Here’s another part of the interview with Professor Kevin Anderson. It covers some of the same ground as what has already been posted (see below for explanation)- the inadequacy of the Intended Nationally-Determined Contributions (the pledges for Paris), but goes into much more detail on the nature of Bio-energy Carbon Capture and Storage, the problems with the “Integrated Assessment Models”, the problems of reductionism and the limits of human intelligence/governance.
On Monday 23rd November Professor Kevin Anderson kindly did an interview. I failed to double-check the position of the camera, and so after 20 minutes realised that the framing was off. We started again, covering the same ground (thanks Kevin!). When I looked at the footage I saw that while it was bad, it wasn’t totally unusable, AND Kevin went into interesting detail about a few things that we glossed over more in the second attempt. So, while it is “part three” in terms of what has been put up already, it’s actually “part one”, i.e. first attempt.
The INDCs – what they are and why you should be cautious about them
2 mins 52 What are negative emissions?
Goes into BECCS in a lot more detail
5mins 45 What is an Integrated Assessment Model?
7 mins 40 – Is this any different from the CDOs, the jiggery-pokery that blew up in our faces less than 10 years ago?
10 mins So, they’re admitting that Paris won’t deliver 2 degrees, but the Paris PROCESS will set us on the pathway – what is your response to that? Isn’t near enough good enough?
13 mins 20 What questions are we not allowed to ask?
20 minutes in – reductionism. Has been very successful, on its own terms…. But now facing systemic challenges…