Transcripts For CSPAN3 Peter 20240704

To. Introduce you to a good friend of mine, peter koski. Peters mission life is leave a world were proud of to our children. He is a mighty educated physicist and engineer serial entrepreneur, pure philanthropist, social innovator and author. He has worked at nasa in the fairchild slum burger Artificial Intelligence lab in palo alto. Hes taught at mit. Hes developed his own Machine Vision company, automated visual inspection, an llc. He holds 27 patents and is an on the board of climate capex, a Financial Technology company designed to help complete the global transition to 100 clean energy by 2040, by the rate of investment in solar projects. Now a decade ago, peter decided that a warming climate was the greatest threat to our future and he decided to devote all his energy. 24 seven to solving this problem and tell you the truth, peter has the perfect background to this as a physicist. He can speak the language to scientists scientists as an engineer and inventor. He can talk to people working on capturing co2 or oxidizing methane. As a serial entrepreneur. Or he can speak to investors. Now, ive known peter for more than 30 years and have with him and weve in a small way, weve helped overturn conventional wisdom on more than two areas of successfully successful. Now, the conventional wisdom of the world on climate is that we need to limit co2 emissions and, do a bunch of things to come to become net zero by 2050. But in the meantime continue to pour co2 due into our atmosphere. Now Peter Challen says this conventional wisdom he feels that we should not be satisfied with such world. We can do better with current technologies. He feels that we can and should return turn to co2 levels to pre and drill levels. He is coined the term climate restoration. He launched the for climate restoration. In 2017 to work with top scientists, policymakers, others to create the understanding and policy needed to further climate. And the foundation is creating momentum to help get this adopted as a goal. The United Nations and even the vatican and peter built several other entities to help achieve climate restoration, including the restoration, safety and governance, sport, methane action, blue dot change com and Stable Planet Alliance alliance. He has been an investor in and advisor to many companies, Companies Working in climate restoration, in particular synthetic clean energy financing, cold fusion, ocean restoration, kelp and methane oxidation. He lives in Silicon Valley. His wife and his son daughter. And he flew in last night to be with us today here. So please welcome peter ocallaghan. Well, scott, thank you so much i dont really need to say anything you really me gave my whole whole talk but there are some aspects which i think be interesting. So first of all thank you for being here. Thank you for being interested. Actually, everybodys interested in the climate here in salt lake city. The Great Salt Lake has been beginning dry out and were worried about but the air pollution but the from that and its due to due in part to the global in part to the increasing population in part to the farming practices. But were all concerned now i left Silicon Valley. I left my house yesterday afternoon and i have two, two, one year old grandchildren whove been walking about two months and theyre running all around the house and theyre pulling books out of the bookshelf. And then my wife, who whos happy that sharing the nannying says, okay, grandpas going off to to the airport. And they goodbye. And its just great to actually have grandkids that we can take care of. But you know this talk isnt about grandkids and yet, of course, it is about our grandkids and thats the main point is what makes climate real is the fact we have our children, we have grandchildren. We have i dont know how many are probably not many of us have great yet or great grandchildren. No, we all have a lot of us have great grandchildren cause i do. And im pretty young. I think. But its about about future generations. And where the delights of working on climate restoration is, we to start combining our western of growth with. The the indigenous values seven generations. Wow right because were actually this gives us a chance to to commit to future generations. So the way i got involved this this really started when i was a young young adult at 19 years old at mit and here i am in the lounge reading the journal science and the commentary on it. And theyre talking about co2 levels going up, which we knew about. Right. We knew co2 levels were going up in 1900, but because they were already coal and they the were easy to do and, you know, there was a certain amount of fear there in 1975. But i said, know, we know to get co2 out of the air and the articles, this is just a little after the 1972 limits to growth book came and the limits to growth book says know were on this ever expanding economy and at a certain point were going to hit limits. And i thought, well, thats pretty obvious. You know, a lot of us do that in science class where you a petri dish and, you get a of something growing and it takes overnight it takes over the whole thing. And then the next day the petri dishes again and i thought, well, were going to deal with this. Weve dealt with everything up to now up till 1975 with the cold war and everything. And by the books said that, well, by the year 2000, things are going to start getting serious. And by 20 they will be quite serious. Thats looking good. Well, yeah, im adam white see, were smart people. This chemical engineers know how to get co2 out of the air, that we had submarines, we had, you know, this was the end of the apollo program. We had space craft and we could get the co2 out of the air these guys could be under water. You know, the Nuclear Submarines could be underwater for half a year at a time. And so i wasnt worried. They needed more science. They needed more engineers. And the secret is that we physicists dont think were that smart. So i thought, i am not good enough to be a chemical engineer. Thank god, theres a Chemical Engineering department here at mit. God bless them. And i continued work on astrophysics, so i got to do chemistry in a galaxy thats 50 million light years away. That was what was fun. I actually i figured that i wouldnt hurt anyone if i made a mistake. No one would die. And i figured that smarter people than i would deal getting the co2 out of the air and make sure that our grandchildren or great, great grandchildren would have a fine planet to live on again. And it was so i go through college, i move to Silicon Valley, get my business started and it was only a few years that that i met scott. We were both volunteering with this Organization Called results, which is since 1979, been working to address hunger, Poverty Issues and i learned i had learned a very important working with scott and the others. In 1985, unicef came to us and said, listen weve made a promise in 1975 to vaccinate the worlds children. Now, here at rotary, that sounds and come in 1985 the politics didnt look very good theyd gotten about halfway and the last is the hardest again i to see some heads nodding and that the Reagan Administration the likelihood of getting foreign aid for like that didnt look good but we did it and we actually got the funding and the global vaccine nation rate went from 8 to 85 and it stayed at 85 since 1990. Now it wasnt the hundred but it changed future of our planet you know in part of one of the big projects that that rotary has taken on of course is is immunization and then we took on microfinance. And again, weve a ambitious goal this government, all the hard things about it and and they achieve the goal getting half the worlds population living on less than, less than a dollar a day. Get them involved in microfinance. And we did it. And the thing i learned was that if you want to something ambitious, make a what by one goal that you can fail. And when i was young president kennedy said, going to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely by the end of the decade. And even for a six year old, that was clearly impossible, not 100 impossible, but, you know, if i had been a betting boy, i wouldnt have bet on it. And it produced miracles. Now, if you look at anything in the room, its been influenced by that part of that program that kennedy started. When by 2010, it was clear that the great progress we made in, hunger and poverty was ending, that harvests were getting difficult, that places like syria, you know, we think of it as a terrible war and it is a terrible war in syria. But it started with Global Warming that harvests that the severe drought started and no one knew how to deal with it. The people in the rural areas came the city, the politicians didnt know what to do about it and the appropriate thing seemed to be to have a civil war which is still going on. There. But it started out with with warming. And i could see that that things were only going to get worse. And i figured, you know, its been 35 years since i decided that the chemical engineer should work on this and solve it for us and so i went back to the Climate Community and again. Scott scott and i, we had colleagues who had started the citizens climate lobby. So it was easy. We just walked across the hallway, asked the question and asked the question, how is it going . Removing all the excess co2 from, the atmosphere, so we can give our children a healthy climate. And it was science like remove co2 from the air. Thats not our job. Were reducing emissions and. I said, well, thats strange because we thought we crossed threshold of what the scientists tell us is survival. In 1988, when when co2 and above 350 parts per million, some of you will recognize that number at 350 parts per million. And if you dont, dont worry about it. It was well known. Thats the level above which the survive all of our species starts coming into serious doubt and. But we stayed on on that tangent of reducing which made sense in the 1960s and sort of made sense. 1975. But, you know, we need to keep reducing emissions, of course. But way beyond that, solving the problem and you know, how many of you have ever heard and experts say that if we fulfill the paris goals get to net emissions. So essentially we eliminate emissions by 2050. How many of you have heard an expert say that that would be enough to assure this the survival of our humanity. Okay. Probably know one you know if i ask you who you heard say that you probably couldnt give a name because the experts know that it its just everyone i suggest that everyone did the same thing i did in 1975 and say someone else smarter than i is going to take care of this and. About 2014 after four years of grappling with it, i okay good im going to declare the goal of restoring the climate just because thats the nice thing about having an mit degree. You can do stuff like this and people dont look crosseyed at you or look less crosseyed than if i do that didnt have that. And and so we established the field of climate restoration which is simply bringing bring the co2 levels back to what they were preindustrial and doing it while we can, which we said was 2050. This is as logical as president kennedy saying by the end of the decade, it just made sense. Originally, we said by 2080, because i wasnt as ambitious and to people looked at me crosseyed and i dont think thats going to i said, great, well do it by 2050, right . Because, you know, many of you have built or done, you know, three that rebuilt a car or something and you just make a goal and then you figure out how to do it and it always takes longer than you thought. So so the bottom line is this is everybody and ive been working on this for ten years, everybody wants to leave a world that were proud of to our children a world that our children will survive. And thats both getting back to levels that that humans have survived for the last 10,000 years. Those levels that allowed us to develop agriculture and civilization, obviously, the right we also want to have a population and we know to do that we know how to have small families. Im not going to talk about that here. Its in the book, you know, having a family is not rocket science. Most of us know how to do that. And a matter of knowing where were going and having the ambition to actually say were headed to to a humanity flourishing, to restore climate and the sustainable popular nation. So so Everyone Wants it and it out that we can do it, that we have the technology and the finance. So this is something youve probably not before we have a technology the finance to restore the climate, restore a sustainable population wants you to find you want and we can do it by 2050. And ill tell you and youre probably saying thats crazy because if you read the news that if you if you read the news youre thinking its going to cost hundred trillion dollars, which is the the global gdp set that aside because they were looking at the wrong goal. In 1992. The goal we have now was established at the United Nations, which is to stabilize Greenhouse Gas levels, stabilize co2 and methane and, you know, at the end of this, what youll get is our job is to the United Nations that the goal is to restore and stabilize Greenhouse Gas levels. They just this the restore and it made sense in 1992 we didnt need to restore it but a lot happened in 30 years and it takes people again like you to go to the officials, which could include President Biden go includes people at the United Nations and say, listen, we actually want to restore climate, okay, why is why do i make sound so easy . Well, because has done it ten times in the last million years that you know about ice age, as i imagine, you know, we all teach our kids about them. And theres the movies that they have now that we didnt have when we were kids about ice ages and nature before an ice age removes, the amount of co2 from the atmosphere that were going to remove between now and 2050. So its a trillion tons, a thousand gigatons of co2 and thats if you look at the co2 graphs over his over time over the last nine years, its gone and down, up and down. When the co2 is low as an ice age, when its high, its a warm period. Weve had not super hot because were way above anything had for the last million years. But that and thats the trillion tons. Or if youre scientific about hundred 30 parts per million and we know how nature did it. It took until 1990 to actually understand because it that that the trick is subtle but its photosynth this that allows the co2 to go up down and make the ice ages and get out of the ice ages and but its not the co2 that youre thinking its not trees. And trees are great im all in favor of trees and keep planting trees. But trees, we all know, die after a certain number of decades. And then they either burn or rot and the carbon goes back in the air. So we need something that lasts more than few decades. And what does is in the ocean. The ocean is three fourths of the air of the surface of our planet is lots of area. Theres a sun, abundant water theres abundant nutrients of the phosphorus and nitrogen in the ocean, except one. And now most of the ocean is blue. I love blue ocean. I love going to those beaches and the caribbean and the blue is in green is the green ocean that we need. So the because green is where you have photosynthesis and then in the ocean, when the plants grow and its algae basically when it grows it and the animals that eat it die and sink into the deep ocean where theres no oxygen and it doesnt run. And thats how how ice ages are able to sustain for 50,000 years, because the is is is stored in the ocean where theres no oxygen until somehow theres the what the the currents change and oxygen starts becoming available and it rots and the co2 comes back out. But the question then is how do we turn that beautiful blue ocean in certain spots at certain critical times green . And what nature does is that magic nutrient thats missing is iron, because the iron isnt soluble. It tends to sink down to the bottom of the ocean and but its like phenomenally small amounts and is the scientific methods only allowed the scientists to measure it in the eighties. And so 1990 they came up with a called the iron hypothesis, which was the explanation for ice ages. Thats why it has a lot of gray hairs here since this has been recorded. The recording cant see the gray hairs. But when we up we had no idea what caused the ice ages because it was only until 1990 when they discovered it and they could see the iron on the seafloor at the beginning of the ice ages. They know that it was dust from dust storms blowing the ocean and occasionally from volcanoes that triggered the Carbon Removal and we can do the same thing and the thing you probably know nature has no ideas on on its payroll. Nature has, no computers, no scientific nate nature just did this sort of randomly getting the dust storms that would distribute certain amount of dust, which had a certain amount of iron. A test was done. About 13 tests of this have been done in the last 25 years and the one about ten years ago was a pretty good scale. It was about over 100 square miles, 100 mile diameter area in an eddy in the gulf, alaska. And it. It sequestered about 100 million tons of co2 and and, you know, and so they know it works. Interestingly, you if youre a little scientific, can go to whats called the keeling or you can just google that, which is the graph of co2 measured since 1958 when a scientist whose name is keeling started doing the measurements on a mountain and in and the curve has been going up, up, up, up ever since 1958. And course before that too. But they didnt have those measurements, but it plateaued only time, and that was after pinatubo in 1991, because the mountain of tubo blew so much into the ocean that it increased the that it provided the needed iron in that area and and it actually absorbed all the co2 that we emitted in that in that year or year and a half and that was 25 billion tons of co2 and so so that thats yeah, that thats how, how almost certainly do it because thats natures been doing it for millions of years. We know that that kind of change is something that nature has adapted to, that its safe and its been done 13 times. No ones ever seen any detrimental side effects and whats very cool is when they did it in alaska, they knew that the algae was food for and they were hoping to increase the catch of i forget which salmon they discovered was actually a different salmon that the cast following year quadrupled. And because they the salmon had food now the surprise different different species again the scientific knowledge is still were still learning a lot about the migration of fish. They also discovered two years later that orca whales started having babies again they hadnt had any babies in like eight or nine years, but they had food and so the female orcas got pregnant and actually delivered babies two years later. So there a lot of beneficial side effects of it. But the the cool thing is the the fishery impact was so so much that it easily paid for it was actually off the numbers i were that it was about 100 times more income alaska from the salmon than it cost to do the that test ten years ago and the time is now coming for them to start again. Theyve been working on it and hopefully a year, maybe a year and a half theyll theyll do that again and do it in other parts of the world. Why is it taking so long and again, thats why were here and thats why i wrote the book is got to think about the future we really want and that is and not the one that we think were were fated to so weve been living in this world you know for 40, 4050 years climate been a political issue. You know, the left, the right and the good people and the bad people. No, no, no, no. We all want the same thing. The climate. And when you realize that and say, okay what we want is to restore co2 levels that humans have survived and and that we can do it. That frees up the money and the courage to do it. You know, one of the other organizations i started last year, which didnt make it onto, the list that i gave to scott is, the climate restoration safety and governance board, because what we discovered as weve moved forward over the last five years or so is that as beings, were not comfortable doing this without some sort of governance. And because the u. N. Is still living in 1992, in terms of their goal theyre not in the position to govern restoring the climate because its not part of their of their commission. So we said, okay, well well form an interim governance, which makes sure that all the projects that are that can actually restore the climate that are done safely, effectively, legally and ethically. Now thats that very interesting thing that we discovered, that what it means, do it ethically is to address all of the communities who are interested in and the outcome. And thats pretty much all communities in the world. But yes, some of us focus on indigenous versus less commercial versus certain faith groups. But any faith group and political groups like it has to be whatever people do has to be acceptable. Vote the liberals and conservatives. So were bringing all of them in to look at the at the cost and the benefit and the risks and so on and make sure for those for each of the communities to write up. Wrote, write up a description of the impact of restoring the climate on that community so that the members of the community can say, okay good someones research. Did someone smarter than i have actually dived into climate work and says its good for my group to alaskans or catholics or any any group. So im going to wrap up here the bottom line is we all want the same thing to set aside the politics. So once you realize that we can actually do it, the politics dissolve because politics is sort of like the the rearranging deck chairs, the titanic. If you think that youre not going make it, then the the natural thing to do is to fight against the other the other team. But once all on the same team, everyone up working together. So we all want the same thing. Its right there in front of our nose. Theres a second method in addition to the ocean fertilization, which is limestone. But i dont want to take too much time on that. But over your ice age has happened over hundred thousand year cycle, over 100 million years, 99. The nature is stored 99 of the carbon on our planet, on the bottom of the sea as limestone. Its the the skeleton and shells of c c animals and plants. And theres a company in Silicon Valley that makes synthetic limestone. It has the same thing that an oyster does, making an oyster shell. So its not rocket science. But again, its only becoming into light now because were more people are saying, oh, we want to restore the we want to permanently sequester, store the co2. And the limestone is as the main ingredient for concrete for our roads, our buildings. And the scale is about for restoring it. But thats that thats a story you have to read my book. Well, just because that we will have other meetings to go to today so we can do it. We have the technology and finance have plan a, plan b, plan c in the book. And whats missing . The political will to go beyond the 1992 goal and is the group of people to work on that. And so my invitation to you is to work with rotary and other organizations. Youre involved. Theres the s rag, the environmental. Whats it environmental . Yes. S rag sustainability action rotary action group. And so i talked them yesterday and their language actually right on the path climate restoration, theyve gone beyond u. N. Already and its actually the First Organization ive seen besides the ones ive started with, although there may be people i know helped do that. But their language already goes beyond stabilize the co2 level, but actually bring it back to safe levels. So we i urge us urge to strengthen s flag and support them in going to dc and going to the un one of our targets. This year is to get president to declare a us commitment to restoring the climate for our future generations. Now it sounds easy enough and it is easy enough if he has support of people like you but because its such a no brainer you know at that level you cant stick your neck out the way i can and not at that level. So i can stick my neck out. And so what we can do here is, work with that to the administration. But you know, its nonpartisan. Its not even bipartisan its just totally nonpartisan, working together to that. There are there were submitting a bill, i believe week promoting that thats going to provide funding for the ocean for some research to bring more data and you know we know it works but the data isnt published because there wasnt any money to publish because it wasnt part of the of the plan. Sure. Climate restoration widely with your family you know imagine it with your kids and your grandkids. You know what were restoring the climate you can count on me for that. And if you guys get into trouble to to me now but really you know its changes your whole worldview and you can do what i did to get involved in this long ago the time that i met scott is i started making a monthly donations at the time it two results where we were both volunteers know i recommend the foundation for climate restoration any any organization is fine but that monthly note on your credit card bill is a reminder the way the brain works. Im a scientist. I love how the brain works, the way the brain works. That regular reminder tells brain that youre committed because we forget and once you once youre committed, then youll start sharing it with more people. And then biden will hear. Because once president says, okay, im committing our country to take care of future, that im working closely with a lot of indigenous nations and they it because they know since the beginning of our country they said listen, were committed seven generations is the seven generation principle to take make sure all of our decisions work for seven generations out and that allows our was the us to be in harmony with the nations that were here before we got and limit a lot of disharmony thats been plaguing us for. Four centuries so share climate restoration and read the book and you can ill ill have for sale here and you also ill have a. Qr code if want you can sign up or just go for Climate Foundation for climate restoration dot org and as you know just give them a monthly donation. It could be small, it could be big. Its really up to you and that ill take questions. Yes, i think theres a little bit of dynamics here that i kind of would like you to explain. So, for example example, we want to have that can absorb Carbon Dioxide, but then theres a movement to serve, to conserve water. So we want to go to artificial grass, which will then release back Carbon Dioxide and then you want to go right to electric cars, but then a problem because electric cars can use the batteries that are hard to dispose of. They create a waste problem, which can create other contaminants and all of those types of things. So how do you balance two factors that youre trying to accomplish . Because i dont i people are more severely concerned about not having water than worrying about you know, if there is a possibility of climate, especially when the attitude is do we really have a Climate Change problem . Yes so i think what youre asking is, there are a lot of small things that we do electric cars as, you know, artificial turf and, planting these trees or those trees and so on. There are these little decisions we make and how do we make them . The of restoring climate. I think thats what youre asking. And thats a really hard question and its also an easy question the fundamental thing is this, is. In the history of humanity weve always been able to count on Mother Nature to take care of us. Just like when when i was a kid, you know, i made a hole in the carpet and my mom took care of it. It was a long long time later, but when youre a child, mother and father take care of things. Humanity has been in that that so child like of Mother Nature will take care of it. Well, you know we have the pottery barn rule which you break it you own it. We broke it and that that becomes a turning point like you become adult you realize oh my god i have to be responsible now for the future of humanity. And the thing is this, is the first time in the history of our planet, probably certainly in the history of that, weve had to be actually responsible for the future of humanity in the past. But, you know, if if the roman empire fell, then another empire took over, if one country fell, another country took, it was no big deal. Just like playing cowboys and indians. When i was a kid, whoever won, it didnt make a difference. Wed come back and play next day. That period, epic for humanity is over. Were now one humanity and its up to us to create that narrative of that. Were creating a future of humanity, flourishing and so whats been missing has been weve been playing like is gas car better than electric electricity better than gas. You know all these little questions weve been asking, which is sort of the childlike way to do it, which is appropriate thats what we do. Weve been like since the beginning of our species and probably before we have to start the new narrative saying were going to humanity, were going to have a sustainable and a sustainable population, and everyones going to get educated or everyone can expect to get educated in health because. Thats the way its going to go once do that, those answers, those questions to themselves. And so my answer to you is, dont just do whatever you do and just inspire yourself, because thats the thing thats going to make the difference. Okay, one line answer. Go ahead from zoom. Yes, zoom. Jacobson would like to know where we read more about the Alaska Project. That would be in my book, be the best place to do it. Yeah, it was. Its been controversial for many reasons. The questions. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So the question is, where someone read more . The Alaska Project we have chapter on that and theres a lot of smattering but i think the most comprehensive is in the book. Yes. Do you anything to say about the marcela Nuclear Program that people are trying to get established . Yeah, i can say a little bit about that. I think a. Oh, yeah, thank you. So the question is, what about the modular Nuclear Program . Thats thats picking up momentum and getting more attention and it it will do what it does. So i dont, i recommend not spending much time about it. The people who are working on it. I know quite a few of the people working on it. Theyre working hard on it. There will be places where that will probably be the right to go though. For example, we we have submarines that use essentially those small modular reactors. Technically, thats not correct. But in your imagination . Thats correct. And theyre going to be places where theyll be used. In fact, the cost about ten times higher than the cost, solar and wind. And so theres not going to be many places that there will be useful. And then i in a number of other people are working on cold fusion and if you know what that is great if you dont know what it is, worry about it. But if that works the way it looks like, it will. Thatll displace a lot of that the point is there are a lot of smart people working on these things. The governance is actually quite good. And you dont i recommend dont worry about it much. Yeah you mentioned alaska study and you saw some benefits but you also see any negatives and im guessing thats in your book but. Can you tell us a little about it now . Yeah, now people have looked hard for negatives people a couple of things people wrote theyre you know they said well they did the alaska the closest thing to a negative was someone wrote and i dont know who was i cant tell you where to find it. But im told that someone wrote that and they did this about 250 miles offshore and that somewhere onshore or there was a plankton bloom, but they would they would be unrelated. But again, this is something natures been doing for millions of years. Theyre been scientific tests done for 25 years. And no ones ever reported people have debated it. But theres been no data, no demonstration. Yeah. Go. So i find this very interesting because really, first of all, theres a lot of people who dont believe in Climate Change and just the nature of earth. But what youre saying here is positive . Not necessarily. Yes, it is about Climate Change, but what people what i understand was easiest is change in life. And also taking away economies. Yes, but what you have presented an increase in an economy where people actually are feeling theyre not allowed to do stuff. So my question to you would be, why dont present this as we have a way to increase fishery to increase the water and ocean to help bring people around versus the opening on the resistant heart already there and not completely understandable yeah now so the question is theres there are people who say climate is not real and but this is a very positive of approach and how do we make use of that. Now, the interesting thing is, i have yet to meet someone whos who really claims that Climate Change isnt real. Now i have relatives who seem to be climate deniers, but when i talk to them. They say essentially what you pointed to is like, well, i dont think worth giving up the whole economy for a rumor of some impact thatll have. And so the answer to that question is of what do we do is we have to reframe it, because when climate got controversial in the 1980s, reagan to make a decision to go with science go with free market economics. And he decided that free market economic was being more effective at solving problems. So he went that way and that turned it into a political football. Well, no one thought about that would have to assure the the flourishing of humanity, our kids. It just didnt occur to anyone because since the beginning of time for 100,000 years or a million years, you can always count the planet continuing. But thats now. So now we can actually sell everyone. And ive had problem selling everyone that we all want to restore the climate. So absolutely yes, we can promote it. And again, thats why we have people like you here and why i wrote the book is to start spreading the message because its its hard to wrap your head around. First, weve been fighting this for 50 years. You mean we can stop fighting now . Yes we can stop fighting now. Yeah. We have another zoom question. Has this restoration project been proposed to President Biden . If so and if not, are there wellfunded Industry Leaders who will oppose it, who are. For. Yeah. So the question is, has this been proposed to President Biden or the administration and and and are there people who will oppose it . And so i dont think has been its probably proposed to biden, the secretary of energy had mentioned climate restoration back in the summer. It didnt produce any waves way but weve the book to a few members of the administration as far as i can tell theyre waiting gray hairs like here to tell them listen, yeah, you should do it. And then the flip side is either wellfunded who would oppose it and, you know, i know that some of the biggest potential funders are conservative. Theyre know republic people who fund a lot of republican causes. There are a lot of progress. Civs also who would love to fund it. The question is, are there any potential losers . And you know, the only people whove been opposing so far has been the Scientific Community, i think in part because if if climate solved that with populist lot of scientific jobs, theres a lot of money going into Research Climate research. And if we were to solving it, that is what very brilliant women and men might have to find new areas to do research and so right at this point, my major focus how to bring in the Scientific Community in into the fold we have great support as said from the indigenous communities, from faith communities, from both republican and democrat thats equally strong. Yes. Do it together. And i thought the last bastille seems to be bringing in the Scientific Community. And i think itll easy once we wind things up because theyre my brothers and sisters. I dont think its going to take long. Yes, scott, renewables. Versus, you know. Carbon generated, co2, you seem not too worried about the adoption of . Renewables. I talked about that. Yeah. Yes. So the question is renewables have all we put a lot of attention emissions and renewables and how do we deal with reducing emissions and dont put a lot of attention on that. Chapter two of the book, the math is very simple that fast forward to me to 2050 and were essentially weaned ourselves fossil fuels. What does it look like . Well, it looks like all the energy we need to travel and cook and heat our houses are coming from renewable energy. Yeah from non nonfossil fuel. Is that okay . Good. How do we get there from here. Well, we we know how much energy is needed to run our cars, our planes, factories. Its a 20, 20,000 gigawatts. I know what that means, but its a its some say 20,000 large power plants. Of of Clean Energy Generation needs to be built. Oh, my god. How much does that cost . Well, if you go google it, youll find that it costs roughly a dollar watt. So 20,000 gigawatts would cost 20,000 or 20 trillion. About 20 trillion and add 50 because everything gets more expensive. So make it 30 trillion. 30 trillion. I dont have that in my bank account. Yes, theres giggling. We do have that in our bank account. And actually at the un climate meetings a year and a half ago, it was promised 130 trillion for the transition. So so weve got the money to do it. We have the technology to do it. And going to take a few decades to build all that infrastructure and. A lot of people people a lot of people will be jobs from fossil fuel to clean energy. And so i dont worry about it. Thank god for the millions and millions of people who are working on it. Please keep working on it and have really good time working on it. Thank you, scott. Yes. So two questions. One. Just from your recent comment, if this technology and perhaps we dont need to wean ourselves from fossil, therefore fossil fuel should support this technology. And then question number two, could you address little bit about the scale and magnitude when talk about pinatubo erupting and how that kind of leveling off, what percent of our shallow seas do we need to apply this technology to get restoration . Hmm. Okay. Good remind me if i forget the second question, i short attention here. So i now forgot the first question. It seems we may not. Oh, we may not need to wean ourselves from fossil fuel if we dont if we can remove the co2, why do we need to wean ourselves from fossil fuels . Well, first of all, theyre really unhealthy. I dont know. Whens the last time you sat in front of the back of a diesel truck . Enough said. And our children. We dont want our children riding in diesel busses. So the Health Issues are huge environmental issues. Yeah, i know. If youve seen the coal mine, but in fact, youre useful fact. The area of land we need to use solar is half the area of land weve used for coal mining. So just ignoring climate, just environmental and Health Issues are. Plenty of reason to to eliminate fossil fuels. And then other is that its much less expensive that we all know the sunlight free. And if you to buy electricity these days generally its about two thirds the cost to install a solar farm or a wind farm than it is to simply buy your from a coal plant or a natural gas plant. Its just cheaper, but it takes takes a decade or two to build all the infrastructure. And thats the reason were still doing it, is its more expensive right now, to do fossil fuels. But got the infrastructure and of we have the laws which encourages which makes it harder for them to do the transition but were getting there. And i really encourage, you know, our rule makers to make make better. Great question. The second question was, i think scale and into how much of our. Technology. Right. So how much of ourselves. Well none of the shallow sea seas are needed. So the the ocean fertilization, the restoration happens in the deep ocean. It doesnt in the shallow ocean, you dont need it because you have runoff from the shoreline because plenty of iron is just in the deep ocean where theres no shoreline and theres no iron that it make a difference. And good question. 1 . So you do the calculation, the eddies where well, where theyll probably do it we wanted exactly duplicate how nature does it the the dust storms are localized and intermittent. And so we know nature has knows to do that. So we want to do it localized and we do it in an eddy, which is typically hundred miles in diameter, and that keeps contained in that region for about eight months. And then it goes fallow, just like in nature, both, you know, between dust storms or, you know, when youre farming, you want your field to go fallow. If you want to keep your land healthy. And so when you do the calculations about 1 of the ocean is needed for that. Yes. The ocean absorbs so much co2 that are losing their ability to absorb lot more. One, is that true or not . And if it is true, how does year of this process of adding iron does it take co2 out of the ocean as well as of the air or what does it do to this equation . Yes. So two questions. One is as the us, as the planet warms up, oceans ability to absorb co2 less. Thats true. And whats the impact of that . Its not too much because the plants in the ocean, the phytoplankton, theyll pull the out no matter what the temperature is. And so thats not a problem. Now, if you ignore the the green, if you ignore the phytoplankton, then it becomes an issue. And i certainly worried about that. Ten years ago when i entered the field it turns out not to be significant because i work that the plants are converting the co2 into sugars and and so on. Now what was the second question . Just what does adding iron to the ocean, whats that going to do to the level of co2 in that . Hmm. So so, well, the iron has no impact. Its its a ratio of million to one of iron to co2. So it and it all falls down to the bottom within sort of a year. Yes. So the impact on the ocean, itll be pretty much the ocean was before the going into the last ice age probably. And the good news is that all of these effects are short term. So as soon as you start the iron in the ocean, six months later its back to normal. You know, 6 to 12 months later, its back to normal. Okay, peter, thank you. How about around the globe globe . W. Peter, thank you for that enlightening presentation. Its its material that i venture to say none of us have heard. So i look forward to learning about your