Thank you for everyone for joining. Us for our latest. Webinar, the, Institute, for. Carbon removal lawn policy, focuses. On social. Science, aspects, of the emerging, field of, carbon, dioxide removal, including. Issues associated with law, politics. And and, ethics, and. We're. Pleased to host a webinar today, that focuses, on a critical, issue as we, discuss, the role of carbon. Dioxide removal, in, a portfolio. Of responses. To to, climate, change while. Many, have acknowledged. That there may be an important, role for carbon, dioxide removal to play in, addressing climate change in meeting the objectives of, the Paris agreement there. Is also a substantial, concern. That, a full-throated. Commitment. To, these options might. Ultimately result. In a diminution of commitment, to aggressive. Decarbonisation. Of the economy, some. Term. This a moral. Hazard others. Term this, mitigation. Deterrence. And today. We, have a. Panel, of three, excellent. Scholars, to discuss. That issue as well, as potential. Policy, recommendations. Of how to address this issue, niels. Markeson, duncan. Mclaren and rebecca. Willis are with. The lancaster. Environment. Center at lancaster, university in. The united kingdom and they. Are, going to present the results from. A I believe, it's a three year project, that. Is called assessing. The mitigation. Deterrence, effects, of greenhouse. Gas, removal. Technologies. And. Logistics. For this webinar. Will be as follow the. Three. Presenters. Will will, make brief interventions. And then, we'll follow this up with a. Question-and-answer, a segment. At the at, the end and so with that I'm going to turn it over to Nils, to begin the presentation. Can. Lease and thanks will for, having us I'm. Going to try and share my screen, here now. There. Is that working. Yeah. I'm stopped from will thanks will so, yes, so we will deliver a. Topic. Here today for us is delivering, greenhouse gas removal without, undermining, mitigation. And as, well said this is defining from a project of ours and, we. Have been working on I, was. Called assessing, mitigation, deterrence, effects, of greenhouse gas removal techniques, the am thankful George that's me Rebecca, and Duncan talking today. We've. Listed here also our other collaborators, in the project, here. At Lancaster, University and. We have a longest, list of the funders. So. The. Outline so the structure, of the talk today is I'm gonna start I explained. A little bit her, briefly introducing, venus removable, and web. Matters and, also a little bit of what we mean when, we say mitigation, deterrence. And. Some quantitative, estimates, of how. Serious, mitigation, deterrence effects might be, and. I'll come back and talk a little bit about the, theory and, behind. This and some, of the methodology, we used for the main part of our project which, has been a. Deliberative. Exercise, engage. With one set of workshops, with people, Duncan.
Will Then come back and present results. From, that, part of the project, and. Finally, Becky, will explain, to us what all this means, what. What implications, it has for for. Policy not least so what, public can use if. You're safely. We, was minimizing. The, risk of. Undermining. Other, mitigation, efforts. So. Did. Your really. Come into policy, focus, at the same time that, policy. Climate policy has been framed as talk through. Carbon budgets, and. We. Know that safe, budget. For, carbon emissions is almost exhausted, we. Know that rock really rapid, decarbonisation, is essential, to stay within, safe. Limits for. The climate. We. Know that, ger, is almost certainly, needed, in addition to. Mitigation. And this is the sort. Of the key to our project, how to make sure that that we get both that we get GTR in addition, to mitigation, and. One. Possible estimate from. 2020. Is an estimated remaining budget of, eighty two hundred and seventy six you get on carbon. That's, what we used in. Our quantitative. If. Want to take the side of our project. So. What. Do we mean by DG R&D, Joris is a UK, kind, of acronym greenhouse, gas removal. Very. Similar, to carbon dioxide removal carbon, removal, technology. Etc, we. Define it as the large-scale means to, remove greenhouse, gases, from the atmosphere and. Sequester. The, carbon that, has been captured in our project, we have focused mainly. On four specific did, your technology your, techniques so, Beck's, biomass, oven. Capture and storage. Enhanced. Web the ring, soil. Carbon enhancement. There. In a few different kinds including biochar. Of example, and. Finally direct, air capture, we. Have it. Should be noted though that we've also looked at ug or as a category, in ins in itself, so did your as the umbrella category. Capturing. All the different we were capturing, Mali and encompassing. All the different did, your techniques, because. We're interested in not just a physical material. Impact so. Impacts. Of the technology, deployed somewhere but, also the discursive. Act the facts, of just talking about it and Gigi auras category, in itself has, had an impact on policy. So. So. Why why are we talking, about all this at all so. Often. Quite often times we, talk about climate policies, the technologies, used to, respond to climate change, in common policy as, additive, as just things you can add together as web juice etc. And, of course we need multiple, technologies, we need you need to use them together but. We need to be quite serbian how are they interact, and we're quite good at understanding some, of those interactions, so.
We Think that in. Normal. Modelling work, and analysis we. Quite good at understanding economic. Interactions. Least-cost solutions. For. Example we've quite good, at understanding some. Of the physical, interactions. Land use competition. And things like this but. There are other kinds, of interaction, effects, we think cultural. Political ones, that, are typically, not well modeled. And, that. Also matter and they matter, again. They matter not just in terms of impacts. Of deployed technology. But also before deployment, already, during. Development demonstration. Testing. Etc the. Mere, talking, about eg, our technology, is not just culturally and politically, without. We need to understand those kinds of interaction effects as well and. These. Kinds of interactions happen, importantly. They happen on a playing, field that isn't even it isn't level as it were. It. Is quite heavily, influenced, by. Vested. Interests, on which are rather. Skeptical, of mitigation. Efforts, and need for it and be, yeah. So. Did. Your promises, or. Or. Key unsearched and of course right like any new engine. But. They could also trigger, some. Unexpected, perverse, effects. We worry. About that so, the effect that TV or technologies, might have on mitigation. Through. These other kinds of interaction, effects cultural. And. It's. Important, here to to. Emphasize, that we are not this. Is not us. Arguing, against GTR we, are convinced. That they are very necessarily. Unimportant, what, we really want, here is to investigate under what circumstances. Did, your can be used safely alongside other, kinds of mitigation how can we get both when. The risk is that we get neither that, we both undermine. Other, kinds of mitigation and. Risk. Failing getting, to your as well so how to get both rather, than later. With. That I hand. Over to Duncan, to talk about, historical. Background and quantification. Of mitigation deterrence, effects. Thanks. Very much. Welcome. Everyone, pleased, to see you all in. Virtual. Reality at, least. Starting. Not so far back in history just really. Last year with a an, example, of what. We see as a form of mitigation, deterrence. You'll. Probably all remember the rather. High-profile, article, in science, that. Tree. Restoration. As the biggest, single. Solution. To climate change some. Of you may be, involved in rebutting. Those claims, several people were. Published. A few months later in science, showing, how this, has been overestimated. Now, the claims might have been genuine, errors but. They gained a life of their own they're. Not just supported, by figures like greater, number. Or Christina. Figueras as a. Supplement. To other, climate, measures, but. They were adopted, as a smokescreen for, Trump's. Ongoing. Opposition. To, other measures in big E's ongoing support, for the coal, industry stood. Side by side, with, a promise. To join in the trillion trees initiative. In, the UK the government Minister. Defended. Bailing, out of failing airline on, the grounds that it had already decarbonized. By supporting, tree planting so. We. Saw a, problem. Of an, exaggerated. Promise, of what tree planting, could do flow, within. A few months, into. An influence, on policy and. Potentially. On public attitudes. But. If. You could, move on the slide please else our. Sense. Is that this is a I. Mean. That's a pretty provocative example. Of a recent, deterrence. But. Mitigation. Deterrence is actually, quite. System, at systemic, here, and. The, case another, case that you may well be familiar. With is. That of bioenergy. With carbon capture and storage. In. Reality, if, we look around the world today Beks is a niche. Application. A niche technology there's. A few plants applying. It to an ethanol fermentation, where. It captures about fifteen or five percent. Of the carbon from the biomass and co2. Pipes. It off to a oil. Field where it's pumped, into the, existing. Oil field to, generate, more profitable. Oil extraction. So. That's not really doing anything for the climate, but. Embedded. In, climate. Models and then the. Integrated. Assessment models, are huge, amounts of Beck's, in a different imaginary, form an, imaginary, which is, of. A 90 percent capture. 9 0 90. Percent capture, of carbon. Dioxide from, the combustion. Of biomass. Pumped. Into a long-term geological store. Where, it is safe. And secure for, thousands. Of years. And. That. Model of Beck's. Has a few small-scale trials. Going on but. This. Is actually just what we've seen for a decade, or more with. Of, CCS. On fossil, fuels.
Where. Things. Perhaps, got even worse with the promise, of capture. Already planets, so. Fossil, fuel power stations. That, had a piece. Of land next to them perhaps the big carpark on which. A capture, facility, could be built but. Wasn't necessarily, going to be built and in, fact we've never seen one of those built. Those. Promises. Though of capture. Readiness, of CCS. And fossil fuels help to delay the, replacement, of fossil plant with renewables. In. The models things get even worse because, the promise of Beck's disguise. Embedded. In the models in quite, large quantities. Disguises. A slower, reduction. In emissions, in, the, models that don't compare, to the models that don't have Beck's, the. Models prefer. More. Imaginary. Future technologies. Over. Near-term. Action, because. When it's the. Discount, rates in the model are applied to the costs, of future, carbon, removal, it, seems cheap. On. The other hands the, uncertainties. Involved and, the potential, side effects aren't, modeled, very well, and. They don't tend to appear in the models so we, have fortunately, seen again this, sort of robust, pushback. From science, as, to why there are problems with Beck's but. There is still a large, amount of negative. Emission technology, embedded in most of the pathways, most, of the models we see today so if, we could move on my slide. What. We see what. We argue there is that Beck's is a great illustration, of how. Different, technologies. Co-evolved. With, climate, politics, and climate, modeling. The. Idea, of Beck's, both. Needed. And helped stimulate, a. Shift. In how we thought, about climate, targets. Because. Beck's only does a very little bit of emissions. Reduction. On. The. Other hand it works quite, or pierced. Work very well as. Affecting. The outcome. Concentration. Of carbon in the atmosphere or. In. Modulating. How we meet. Or don't meet a carbon. Budget and. It's in that difference, that shift from emissions, reduction, percentage, to, budgets. Or atmospheric, concentrations. That GTR. Finds a, big. Space, in policy. And. The. Extension. Of, integrated. Assessment, modeling which, happened. In parallel, with this to, model, carbon, budgets has. Allowed other speculative. Future, GTRs, to, influence. Apparently. Plausible, pathways to and that's. We. Explore, that in a little more depth in a piece published last week in major climate change you, could flip on the slide. Summarize. That the. Paper. Last week what, we do in that and, this is summarizing, the Uglies is identified. These four phases in, how. People. Talk, about I've talked about considered. Policy. Targets. And. We, we see here a pattern, that we think is is rather more than coincidental. Each. Shift, in the framing, of the target, permitted. More flexibility. In how, technologically. The. Targets, could be met but. In turn also more, delay, in, a, weighting the delivery, of those promises so. From the early days the promises, of huge. Amounts of nuclear power and the, tenth of whichever was ever delivered, and the promises, of CCS, in. Text. Or, recently. Other, GTRs. And. Worrying. We, know solar geoengineering. Techniques, like. Stratospheric. Aerosol, injection which. Don't fit in a. Framing. Of emissions, reduction, or a frame, even of carbon budgets but. Do fit framings, of achieving a particular temperature, outcome, which, is the current framing. That we we use most predominantly. Now. I think. It's really important, to stress, our analysis, does not rely, on this being a deliberate. Thing that, has been done in some deep, conspiracy. What. We find is that the way the models and politics. And, the technological, promises. Interact. And. Generates. This. As an emergent. Systemic. Problem. So. To, summarize and, offer, a definition of, mitigation, deterrence, we, use this the prospect, of reduced Adelaide emissions, reduction, resulting. From the introduction or consideration. Of another. Climate intervention. So. No we're not just talking, about Gigi no but, interactions. Between interventions. So, nuclear promises, could and probably did defer. Action. On energy efficiency or renewables. Behavioral. Promises, the idea, that we're all going to stop, eating meat for example could.
Deter, People from investing in 3dr development, we're not denying, that sort of possibility. GTR. Is however, unusual. And, we think more pernicious in, this respect, in the, bib promises, to work like a time machine. It. Offers. The potential, of, the promise of recovering. Past. Emissions. Not. Just slowing down future, emissions, so. It can, have a more. A. Deeper. And more impactful, effect on people. Delay. Also. We. Think it's worth noting. We'll. Mention, the moral hazard term as in his introduction, we've, deliberately, moved, away from that, partly. Because we. Think people here, moral. Hazard as, a personal, criticism. Your. Work might be generating. A moral hazard. But. More importantly, because we see the missing ambition, determines, and say collective. In, urgent. Phenomenon. In, conditions. Of deep uncertainty. Whereas. Moral hazard, in the, literature that, it came from the insurance, literature, is about decisions, by individuals. In the face of known, risks, and, expectations. So. One. Question that, you quite, legitimately, would, ask is how, serious, could, this problem, be is it actually, just something marginal, that we don't, really need to worry about. To. Assess this as. Part of the project we developed a novel carbon, at risk approach, and dependence, based on carbon budget modeling, these. Three types that you, see defined um right therefore. Are, defined, this way partly, because that, makes them quantifiable. We, understand, some of the, irony. In doing that but. This met gave us a way to put, a numerical, handle. On it which we hope helps those who who, want to, find, phone numbers useful. And manipulable, so. Type 1 asks a, question, of how much GG, are the models anticipate. And. Speculates. As to what if it, goes on being promised, but, isn't delivered, or, fails, so. For instance if if we do, get direct, air capture, but we just use it to. Create. Synthetic, films, in, carbon utilisation. Type. 2 and. Assesses. What. Happens, with that much tempted. Ggr what. Sort of rebounds, might arise for, example, from land use change if there's a lot of bets going on are a lot of biochar, and. Type. 3 asks, well, what if people. Listen. To these exaggerated, promises. Too much and expect. More, ggr than could be delivered, hold, off on doing the more expensive, things that they might, otherwise do. To mitigate, and. To do this we use a calculation. That focuses, on. Meaning, emissions, reduction, that would cost over a hundred, hundred, dollars, per ton of carbon dioxide so. That puts it in, competitive. With even. Quite expensive, promises. Of GTR, and certainly. Well. Undercut, by promises, like 50 cents a ton for. Tree. Planting. So. How, do we get to a number from this well if those three types are additive, we, can add them together but. Should, note that the quantity, at risk in type three is, inversely. Correlated to. That at risk until it one so when more substitution. Is planned type. One carbon. At risk there, are fewer remaining. Expensive. Mitigation. Expectations. So, there's less type. Three that's, where the numbers run in opposite directions across. The low to high estimates, for. Those two. Rows. Our. Central, estimate, here adds. Up to almost. Half a trillion tons of carbon at risk and that. Implies an additional, naught, point 7 degrees centigrade, at, a median, estimate of climate, sensitivity so. That's if all. The other things were equal and we were going to achieve 1.5. Degrees C that means the outcome would be 2.2. Degree C that's. Bad enough the, worst case at a high sensitivity, will. Imply an extra one point four degrees C so, I. Think we can conclude that it isn't. Marginal, that. The worst case is bad. Enough that we should take it seriously. Here. We're taking, a little step back and, saying well what's there was the theoretical, perspective. That we've, used how. Should we understand, the construction, futures. With these, huge, amounts of carbon removal. Is. It the, result of some sort of objective need. That. Somehow, elicits. Of draws out encourages. The development of, the new technology, to meet that, or. Is it on the other hand the. Result, of a. Cultural. Way. Of life. A fossil. Dependent, way of life survived, fighting, for its survival by. Inventing. New imaginary, ways to solve the problem of climate change in the future I. Give. You those two just to illustrate this. Such. Broad. Different. Possibilities. Here. We've. Applied a frame of what's called cultural political economy. Which. Accepts. That as no, sense earlier, there is power in, promises. There is empowering in narratives, and discourses, a, constructivist. Way of thinking. About technology, that's widely. Used. In science and technology studies, but. CPA attempts, to reintegrate, ideas. Of materiality. There, the fact that there are, robust. Things, that, are real and physical, and for.
Instance The earth. System itself is recalcitrant. We can't just. Imagine. The, effects, of climate change out of existence. Cpa. Also, recognizes. That the political, economy, of interest. Groups and particularly financial. Interests. And it sees political, regimes such, as. In. The current neoliberal version, of capitalism. Mobilizing. What, we call, electrical. Spatio-temporal, fixes. And to. Sustain that, regime it. Understands. Those regimes as co-evolved, with social, imaginaries which. Encompass, broad but, conditioning. Understandings. Of how the world worked and society, works what isn't, isn't feasible, and. It's these new technologies. Is inextricably, embedded. In the coma volusia not. Just some promises, and applications. But, also of, those encompassing. Policy, and political regimes. So, this cycle of. Things. That you see on, the left of the screen and. We. Use that that. Understanding. To. Try. To. Open. Up the. Possibility. Of different. Political. Which, we as you'll see in a moment we then used as a frame, for. Deliberative. Workshops. To. Stimulate, discussion. We. Set up these. Set. Of fairly. Fairly traditional two-by-two, matrix. To. Help. Us analyze this this. World through deliberation. So, our scenarios, weapon futures. One. In which things so long. To. In which neoliberalism. Is is revived. Partly. In a new Chinese led, model delivering. Strong, markets, or. In. Which the current populist, trend accelerates. Into authoritarianism. Delivering. What we call strong leaders. In. Which that trend is reversed, by a progressive backlash. Delivering. More egalitarian, politics. With strong publics, I've. Deliberately, to up there are about strong. Markets, strong leader strong publics to, suggest that these. To. Some people, each of these is a sort of utopian, Erica is a. Desirable. Political. Setting. One in which they believe we will make good progress on dealing with the problems, that face society. We. Use them to. Consider. How. Media. Might play out in. Each of those scenarios. Each. Scenario, also has had, a number of variants, to explore, different, technologies. We. Discuss. These across nine workshops. Five. Of them were face to face for. An. International. Audience. In. Each, workshop, we can trust it to political, context so everyone. Got a sense of okay this is how it might happen and, what. Might go wrong. With. Challenged given a possibility. To consider a completely. Different political scenario. And. Other. Possible ways in fact in which things could go wrong are we laid out the scenarios, across the. 2050. So. In these discussions. What. Did we find, we've, written. Up these. These. Findings but they're under review. So you're getting a sneak preview, but at the moment we. Did see in the discussions. All of the mechanisms identified. Earlier, not. Just this sort, of abstract risks, but, also in the ways that some participants, approached the discussion, talked about these, issues and the speech bubbles, there are direct. Quotes from from. Different participants. Some. Cases, referring, to specific, industries. What. We found was that people wanted. To move beyond just. Explore. The drivers. Discuss. In. Particular, we heard or saw these, three. Drivers. First. Being this the shared understanding. Of how the world works. In a form that makes it difficult to, imagine. Difficult. To reject. Substitution. And trade-offs. Even. Across time. Put. It on the slide it's this idea that it's easy to imagine the end of the world activism. Even. In scenarios. Where perhaps. The end of was. Been hinted at. People. Second. Is the people, found, or, identified and. Talked about remarkable. Political traction, of. Exaggerated. Claims and promises, as. We see of course in news. Every day with the power of a news and. People. Very. Frequently, came back to. Restated. The insidious. Impacts, and vested interests. Working. To short-term, financial, incentives. Market. Is make money for the traders it's not to reduce emissions. Under, that understanding, it's very difficult, to see why. Some, of these might. We. Heard several of these repeated, that both that. Ggr is needed as well as emissions, reduction. Somehow. That meant there was no risk of the two being substituted.
Or. The two terrorists took more expensive. Than emissions, reduction. For. The would again be no substitution. Or. That, someone would do something the decision, makers would forestall, serious, deterrence, or substitution, and. Those, truth of course in in in some way, in all of this but. When stated, this boldly, I think, it's clear how they are perhaps. More. Reflect. Perhaps a naive, rationalism. An assumption. That the. People. And decision makers, make. Decisions. On the basis, of the best evidence. Which. Is rather adults, with the, post truth culture, we find ourselves in. Similarly. They they, reflect, that social, imaginary, that we talked about that perhaps, neoliberal. Or liberal. Administrative. Social, emotion which, as we saw with the cases, of Becks and replanting, is, vulnerable. To mitigation deterrence. So. Our. Objective. Here is the snails pointed, out is to help, deliver both, GTR, an emissions, reduction, and, our work, here. I think, begins. To surface. Some of the risks, that, in practice. Without. Recognition. Of the problem, there would conflict, would. Be substitution. And if we allow substitution. In models and markets if we enable. Exaggerated. Promises, and hype and if, we rely on others, to deliver rational. Decisions, then. Those risks grow. We. Did in in the workshops, because, we had the mix of technologies, and political, settings, we, were able to assess whether. All. Of them. Although. Some. Very. Depressing. See. Your way through and, yes. The. Main findings, from our point of view is that we absolutely need, to take. Ability of mitigation deterrence, seriously. And. Stop. Hiding behind this idea that a sort of, rational. Economic, man view of the world is is guiding, things that there are very complex, cultural, social drivers, for, for. These technologies, and, particularly. The modeling so. We, need to take the problem seriously we also need to recognize. That those, issues, those problems, and mitigation deterrents, will be embedded, within models, and within policy. Presumptions, and within all of us actually in our in our roles in the, policy and research domain, so, actually, bringing those to the surface, and and. Thinking about them thinking about what we can do about them is really really important. We, found the deliberative. Approach, doing these limited workshops, with stakeholders. Really effective, because it did give people the chance to interrogate, their own assumptions, interrogate, each other's assumptions, and really. Unpack. And foreground these issues, next, vote Duncan. So. What, can we do about it. We. Think that, the, main the, main thing, and you'll hear this in this slide and the next is this idea of separation, so we think that you need. Greenhouse. Gas removals, and. Reductions. And we, think that if you have a separate, strategy, for both then you have maximum chances, of. Maximum. Chance of succeeding with both and you're. Going to limit the possibility, for negative, interruptions. So, you actually have, strengthened. Delivery, of, greenhouse. Gas removals. Alongside. Separate. Focus on reductions. The. As. Part of this I think we, really need to address, the issue of incumbency, and, thinking, and again be very upfront about. The. Power, of vested, interest and, incumbency, on the process, and. Part of that is really to. Call. Out the promises that are made and to really ask whether those promises, are realistic.
So, Let's click on to the next slide, and I'll do the absolute headlines, of our. Policy, proposals. So. Our headline, policy, is that of substitution. And. There's. There's, a paper specifically, on this that. You'll see referenced there the. Idea is that if you if you separate, out targets. Accounting. And policy. For. Greenhouse, gas removals. Compared, to reduction, then you get a much clearer picture of what's going on and actually. Probably the reason that those two have been mixed together is exactly because it's convenient, for, policymakers and it's convenient, precedent, just to be able to, hide. One behind the other so we think if you separate, the two it makes it much harder to. Hide. Failure. In reduction, buying claiming, removals, either now or in the future. The. Other advantage. Of separation. Is that you then can look you can provide, dedicated. Support. And policy support for carbon. Removal technologies, that you gave them the best chance to prosper. By. Actually. Having targeted, policies, on them, so. One. Strong. Implication, from this is that a. Simple. Carbon, price which, applies both. Tea removals, and reduction, and which allows for trading, in between those probably. Isn't, going to be effective, or at least it isn't going to be effective unless you have very clear, separated, policies, targets. And accounting, for those two different types. So, that is very very different from the sort of straight economic, view that if you get the price right the. Solutions, will come to the floor. We. Think, as well that there should be an official, recognition of of, mitigation, deterrence, and it, should be named in strategies, and there should be policies, to overcome, it, and. Lastly. We. We, think that if, you look at the scope, of research that, there has been on, greenhouse gas removals. We, think that there's been much. More in, terms, of economics, and and, and. Scientific. And technological feasibility, than. There has on some of these underlying, cultural, and social and, political drivers, and yet, through our workshops, we realized, and, people, in the workshops, realized, how, incredibly. Important. These underlying drivers, and assumptions were and. The. More that we can do to bring those out in the open and talk about them honestly the more. Likely we are to be, successful, in. Getting. Carbon, removals, right making sure they are part of the solution but that they don't. They. Don't take away from.
The. Greenhouse gas reduction measures we really need so. I've whizzed through that because, i really did want to you get a chance to hear your questions, but. Yes please please let us know what you think thank you. All. Right thank you very much to, all of you we. Have a few minutes for questions and, i'm going to try to feel. Some of them that are in. The in the boxes. Including. Any that might be directed, to one of the specific speakers. So this is a question, for for, any three of you you. Mentioned, before that mitigation, deterrence, can work in in the other direction, that. Is promises, a deep carbonization, can result reduced work. On, ggr. Why, not quantify. This. As well or try to quantify this as well. So. I, think there's two reasons. Neither. That, wouldn't be an interesting, topic it would be an interesting topic but. The two reasons, are that we. Feel. A, normative. Responsibility. To. Examine. Where. Something. Could be extremely. Problematic. Over. Examining. Something that would be a nice bonus. So. We're. Looking at the. The. Risk side. Seriously. Rather. Than necessarily the. Possible. Synergies, the. Second, is that I think. If I understood, the question correctly. Asking. About, deterrence. Of GTR, by. Mitigation. Promises, that. At the moment the balance, is very much. That. The GTR, things. That are being promised, are much, more, uncertain. Than. In. Other emissions, reduction, promises. In. Level. Of technological, commercial. Social. Certainty. And acceptability. So. The. Risk. On that side I think is significantly. Smaller however. As I said we, would. Be it would be an interesting question with. The, capacity, to go. On and research. Okay. So, we'll, move, on to the the next, question. This. Question suggests. Why. Is, there an emphasis in, here, on Becks and Dax, given, the fact that, so. Called a regenerative. Agricultural. Solutions such, as no-till, AG, biochar. Permaculture. Agroforestry, are. Are. Well developed at, this point and. And, include sound measurement, methodologies. I. Think. Again. I. Think. That's an artifact, of the way we've presented, today so. Soil. Carbon, recovery. Soil carbon storage, is one of the four technologies. That we looked at in depth, and, we ran workshops to, discuss, and we, found deep. Problems. There particularly. With the, levels of uncertainty about. The. Long term storage. And particularly. With the ways in, which it, would, be incredibly. Difficult to. Monitor, that and I don't accept, the. Assertion. That, these things have. Effective. Monitoring methods, so far they. Have possible. Monitoring. Methods. That. Are robust. In the face of, deliberate. Efforts to, distort. As we have seen with all, agricultural. Subsidy, regimes, so. Unfortunately. Different. Types of technology. Do, not escape, the problems they. Suffer different, mechanisms, as we said. Our. Study, focus, we chose the four technologies. Partly. Because they, were. Technologies. Or techniques, that were under, consideration. Elsewhere. In the UK program, that was funding, our work so, that's quite a sample. Of convenience, in a sense, and/or. Because, we thought that they were, we. Were aware of promises, that, they, were hugely, scalable. So that was why duck and, that. Came in the other three were already in the program but, also have, faced those same promises, that they're hugely scalable, and. I think all of them the question following those groans, all. Right thank you for their I, believe. Nelson's, back with us if we've lost Becky now, anything to add bills yes. I. Think, so so, I mean just agree with Duncan, we certainly. The. Technologies, well one, reason though, I think yzc, that, begs comes. To before ground in the air is that we have more history, of it in. Terms of being, included in modeling. Me being a given attention in policy, etc, and, it's better studied, already before, I would project even so, it's, an easy thing to talk about but, we have included. Other technologies. In our project as well sure, all. Right thank you for that next. Question. Separating. Mitigation. Ggr policy, regimes seem difficult enough but maintaining. Separation. Between them the long term seems, even more difficult, what. Thoughts do you have on, the problem, of maintaining. Separation. In. A, practical, sense. Let. Me say that. I. Mean. I think. I. Think. Is. The time scale issue. Essentially. That. Essentially. That you can use greenhouse gas removals, as a time machine to make promises in future I think, these. What. One of them one of the best examples. We've seen of a, model. That could be effective, here is, the. Way the UK. Has used. Its climate, change committee, to. Provide. Advice. On.
Continuing. Budget periods. And, if as long as in each of those budget, periods, of four or five years in, five, years at length the. Distinct. Contributions. Of emissions, reduction, and greenhouse, gas removal are, being. Targeted. Documented. In ministers. Can be held to account them on each of them. Then. That. That. Degree of separation, can. Be sustained. It. May, be that, once. Some. GTRs. Are well established. That. We're. Going to be less worried, about. Straight. Separation. But. To. Get them started, it. Seems very clear that they need these, dedicated. Support mechanisms. Separation. Okay. Thank, you for that next. Question, given. That we've basically used up our carbon budget, I think, the. Time-machine. Argument. Is is. Is not relevant, at this point what, how would you respond in that context. I. Mean. What. We uncovered. The. Project, was. A very strong sense that that. People. Felt that policymakers. In particular were, relying. On. Removals. In order to in. Order to do less on on. Reduction. And, I you, know I think we need to be really upfront about that and I think that the example that Duncan, gave about the the nature article the trillion trees. Discussion. Is is, is, a really, good idea you, know is a really good exact. Okay. Thank, you for that, we. Have time for one last question, I, believe. Could. The panelists, discuss, ggr. And, the. Prospects, of mitigation, deterrents, in the context, of the sustainable. Development goals. Okay. Yeah. Neil's, here trying. To make some contribution in spite of technical. Problems here and, well. One one thing one, basic, insight. In. This project is, about a key mechanism for. Mitigation deterrence a, substitution. Right so, typically. Through markets. But. Potentially in other ways. How. It could substitute, for, so. How. Did your in in in, the future primarily, good substitute, for mitigation, other. Kinds mitigation. The emissions reductions, in the short term and. That sort of substitution. Is facilitated. By narrow. Framing. The. Simpler. Representation, of, the technologies, and their, impacts and their function you have the easier it is to substitute, the. More you take other. Kinds of impact side effects, are, the kinds of targets, and goals into, account like the sustainable. Development. Dimensions. The, more difficult it is to substitute the more difficult it is to trade, right. To design a trading, system that would do that substitution for, you so. Normatively. Speaking, it's it's good. Take these goals. Into account it will help us counter, deterrence. Thank, you. Okay. I believe, we do have what time for one more question, at this point, question. Is are. You considering. Potential. Cascading. Co-benefits, of ggr approaches. The example, that was given here by the questioner, was was. Biochar. In terms of aspects. Such as organic waste management. Production of fertilizer years. Increased. Potential. For food security. The. Idea. Of co-benefits. Came in in several, of our discussions, and we were very, encouraged. At. The sense that, at. A small, scale, this. Is sub a Giga, ton a year I'm, talking, about a small. Sum. Gigi ours seemed, to offer Co benefits, and. Also. By the, enthusiasm. Amongst. Workshop. Participants. For. The idea, that those co benefits, should. Be considered, possibly, even be brought before. In. Supporting. Those. GTRs. In, going forward, rather. Than, the promises, of. Carbon. Removal which which were actually less, secure, so, for. So. Low carbon, recovery. For example, there's very clear code benefits, in food production in biodiversity. But. We really, do not know for sure that that carbon is going to stay there in, the face of the. Likely, climate, change that we are already committed, to we. Also have got guarantee, that it's going to stay there if the. Financial. Management. Regime, changes, and, it becomes attractive. For a farmer to plow up that land again so. Yes. We're, very keen to see Co benefits we saw it as one of the it's. It's a varied in the recommendations. But the idea, of, using. Co benefits as part of the funding mechanism. To, get GTRs. To. Happen in practice alongside. Continued. Emissions, reduction, was. Very much in our minds. Alright. Thank you very much for that Duncan we are at the one hour mark and so we're going to wrap it up at this point, first of all I'd like to once again thank our, three. Speakers from. Lancaster. Nils. Duncan. And and Becky. Apologize. To everyone for the technical, difficulties, in, our new normal of course this. Is something we'll probably have, to roll with but I appreciate. Everybody, set grace, and, in, staying with us and I appreciate. The the excellent, questions, and there's always there's. Never enough time to, field all the questions, but that's encouraging, us because. There's. A there's a lot of good thinking going on in this context, and this is obviously a discussion, that.
Has To continue as. We, determine. The. Role of carbon dioxide removal in terms of climate policy making, so, thank you everyone I hope you can join us in the future, stay safe until. We see, you next time goodbye.