total ban on outdoor experiments in this area.

I discovered firsthand just how sensitive the topic of geoengineering is when Stephen Dubner and I wrote about it in our book Super Freakonomics.

Now I've taken many controversial and unpopular stances over my career, but nothing I've ever written has generated as much of a negative firestorm as the suggestion that geoengineering might play an important role in fighting climate change.

Now that was over a decade ago.

Clearly views haven't completely changed since then, but that hasn't stopped David Keith from continuing to research the topic.

I'm interested to hear what advances have been made in solar geoengineering and what the future might hold for the technology.

So I got to attend an academic lecture that you gave recently at the University of Chicago.

You started your lecture by noting there are four broad strategies available to deal with climate change.

The first strategy is that we can put fewer greenhouse gases gases into the atmosphere, or what you call decarbonization.

The second strategy is that we can remove carbon from the air and store it somewhere.

And then the third strategy is solar geoengineering or solar radiation management.

Essentially, it's to do things which lower the temperature of the earth that don't involve lowering greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

And then the fourth strategy is what you call adaptation.

So essentially, to take steps to limit the damage caused if the first three strategies don't get the job done.

And what I liked about your framework is that it's incredibly simple, but it helps organize my thinking in a a useful way.

It helps me focus on the trade-offs that are apparent in this area.

Yeah, thank you.

But I certainly wouldn't claim it's mine.

While people have argued about the names, the idea that there's those four independent buckets, in fact, goes back, oh, at least to the 70s.

People use a bunch of buzzwords.

mitigation or adaptation is one division and solar geoengineering is contested so people have lots of different names for it but i often emphasize the four physical responses.

Of course, there's a complicated network of political pathways that one would take to implement any of them.

So Stephen Dubner and I, we wrote about solar geoengineering in our book, Super Freakonomics, back in 2009, and we were strong supporters.

And yet when you and I spoke a few years ago, you said that you thought that super freakonomics had set back the field of geoengineering by five years, that it slowed down advanced research.

You know, with friends like us, who needs enemies?

What happened after our book that had such negative repercussions for you and other scientists?

Your book had this fun way of pointing out lots of counterintuitive economic examples.

And that was the spirit of the book.

But I think in this topic, just saying this kind of counterintuitive fact, oh my God, it's much cheaper to cool the world this way than cutting emissions, is a kind of oversell that really makes it harder to get people to take it seriously.

And I think your book did come across that way a little too much, not that what it said was wrong.

And the thing that's helped the big environmental groups inch towards taking this seriously and governments inch towards taking this seriously has been really putting it in context and being very careful not to overclaim.

Several of us in the field, it wasn't just me, were not very happy with Super Freakonomics, to be honest.

It's funny because I hadn't looked back at that section of Super Freakonomics in five or 10 years, but in preparation for a conversation, I reread it.

And admittedly, I think what you've just criticized was completely true.

It was a little bit starry-eyed and optimistic about the prospects for what we we could do.

I feel bad that we set back research because I really do think this is an important area for research.

I would just say you, obviously, who were into this 20 years before, Stephen Dubner and I wrote about it, but even we, 20 years later, were ahead of our time.

The world on this topic seems to be changing very quickly, even in the last few months.

There will be a formal announcement of a global commission on this topic that has really got an amazing collection of people.

It's brought out of the Paris Peace Forum, and it's going to be the most serious discussion about some of the high-level governance questions of how solar chain reasons and carbon removal might fit together.

There are major university programs starting, I have this little program that I've got going at Harvard, but there's now several others that look really serious in a way that wasn't true.

The U.S.

federal government is for the first time, seems like actively working on the design of research program.

And some of the big environmental groups seem to have a very different attitude towards this technology than they did even a few years ago.

So I think it has changed a lot.

And I I think the way to advance it is to really think about it always in context of other things we do and to be careful about overclaiming what it might achieve.

So virtually everyone agrees that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is critically important.

But in practice, it's been hard so far to induce that sort of behavior change.

Do you think that's a fair statement?

No.

Or rather, I think your statement presupposes that this is about behavior change.

And I think it mostly isn't.

This is about rebuilding the industrial infrastructure that underpins really human civilization.

That is not an overstatement, to make it not emit carbon, which I think is absolutely physically possible.

What humans want are energy services like transportation, communication, illumination.

Most of us don't care at all how those services are made.

And the thing that we need to do is to reshape this heavy industrial infrastructure to make it in a way where the primary energy going into it is not releasing carbon.

Now, we have multiple independent ways to do it, solar and nuclear power being the most obvious.

You can see that behavioral change can't be central because you basically have to eliminate carbon emissions, and you're not going to eliminate consumption.

So there's some way in which behavioral change can help around the edges, but it's about changing.

what energizes our civilization.

So often you do see this pitched as behavioral change.

So if I think about Al Gore's movie, Inconvenient Truth, a lot of that was pointing at consumers and how consumers need to do something different.

You make an interesting statement and a true statement, which is that it could all be in the background, right?

If we had nuclear plants and if we had endless solar and wind power, then we could do a lot of this without any individual changing what they're doing.

How are we doing as a civilization at changing the infrastructure towards decarbonization?

We're doing a crappy job, but when we talk about doing a hard thing in the future, it's really helpful to think of what we've done in the past.

The world has made enormous progress in reducing air pollution and water pollution and some key toxics, metals like lead or some very long-lived organochlorines, DDT, or damage to the ozone layer.

We've made real progress in all these, in some cases, really dramatic progress.

The U.S.

Clean Air Act has added a year and a half to the life of an average American.

That's a stunning number.

And that was done almost completely without consumer preferences.

This didn't happen because people just preferred to buy products that had lower air pollution footprints.

It happened because we passed rules that said you're not allowed to operate a factory that emits this kind of pollutant or you're not allowed to sell a car that doesn't have a certain kind of catalytic converter.

And I think in some of the frustration of low progress about climate, the climate activist community has lost sight of that essential fact that a bunch of this is about changing the rules which drive the change of infrastructure.

And there's just a limit to what a consumer can do because the consumer is just buying the final product that comes from this huge supply chain that they don't really see or control.

So you're saying if we want to fight climate change, we should change laws, not try to convince people to be vegans, even though obviously if everyone was vegan, it would have a great benefit to the climate.

Well, interestingly, that one example is the most plausible place for consumer choice to do something useful.

But I think it is fair to say that if people ate significantly less meat, that is a pretty easy to accomplish, at least in principle, without any obvious other big impact on people's lives, way to take a significant bite out of a greenhouse gas footprint of each person.

And that's something I actually could imagine a pretty rapid social change driven by concerns about climate, because that's a choice you can just make at the grocery store.

Whereas you can't just choose to make your house or your business or your airplane travel carbon neutral.

So, basically, through decarbonization alone, there's likely no way that we'll hit the sorts of benchmarks that the scientific community thinks are required to manage the risk of climate change.

So, being pragmatic, we're not on track.

And it seems like there's going to be a need either for massive amounts of carbon capture or solar geoengineering.

And that's where people like you come into the picture.

Well, I do want to emphasize how much progress is being made on decarbonization.

Now, it's much less progress than I would like.

As a voter, I would vote for much higher effective carbon prices, much more action.

But the world is now spending well over half a trillion a year on low carbon energy.

That number is significantly higher than it was a decade ago.

And in North America and Europe, carbon emissions have peaked and are headed down, not anywhere near as quick as many of us would like.

But I used to give climate talks 15 years ago saying it's a phony war and people talk about cutting emissions, but they don't do anything at all.

And I can't say that anymore.

We are doing things, not as much as we should, but there's real action happening.

So we're making real progress.

But realistically, it's not nearly so fast as the scientists think that we need.

It's important to say scientists don't set the target.

What science can do is tell us something about the consequences of climate change, how much the climate will change for a given set of emissions.

And quantitative social scientists, such as yourselves, can say what the human consequences and ecological consequences are of given amount of climate change, how many people die or how much productivity declines with heat.

But scientists can't tell you the right target to aim for.

That's inherently a political choice because it involves trade-offs between costs of cutting emissions and the costs of climate change that are distributed unequally over time and space.

So it is actually very common to say scientists say we should hit 1.5 or 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial, but that's in fact false.

Those are political targets.

They may be good or bad political targets.

We can argue about it.

But they are most definitely not the kind of cold result of science.

Okay, let me ask you about that because those numbers, my impression, come out of the IPCC climate reports that are written by scientists.

Ah.

But those are really political activities, you're saying?

The main body of the IPCC reports, at least the volume one, which is mostly about climate science, is a very good summary of what we know about climate science, which is how the climate will change with given amounts of emissions.

But it doesn't tell you that we should hit 1.5.

There's a very famous IPCC report.

which is the report on hitting 1.5.

And that's the report that generated all the press about eight years left to save the climate and this idea that there's a very fixed time window to keep 1.5.

But crucially, 1.5 was given to them by the politicians.

It was a politically agreed target, and IPCC was instructed to write a report about the consequences and difficulty of meeting 1.5.

But IPCC wasn't instructed to say what is the right temperature target and produced 1.5 as an answer.

That is not what happened.

Oh, interesting.

I had misinterpreted that.

So you're not the only one.

And from my perspective, my

confidence in the IPCC process went down.

I am very keen on activism.

I believe we won't get the kind of changes we need to cut emissions without activists, including civil disobedience, people locking themselves to coal trains or tying themselves up in front of the White House.

I think we need people like Greta Thunberg.

But IPCC's job is not activism.

And I think IPCC crossed a line in not the actual text of the 1.5 report, which is good, but the way it was reported out.

So much so that some authors of that report had to then go back separately and write articles saying, no, we didn't mean that.

Because the IPCC, I think, deliberately let the reporting have this kind of scientist-say framing, even though if you pick up the intro of the report, that's clearly not what it says.

I see.

Now, you were part of the IPCC reports, and then you're no longer.

Is that because you didn't like the way things were happening?

Yeah, I think that's fair.

I was part of early ones, and I was part of...

the one before this and I just found that it was less and less interesting and less and less a place where you could really have productive discussions about what would happen next.

So if we want to hit any of these benchmarks, we are looking at either massive carbon capture or the use of solar geoengineering.

What are the menu of options we have when it comes to solar geoengineering?

Going from the top down, if you like, the highest altitude method is to put some reflective shield in between the Earth and the Sun.

And this sounds really like ludicrous science fiction, and I think in the near term it is.

But it's actually been in the literature for 30 years.

And the cost of access to space is changing pretty quickly.

So I think it's laughable in the next decade or...

few decades, but it's not laughable over the kind of hundred-year time scale we're talking about.

Next is to put reflective aerosols, and aerosol is just a fancy word for a small droplet or particle that's just so small that it doesn't fall quickly, to put aerosols into the upper atmosphere, the stratosphere, where they would reflect some sunlight back to space.

That's the best studied thing, or stratospheric aerosol injection, it's also often called.

We understand this pretty well because nature has given us some natural experiments in this regard with Mount Pinatubo and other large volcanic eruptions.

Aaron Trevor Brandon, that's right.

So volcanic eruptions teach us a lot about aerosols in the stratosphere, but that's just one piece of all sorts of reasons why we know about the effect of aerosols on climate.

So humans emit an immense quantity of aerosol pollution to the lower atmosphere, and that actually has huge human consequences, kills a water of five million people a year.

And it also cools the climate and changes the way clouds look and lots of enormous body of research on aerosols and climate dating back for half a century.

And one of the good things about this approach, this aerosols in the stratosphere, is we know exactly how to do the engineering to make it happen.

One way to do it is a medium-sized fleet of airplanes that fly high and deliver sulfur dioxide.

What kind of scale would it take to make a real dent in what we've done to heat up the planet?

So to get a degree of cooling, very roughly, would take a fleet of something of order of 100 aircraft.

Depends how big they are.

You make them bigger.

You could do it with more like 30 aircraft.

They'd need to be specialized aircraft.

As a technologist, I've got a whole list of things we don't know.

But I think at big picture, there's no fundamental doubt that that could be done.

And cost-wise, we're not talking very much in the grand scheme of things.

$5 billion, $10 billion per year to achieve this kind of cooling through this mechanism?

That's the right kind of number, which on the scale of the climate numbers is really tiny.

I mean, if we want to decarbonize as rapidly as many of us think we should, we need to spend globally something like a trillion dollars a year in decarbonization.

And the econometric estimates of climate impacts mid-century are also of order a trillion dollars.

And it's good to remind people because when numbers get big, people have a hard time thinking about them.

Exactly.

But the difference between a trillion, which is a thousand billion, and five billion is a lot.

That's 200 times bigger.

The right way to think about the money is the money small enough that the money will not be central to the decision.

This is really about the risks of doing it, which are are very real, against the risks of not doing it, which are very real.

And it's about this risk balance and questions of governance and trust.

In this complicated way that humans will make decisions about solar geoengineering, at least if you're talking aerosols in the stratosphere, it's not likely that the ability to pay for it will play a big role in the decision.

And the other both good and bad thing about this approach is that if you stop that fleet of airplanes and you ground them, then this cooling effect will disappear very quickly, which is good in the sense that if you realize you've made some kind of mistake and you want to undo it, you can undo it.

But it's also bad in the sense that you really need to keep on doing it in perpetuity or at least with a sensible plan about how to stop it.

And if something went wrong, you would have a very quick heating of the Earth if you had become dependent on this kind of technology.

Yeah, I think that's right.

It's certainly true that if one was doing a lot of solar geoengineering, it suddenly stopped, then you get a sudden warming with bad consequences.

But I think one needs to really consider what would be the features that would make that happen.

And I think it's actually politically very hard to stop.

And it's very hard to see a kind of system failure stopping.

And given that it's cheap, the fact is it would make sense for multiple countries to maintain the ability to do it, even if they oppose doing it.

If there was a lot of solar geoengineering happening and there was a legitimate fear about the existing player somehow losing the ability to do it, then it would be in, say, ultra-green Germans' rational self-interest to build the equipment to do it, even though they oppose doing it because there's a danger of turning it off.

And the global positioning system provides a clever analogy for why this is true.

So the US built the first constellation of global positioning satellites.

I can get on my cell phone in a city I've never been in before and know exactly where I am because satellites are whizzing by at many times the speed of sound over my head and give me my precise location to a meter.

And the Russians built one of these two originally, but now we have a Chinese system and the Europeans are building a separate system for goal positioning.

So there's now four of these independent systems.

So why is Europe spending money to build a system?

Because they can use the existing systems for free.

The answer is they want the power to decide whether it's turned off.

The US could, in principle, deny access, and so could the Russians.

So the Europeans want to have a vote.

If you take GPS to mean having at least one of these systems on, effectively all players must vote to turn it off for it to be turned off.

If any player votes to keep it, then the service stays.

And I think that is exactly the same as what happened with solar geoengineering.

Once you've started, given that it's fairly cheap, essentially all the major entities need to agree to stop for it to stop.

And I think that's unlikely to happen by accident.

Yeah.

But maybe the greatest risk many people see of solar geoengineering is that we lose our will to do the harder thing, the decarbonization.

I think that's probably a legitimate point.

That is absolutely the central concern.

I think that goes by many names, moral hazard.

I think in many ways, addiction is the right word, but that is the central concern.

And the biggest reason that I personally

have doubts about whether I should have spent my career talking about this, because solar geoengineering has this

terrible property in that in the short run, it's always much more cost effective and even just more effective than anything you do in cutting emissions.

The reason is the single most important fact that all your listeners should know about climate change, which is climate change is proportional to the cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide basically over industrial history.

The cumulative amount.

That means that if you stop emitting on a given year, it makes almost no difference to climate in the next few years.

And if you stop emissions completely, you don't stop climate change.

You just stop it getting worse because it depends on the cumulative amount emitted.

And that makes it very hard to justify spending money in the near term to cut emissions, even though it's absolutely the right thing to do if you care about the long term.

And so solar geoengineering is a very tempting thing, because if you want a quick reduction in real harms to some of the world's poorest ecosystems, it might achieve it.

But on the other hand, it is absolutely true that if the world just chose to embrace solar geoengineering and forgot to cut emissions, we are screwed.

You just can't say that too strongly.

Like if you just keep emissions going, so carbon concentrations, that's the amount of carbon in the atmosphere keeps rising, and then you had to keep like blocking out more of the sun, you're walking off into a more and more risky future.

And that is just insanity.

Yeah.

And so really the right way to think about solar geoengineering in your mind is it's some combination of an immediate fix, something that we can use right away to buy us some time, or alternatively as a form of insurance, right?

If things get worse in the the future to the point where we feel a kind of desperation for immediate cooling, if we've done the research now, we'll be well positioned to act thoughtfully and quickly in the future.

I don't actually love either the buy time framing or the insurance framing.

For me, this is really about simply an additional way to reduce real risks.

So the buy time framing, it seems to me, exactly exacerbates the moral hazard.

Buy time implies that we then get to reduce emissions more slowly.

Whereas to me, the central idea is that we could buy, if you want to keep that word, less risk.

The central way I think about this is that a world with emissions cuts and solar geometry sharing could have significantly less risks, especially to vulnerable ecosystems, some of the most vulnerable people, than a world with just emissions cuts.

So it's really about the additional opportunity to reduce harm.

And I think that's a little different from the buy time framing or the future insurance against horror framing.

Can you talk in particular about the scope experiment?

What was the basic idea of that experiment?

Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment.

This is really about improving the processes that are embedded in the big climate models that in turn we use to predict the effects of say silver geo sharing or anything else.

So these climate models are a bunch of computer code, but the computer code in the end is built on observations of the natural world.

And so one of the key processes that we don't know enough about is how aerosols would actually be formed in a plume in the stratosphere, how much they stick together and some key ways in which they interact with the ozone chemistry we don't know enough about.

And there are things that you can't find out just by modeling more because we just don't have enough observations.

And this experiment was going to make a little plume in the stratosphere and allow us to observe that plume on very short time scales to observe the plume evolution.

And there aren't very many high-altitude balloon operators in the world and there is a company called the Swedish Space Sciences that wanted to do the balloon flight and was well prepared to do it.

And it has been extraordinarily politicizing, including for mistakes we made.

So there's been headlines about how Bill Gates is going to walk out the sun.

The actual experiment, even the strongest critics admit the experiment itself doesn't pose a risk.

The only risk is that the balloon godda falls on somebody, which actually is something to worry about.

But the atmospheric risk is really negligible.

It would release a kilogram of aerosols, which is less than a minute of flight of a conventional aircraft in the stratosphere.

So obviously you expected some resistance because you went to extraordinary lengths to build oversight and consensus around this experiment.

What did you do on those fronts?

Well, the obvious question is, what are the regulations about such experiments?

And the answer is what we're doing is legal, or there's a regulatory process that would authorize it.

But we recognize that there were legitimate disagreements about solar geoengineering research.

So we set up a kind of independent advisory committee, which advises not us, but the Harvard senior administration about the reputational risk to Harvard of us running the experiment and about the ways that we should manage the experiment to take public input as much as possible.

So we set up this independent advisory committee.

And then in a complicated process, the thing fell apart in Sweden.

So in the end, really, there were some prominent voices in opposition, most importantly, something called the Sami Council, Council, Indigenous Group.

And that Sami Council letter and others helped to make the Swedish government basically order the balloon operator not to fly us.

So let's keep on going down.

What happens below the stratosphere?

So next on the journey down would be an idea that you could reduce or thin some kind of cirrus clouds.

Sirius clouds are the high wispy clouds that you can see on the upper part of the atmosphere.

So any cloud by looking white and puffy will reflect some sunlight and that cools the earth.

And low clouds really just act in this cooling way.

But a high cloud also acts as an infrared heat trapper.

And for thin high clouds, these cirrus clouds, that infrared heat trapping effect can be stronger than the solar cooling effect.

And so the net effect of those clouds is to warm the planet.

So if you reduce those clouds, you're cooling the planet.

And that's the idea of of cirrus thinning.

So airplane contrails are an example of that kind of cloud.

And there was an amazing study that came out a year or two ago that suggested that you could dramatically alter the climate change effects of airplanes simply by redirecting planes and keeping them from making contrails, right?

An aircraft contrail is more or less the same as a cirrus cloud.

An aircraft will make or not make contrails depending on the humidity of the air that it's flying through.

So in some cases, you'll see contrails and some not.

And an aircraft could, in principle, make less contrails by deliberately altering its flight path a little bit to fly in air where contrails get made less.

So it turns out that as of today, if you look at the total warming impact of all of global aviation, about half of the warming impact, a little less than half, is actually due to this instantaneous warming from the contrails rather than the accumulated CO2 from the aircraft operations.

Let me stop you there because that is so crazy.

It's what happens so often in climate science is that things that seem really unimportant end up being incredibly important.

Like I'm sure my listeners have heard about and thought about the burning of fossil fuels by airplanes for decades and understand exactly why that would be bad for the environment.

But I bet for many people, they have never heard about this.

And to think that half of the total effect is coming from these seemingly harmless contracts, it's amazing to me.

To be clear, there's big error bars on that half, I should emphasize.

And it might be as low as 20%, but it's significant, and there are papers that put it close to half.

So then there's this really interesting fact that it might be that aircraft operators could substantially reduce their contrails at the expense of very small additional fuel burn by just redirecting the aircraft to optimally reduce the contrails while burning just a tiny bit more fuel.

And this is now being very actively studied.

And the politics are very interesting.

global aviation industry might more publicly take responsibility for that contrail portion of their warming and then reduce it by this technical fix of readjusting.

And that would allow the aircraft industry to look like heroes in reducing emissions.

You're listening to People I Mostly Admire with Steve Levitt and his conversation with David Keith.

After this short break, they'll return to talk about why the carbon offset market is bogus.

I'm Dr.

Sarah Rahal, the founder and CEO of ARMRA.

I developed Armor Colostrum because I know your body was designed to thrive.

It's your natural state, your birthright, and you can reclaim it.

Colostrum is the first nutrition we receive in life with every essential nutrient our bodies need.

It's nature's original blueprint for health.

After a devastating health crisis almost took my life, I made it my mission to harness this power.

Using proprietary technology, Armra captures over 400 400 bioactive nutrients in every scoop, delivering over 1,000 benefits that transform your health at its foundation.

Whether for gut health, metabolism, skin, hair, immunity, mood, energy, fitness, or recovery, I invite you to join this collective revival of health and discover radical transformation for yourself.

Visit ARMAR.com, that's A-R-M-R-A.com, and enter code health30 for 30% off your first subscription order.

This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.

This product is not intended to diagnose, drink, cure, or prevent any disease.

People I Mostly Admire is sponsored by LinkedIn.

As a small business owner, your business is always on your mind.

So when you're hiring, you need a partner who's just as dedicated as you are.

That hiring partner is LinkedIn Jobs.

When you clock out, LinkedIn clocks in.

They make it easy to post your job for free, share it with your network, and get qualified candidates that you can manage all in one place.

And LinkedIn's new feature can help you write job descriptions and then quickly get your job in front of the right people with deep candidate insights.

You can post your job for free or choose to promote it.

Promoted jobs attract three times more qualified applicants.

At the end of the day, the most important thing to your small business is the quality of candidates.

And with LinkedIn, you can feel confident that you're getting the best.

Post your job for free at linkedin.com/slash admire.

That's linkedin.com/slash admire to post your job for free.

Terms and conditions apply.

People I Mostly Admire is sponsored by Mint Mobile.

From new shoes to new supplies, the back-to-school season comes with a lot of expenses.

Your wireless bill shouldn't be one of them.

Ditch overpriced wireless and switch to Mint Mobile where you can get the coverage and speed you're used to, but for way less money.

For a limited time, Mint Mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for $15 a month.

Because this school year, your budget deserves a break.

Get this new customer offer and your three-month unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a month at mintmobile.com slash admire.

That's mintmobile.com slash admire.

Upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month.

Limited time new customer offer for first three months only.

Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan.

Taxes and fees extra, see Mint Mobile for details.

Honey, do not make plans Saturday, September 13th, okay?

Why, what's happening?

The Walmart Wellness Event.

Flu shots, health screenings, free samples from those brands you like.

All that at Walmart.

We can just walk right in.

No appointment needed.

Who knew we could cover our health and wellness needs at Walmart?

Check the calendar Saturday, September 13th.

Walmart Wellness Event.

You knew.

I knew.

Check in on your health at the same place you already shop.

Visit Walmart Saturday, September 13th for our semi-annual wellness event.

Flu shots subject to availability and applicable state law.

Age restrictions apply.

Free samples while supplies last.

Want to look and feel your best this summer?

Don't just think skin deep.

Think cell deep with Prolon.

Prolon is a plant-based nutrition program featuring soups, snacks, and beverages that nourish the body while keeping it in a fasting state, triggering cellular rejuvenation and renewal.

With proper diet and exercise, Prolon can help target fat loss, support lean muscle, and reset your metabolism.

So you look and feel your best all summer long.

Prolon is science-backed nutrition that can help change your relationship with food in just five days.

Get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe at prolonlife.com slash Pandora Promo.

These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA.

These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

See site for details.

Hey, Steve.

So our listener Simon Rodin, he is a mid-career scientist in a major university.

And Simon is worried about spending a lot of time padding his resume.

This feeling that he's pushed to publish all the time to get grants, to get prestige, probably to get tenure.

And he feels like that sometimes comes at a cost, that he is pushed to produce a large number of publications, a quantity over quality.

Now, this is really a follow-up to our conversation with Dan Gilbert, who gave the advice to work on one project at a time, really working on things that were most valuable.

What do you have to say to Simon?

So you know how much I love Dan Gilbert, but I think Dan's advice in this particular case to work on one project at a time is terrible advice because sometimes you're in the mood to work on data.

And sometimes you're in the mood to do theory.

Sometimes you're in the mood to talk to people.

And sometimes you're in the mood to read.

I find that for myself, I have much more fun with my work when I have a bunch of projects and each of them is demanding something different from me so that I can cater my whims to the needs of the project as they come.

But I thought you were really a fan of Dan saying to do less better.

Oh yeah, I'm not talking about doing more.

So I want to draw the distinction.

Instead of doing 15 really mediocre projects, finding the three or four that are really good, that's a totally different dimension than the idea that you can only do one thing at a time.

So over the course of three years, Dan might do six projects.

Over the course of three years, I might do six projects.

We're both doing less better.

It's just that I think you'll enjoy it and get a lot more done if you do those six projects in parallel rather than doing them in series one after another.

I've learned that my productivity and my enjoyment of life are both much higher.

when I follow Dan's advice to do less better and when I ignore Dan's advice to work on one project at a time.

And those two are not in conflict.

They're two different ideas.

But I don't think we've really answered the heart of Simon's question.

Simon is a mid-career scientist and there is a lot of pressure to publish, publish, publish and get your work out there.

And so as a mid-career scientist, not someone who is maybe as established as you, Steve Levitt, or Dan Gilbert, how do you tell them to balance this working on things that are interesting without having to produce this quantity that is so praised in the academic field?

Right.

The real advice I have for Simon is if he's doing projects that are just padding his CV, then I think maybe he's caught in this trap of not spending enough time thinking about new ideas.

And I think it's so common among researchers that they spend too little time on ideas and way too much time on execution.

Because if you're doing things right,

you've got more good ideas than you have time to explore.

And in that world, there's never too many projects, right?

If you have so many good ideas, you're constrained as time and how much you want to put in, but you never feel like, oh, I'm working on something I shouldn't be working on.

But the trick, I think, is knowing the difference.

And that might not become apparent on a project until you've spent a lot of time.

Yeah.

And the other key piece is knowing when to stop, knowing when to quit.

People don't quit enough.

And that's what you have to be ruthless about killing your own ideas because otherwise you get caught in Simon's trap of spending all your time on bad projects.

Simon, hope that answers your question.

If you have a question for us, our email is pima at freakinomics.com.

That's p-i-m-a at freakonomics.com.

Steve and I read every email that's sent, and we look forward to reading yours.

I learned a lot in the first half of of this conversation, both about the IPCC and about airplane contracts.

In the second half of our chat, I want to hear David's thoughts on carbon offsets and carbon capture, but also what that open letter against solar geoengineering means for his research and what it's like to work for decades on a topic that arouses so much anger.

Could you explain the basic principle behind carbon offsets?

So the classic version of the carbon offset is roughly the following.

If you were building a big office building developments and I was somebody who wanted to buy carbon offsets, we could have a transaction where I pay you some money and in return you build a better building with lower carbon emissions than you otherwise would have built.

And that generates some carbon offsets.

And there's a third party in that transaction, of course, a regulator effectively, who's recognizing those offsets.

That sounds a little bit like a normal economic transaction.

It is not.

And it is much harder to verify and fraud is much more likely.

If you're selling me an apple and I'm buying an apple, there's this nice way in which you want the price to be high and I want the price to be low and we can close the deal.

Here I am lecturing this to an e-commer professor.

You should be laughing.

But in this offset transaction, it's a three-way transaction.

And the key thing is the offsets are generated by the difference between the apartment building you actually built, which is observable, and the apartment building you were going to build if I hadn't paid you the money, which is fundamentally unobservable.

And you and I have every reason to exaggerate it.

You were going to build just absolutely this crappy apartment building with leaky windows until you got my money and you built a nice one.

And this is not just theory.

Early on in the climate policy world, there was a thing called the clean development mechanism that worked on offset credits.

There was emissions from generating a certain kind of chlorofluorocarbon.

And Chinese factories were deliberately engineered so that the base factory design emitted a lot of the bad chlorofluorocarbon so they could get paid money to not do it.

So this offset market is corrupt in a deep way because it's so deeply hard to verify because it depends on a counterfactual that's not observable.

So how big is the market for offsets these days?

It's huge, right?

Yeah, it's huge.

If offset markets were acting the way we expected, does huge mean that the impacts would be so big that we should actually be able to detect in the global temperatures, the impact of these markets?

I am so glad you asked that.

Not at global temperatures, because those are really a late measure with all sorts of reasons you wouldn't see that.

But here's where you should start to see it, is scientists now can make really good measurements of the total flux of carbon into the land biosphere and the oceans separately.

So we really know that number increasingly well.

And the global market for these offset transactions, this idea of planting trees, indeed, I have just beside me here a little coffee napkin that I picked up on a Delta flight the other day that said, carbon neutral since March 2020.

Travel confidently, knowing that we will offset the carbon emitted on your Delta flight.

This is obviously completed utter nonsense.

It was really that easy for Delta to zero out their carbon emissions, the whole climate problem would be easy, but it isn't.

There's all sorts of reasons why tree planting doesn't really end up offsetting the fundamental impact of burning fossil fuels.

But I love your question because I think pretty soon we're going to get to a point where the offset market that's claimed is is big enough that we should be able to see it in the change in the biospheric stocks, which are not happening.

And then it will become more obvious that this is maybe fraud is too strong, but this is just a set of, in many cases, well-intentioned people, some not so much, who have built a system that just is deeply unverifiable, where there are all these reasons to make the numbers look bigger than they really are.

There's really a buzz around carbon removal right now.

Billions of dollars of venture capital going into it.

Now, how optimistic are you towards the prospects for the carbon removal approach more generally?

So moderately, but here you need to flag for your listeners conflict of interest.

So I generally think of myself just as an academic, but kind of by accident, I ended up starting this little company called Carbon Engineering, really just because I wanted to attack the problem of whether you could build a cost-effective way to capture carbon from the air in an industrial process.

And that company's done very well.

Publicly traded company has announced that they look like they'll build the first plant using our technology, the biggest plant by far that would use technology of this kind.

So obviously I have self-interest in that, though I find myself academically pretty far away from it.

There are ways we could really remove carbon in the sense that the climate problem is driven by taking carbon from the geosphere, from deep underground, coal and gas and oil.

burning it and putting in the active biosphere.

It is possible to reverse that process.

So if you take carbon that was in the atmosphere and put it back deep underground, and you could do that using the kind of technology that my company did or lots of its competitors, or you could do it by burning biomass that came from the atmosphere and putting that carbon underground, or you could do it by other methods of putting what's called alkalinity in the ocean where you permanently hold the carbon in the ocean.

Those things really are true negative emissions or carbon removal.

And they are an important part of the way humanity gets itself out of this problem.

But I think the carbon removal market actually is a little overhyped.

There's a great deal of excitement that somehow in the near term, people are thinking of those as substitute for cutting emissions.

And my view, again, is that the vast majority of effort should go into cutting emissions, not into building up a bid infrastructure for removal.

That's a good point.

And one thing I didn't appreciate for a long time is the massive scale on which carbon removal would need to operate to have a big impact.

So take carbon engineering.

So you're building a factory which will take carbon out of the air.

If you wanted to undo 10% of our current emissions, how many billion-dollar factories would you need to build to be operating on that kind of scale, say to offset what the transportation industry does?

Global emissions of carbon dioxide are about 40 gigatons, 40 billion tons a year.

That's 40 cubic kilometers of liquid carbon dioxide every year.

So I'll go with your 10% number.

That would be four gigatons.

And the plant that our partners have announced they're going to build with our technology is half a megaton a year.

So you need 1,000 of those megaton-a-year plants to be one gigaton.

So you need 4,000 to be four gigatons, which is not totally ridiculous, but it's not going to happen overnight.

And I think the main point is we should focus on cost-effective waste to cut emissions now.

So let's stick with that 4,000 plants because thinking like an economist, which I know you're good at now, because I've been talking to you, it takes real resources to build those plants.

And in the short run, those plants are actually net negative on greenhouse gases.

And then you earn it back over time.

So these are no bargain in the short run, the carbon removal approaches.

I do think carbon removal does something that none of the other methods can do in a sense that cutting emissions just stops us making the problem worse.

But even if we remove emissions, we have the carbon that's in the atmosphere.

Right.

Solar geoengineering adaptation do not deal with the long-term risk of the carbon in the atmosphere.

The only way to really reduce that risk on a policy relevant time scale of a few hundred years is carbon removal.

So I actually am very bullish on carbon removal in the long run as a way for humanity to undo some of the damage that the fossil fuel economy did.

It's simply that if you think about it as a short-term way to reduce acute damages mid-century, then I get a lot more skeptical.

A very interesting thing might happen in the near term.

And I credit this idea to a friend and colleague, Jane Flagel, who just went from the White House to go work for Stripe, a company that's pushing carbon removal technologies.

And she said something I thought deeply insightful, which was that all these high-tech real removal methods may help to kill the BS offset market in a way that's very healthy.

So, just speaking of my company, because it happens to be public recently, it was announced that Airbus has purchased 0.4 million tons worth of this pure carbon removal.

That's by far the biggest announced purchase in this world.

And the price is not publicly disclosed.

I'm not letting out any secrets to say that it might be north of $100 a ton.

And the point is, it's just not going to be stable for Airbus to pay more than $100 a ton and at the same time have, I don't know what Delta paid to make my flight supposedly carbon neutral, but it was a lot more like $2 a ton.

And I do think that having the real technological carbon removal may help to shake the nonsense out of the offset market.

In January of 2022, a group of 60 scientists and scholars signed an OPA letter that was demanding an international non-use agreement on solar engineering.

It called for a prohibition on national funding agencies from supporting the research, and it wanted a ban on outdoor experiments.

And that seems like a very extreme and an unusual stance for scientists to take about other scientists who are trying to do basic research to understand a problem.

They even called for blocking the IPCC from assessing the topic, which is really an extraordinary call for ignorance.

To be clear, the actual call for a non-use agreement, at least a near-term moratorium, is one that I would support.

I don't think we should use these technologies right away.

And I think we do need a way to restrain a potential early action that's not well governed.

But effectively, what they called for was a ban on research.

Obviously, I don't buy it.

I don't think this is simply that scientists should get to do what they want.

I think scientists need oversight, but solar geoengineering, where the fact is major bodies like the IPCC and many high-quality published studies show that it could substantially reduce climate risks.

The idea that you could have ban that strikes me as a high bar.

So it's been my experience that in the domain of climate research, many people wear dual hats as scientists and as activists.

Do you think this letter is an example of science or activism?

It feels more like activism to me, dressed up as science.

I'd say yes, but I don't dismiss it for that.

I think activism is vitally important, but I do question

the ethical basis of their claim that research should be banned.

And it's worth saying that the people who sign that mostly live in North Europe, in societies that are pretty well protected from climate change, and even some of the signatories are in societies that are far enough away from the equator that might actually benefit in the short term from climate climate change.

Yet the people who will be most harmed typically are among the world's poorest people living in the hottest places because an added little bit of temperature is much worse in places that are already hot.

So you need to think very hard about the moral case for banning research, even if you have this legitimate concern about moral hazard, because you're potentially taking away the possibility of reducing risk for the most vulnerable.

And I think that's a pretty high bar to argue that's the right thing to do.

My impression was that it's already been incredibly difficult to get any public funding for this kind of work.

If you had a guess, what is the total dollar amount that the U.S.

government has spent on research in this area over the last 30 years?

Tens of millions at the very most, which is just tiny.

It's nothing.

It's nothing.

I mean, rounding air to zero.

One of the things that's so interesting is there's been this boom in venture capital money going into carbon removal.

That's all facilitated by the idea that there's a market for carbon.

You're going to buy and sell carbon.

But because solar geoengineering isn't dealing in that currency, there's no market.

There's no economic drivers behind the scenes pushing the investment.

I think that's a subtle but really important point when you think about the economics and the science and the politics of these choices.

Yeah, I think it's utterly different.

If I think about a carbon removal machine, like the one that the company I founded is building, People shouldn't trust everything we say.

In the end, they should trust what their actual plants do because when our plants are built, it will be easy to verify what goes in and what goes out.

It's easily measurable.

And so it's a verifiable thing.

And our company and our companies could just like compete to do the best job.

That's where I think capitalism can work very well.

I think solar geoengineering is deeply different.

It's already so cheap, we don't need to make it cheaper.

The whole issue of solar geoengineering is about trust.

This is a dangerous thing manipulating the Earth system.

where humans are going to disagree about it, sometimes very strongly.

It's healthy and natural that that's true.

And some coalition of countries may eventually push to do it and other countries will have doubts about what's happening.

You won't be able to directly observe the effects.

You won't know for sure whether it's been working.

So this is really all about trust.

And however imperfect it is, trust like that is gained by distributed systems like academic research internationally and open science, not closed science such as in companies.

So my view is there's almost no room for for-profit activity for solar geoengineering.

To be clear, if it's actually implemented, a for-profit company might build a satellite that a government pays for that goes and measures the aerosols.

Fine.

But I don't want a for-profit company to be in charge of the key mechanisms of solar geosharing because there'd just be no reason to trust them.

And there's also a way which it just doesn't make any sense as a market.

Because if I cool the whole world, how do I make anybody pay for the service of cooling the world?

Everything I know about you makes me think that you are an environmentalist, that you love the planet and nature and you want good things to happen to it.

Do you ever personally find your own activism tendencies conflict with your scientific outlook?

Hmm.

They certainly shaped it.

I've been lucky enough to spend a lot more time outdoors.

And also I was a child of wildlife biologists.

So I've been influenced by that worldview.

I was brought up on Aloe Leopold and Rachel Carson and so on.

And I actually am motivated by trying to reduce the impacts of the natural world in ways that are certainly not just rational.

They're my values.

And there's no question that influences the research projects I pick.

And I do think one of the reasons I've chosen to work on solar geoengineering is that humans can probably find ways to adapt.

And we will eventually cut emissions.

We could muddle through the climate problem, but the natural world won't.

And if we want to leave more of the natural world less mucked up from human activity for future generations, literature sharing might be an important piece of that.

So that makes sense, but I was actually pushing even further.

Let me give an example.

So I know a scientist who was working on HIV research very early on.

And he was meeting with U.S.

senators and he outright lied to them about how HIV was spread in order to get a big funding bill passed.

And much to my surprise, he didn't relay that to me with any shame.

He's like, it was something I had to do.

I thought it was really important to get funding.

So I said what I had to say.

That feels like it's such a violation of my norms as a social scientist.

And I just get the sense that in climate science, there's tremendous social pressure to emphasize the doomsday because you're worried that people won't do the right thing unless you do that.

I think it's the role of academics to be as honest and comprehensive about all they know.

If you're working for a company or an advocacy group, I don't think you should lie, but in a sense, it's your job to push a specific agenda and to choose the facts you present to support that agenda.

But I feel actually very strongly that that is not your job as an academic.

I can't remember the exact quote, but there's an Einstein statue outside the National Academy building that says something like, those of us who get the privilege to seek for knowledge, meaning who get paid good salaries to just write papers and study stuff, have the duty to say all we know.

Now, if you're a startup company, you shouldn't buy, but you don't have to expose all your warts.

But if you're an academic, it is your job, in my view, to say the things that may go against what you personally would vote for if you're presenting a set of facts.

It's your job to present the relevant facts as thoroughly as you can.

What really surprises me listening to you talk is you've devoted so many years to studying these issues, so much opposition against it, so much demonization of you and your research agenda.

And yet you seem so easygoing and relaxed about it.

And I'm wondering, many people find themselves in your situation, believing deeply in something that others believe just as deeply against.

Do you have advice to people who are stuck in this kind of situation about how to navigate it?

Oh, man.

I feel like I'm not even keeled in private and I'm more even keeled on interviews like this.

So I think some of it is a front.

Coming to this through applied public policy, I really do believe that while I may know more facts on some of this than some other people, that my vote ought not to count more than anybody else, and that there really are value questions here where nobody has the right answer.

I deeply believe that scientists should not just say what happens and that there isn't a objective answer about whether or not we should use solar geoengineering.

So while my judgment is that it's technically true that solar geoengineering could be used in a way that would really quite significantly reduce climate risk, especially to the most vulnerable, and for that reason, me as a citizen would likely vote to deploy it.

really believe in the importance of separating out kind of technocratic scientists from the public policy process.

And I don't believe that I on this topic should somehow have extra weight in the legitimate policy debate.

But I think the other feature is that I've just learned that if I do show much emotion about it, that just digs a deeper hole.

So I try not to.

So, I mean, if you ask me how I really feel when they're ridiculously distorted headlines, it makes me want to kick the wall.

And it really hurts and it hurts emotionally.

And when there's people in the the environmental community that i feel myself absolutely to be a part of who regard this as some kind of oil company front and anti-environmental it hurts a lot but that hurt is not an effective way to move the conversation forward

13 years ago when we wrote super free economics i believe geoengineering deserved much more attention and investment than it was receiving and i continue to believe that today even more strongly.

Geoengineering is not a panacea, but it's one more arrow in the quiver.

And maybe we'll never choose to implement these strategies at scale, but to not take careful steps to better understand the potential costs and benefits, that just seems short-sighted.

People I Mostly Admire is part of the Freakonomics Radio Network, which also includes FreeConomics Radio, No Stupid Questions, Freakonomics MD, and Off Leash.

All our shows are produced by Stitcher and Renbutt Radio.

Morgan Levy is our producer and Jasmine Klinger is our engineer.

We had help from Alina Coleman.

Our staff also includes Neil Karruth, Gabriel Roth, Greg Ripin, Rebecca Lee Douglas, Zach Lipinski, Julie Canfor, Eleanor Osborne, Ryan Kelly, Emma Terrell, Lyric Boudich, Jacob Clementi, and Stephen Dubner.

Our theme music was composed by Luis Scara.

To listen ad-free, subscribe to Stitcher Premium.

We can be reached at Pima at freakonomics.com.

That's P-I-M-A at freakonomics.com.

Thanks for listening.

You talk like an economist, but you have zero training as an economist.

I've collaborated on a lot of econ papers over the years and had initially an extremely allergic reaction to economists, as many physicists do, but I've somewhat tempered it.

The Freakonomics Radio Network, the hidden side of everything.

Stitcher.

Honey, do not make plans Saturday, September 13th, okay?

Why, what's happening?

The Walmart Wellness Event, flu shots, health screenings, free samples from those brands you like.

All that at Walmart.

We can just walk right in.

No appointment needed.

Who knew we could cover our health and wellness needs at Walmart?

Check the calendar Saturday, September 13th.

Walmart wellness event.

You knew.

I knew.

Check in on your health at the same place you already shop.

Visit Walmart Saturday, September 13th for our semi-annual wellness event.

Flu shots subject to availability and applicable state law.

Age restrictions apply.

Free samples while supplies last.

Hey there, I'm Stephen Dubner, host of Freakonomics Radio.

If you love the podcasts in the Freakonomics Radio network, I want to tell you about a way you can get even more from us.

To hear our shows without ads and get exclusive access to Free Conomics Radio bonus episodes, please subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts Plus on Apple Podcasts or sign up at seriousxm.com/slash podcasts plus.

Start a free trial today.