‍

Is there a global solution to mitigate the effects of climate change? The answer is both yes and no, as evidenced by the work of James Gerber, Senior Scientist of Project Drawdown. While reducing fossil fuel consumption seems to be a globally essential condition when choosing mitigation technologies, solutions must also be specific and local, linked to both science and social structure.

Everyone is talking about the impact of Artificial Intelligence, and James Gerber offers a surprising perspective: the debate about AI’s impact is still ongoing, and, as of today, it is not the main problem we face. Read on for details.

"What place is the right place for a certain climate solution? What factors determine what constitutes a good place? One of the factors is science, physics, but to implement something you also need many social structures: markets, financing, insurance," explains James Gerber.

‍

GCFF: The Global Climate Finance Forum (GCFF) focuses on financing small and medium-sized enterprises that provide climate solutions in the developing world. In that context, how does the classification of climate solutions account for the differences or nuances that create a North/South divide?

James Gerber: I love this question. The reason that we only have four categories (Highly Recommended, Worthwhile, Keep Watching and Not Recommended) is because successful solution implementation is so context-dependent. And our solution analyses provide a lot of information useful for anyone considering solution implementation anywhere: we provide regional information on solution effectiveness, and extensive information on benefits to people; This way we intend to provide the information necessary to identify the most appropriate solutions across the North/South divide.

‍

Currently, the rise of Artificial Intelligence is generating concern about its potential environmental impact, something that would exacerbate the climate crisis already being felt cruelly on a global scale.

James Gerber: I think your question implicitly assumes that AI will have a significant environmental impact. We hear that it's a rapidly growing technology and that diesel plants are being built to produce electricity, among other things. But the truth is that AI doesn't yet constitute a large portion of either global electricity use or total greenhouse gas emissions. I think the debate isn't entirely settled.

One of my arguments is that economic growth can be achieved without increased emissions, so perhaps we can transition to the AI industry while incorporating climate change mitigation mechanisms. Perhaps it's not as dangerous as it currently appears for the climate, water, energy, and resources.

I'm very concerned about artificial intelligence, but not because of its impact; I'm concerned about the quality of the discourse, how difficult it is to teach, and how difficult everything must be for students now. So, I'm worried about artificial intelligence, but not about the water used by data centers.

‍

Your presentation ranking the most effective climate solutions has surprised more than one person. In one of our recent articles, we summarized this (See: GCFF Workshop at London Climate Action Week: Science, Financial Innovation, and Action), and it was particularly striking that carbon capture, a very current topic, is categorized as an ineffective solution: can you explain why?

James Gerber: I would identify two main reasons that we categorize "Carbon Capture" as a "Not Recommended" solution. One is that there is scant evidence that this works in a real-world setting: the amounts of carbon that have been sequestered by industrial methods is tiny compared to the scale of the problem, and this has been expensive financially and many projects don't even seem to break even in terms of carbon. So, every dollar invested in Carbon Capture is not going to something that is proven to work today. The second reason is that this solution is often used to postpone far more effective ways of reducing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, such as transitioning away from use of fossil fuels for transportation, industry, etc.

‍

In your experience as a scientist, what climate innovation do you consider the most promising and interesting?

James Gerber: Any innovation that works today. If I have to pick one... I'd say heat pumps. Especially after the brutal heatwave we all experienced in London. If heating in London were done with heat pumps, that could save CO2 emissions during the heating season and then provide health benefits to people during the warming summers.

‍

When one analyzes the daily press, there is a general concern about rising temperatures and natural disasters. However, this concern often gives rise to unexpected debates, such as the one currently surrounding the use of air conditioners: to what extent is air conditioning (AC) a negative factor, and what alternative climate solutions exist for populations exposed to high temperatures?

James Gerber: I find the debate over air conditioning to be unconstructive. I don't think many seriously are against providing air conditioning. Rather, there is a concern of the risks of implementation of AC the way the United States has it: with AC everywhere and set to very low temperatures. Those risks are that adapting to the impact of climate change will reduce motivation to address it, and then implementation of AC will itself exacerbate climate change.

My view is that implementation of AC should be done for people's health, and can be done judiciously. As electricity grids get greener, and AC units get cleaner (as high global-warming-potential working fluids get phased out) the impact per unit cooling decreases dramatically.

I also note that we don't have this debate about heating... a lot more energy is used for heating than cooling: why don't we have this same level of judgment there?

‍

Finally, can the public and the press distinguish between climate and weather? As a scientist, how would you simply explain the relationship between the heat wave affecting Europe or natural disasters and climate change? Can we definitively and definitively link climate change to all the problems we are experiencing?

James Gerber: The science is very clear: human impacts on the atmosphere are what is causing climate change and climate change is leading to an increase in heatwaves and other natural disasters. Of course, there have always been fluctuations in temperature leading to both heat waves and cold spells, but I think at this point the public realizes that the heat waves are becoming hotter and more frequent.

‍

Exclusive interview with James Gerberfrom the Global Climate Finance Forum

‍

‍

‍

‍