so the last, the last couple of weeks, a half of the carbon to the capture, you have to have the carbon to capture very convenient if you've got a call thought power station to make electricity. you've got a lot of carbon coming out of the flu. this the, the chimney of the power station get that carbon dioxide on the ground. if you've got a convenient place to store it, that's kind of fine. but once we stop burning fossil fuels, where is that neat? concentrated carbon dioxide. so it's going to be because in the atmosphere, the carbon dioxide is very dial it. so you're looking at staves, be on carbon capture. i mean, when the world isn't even successfully deploying carbon capture, but you're already thinking, what's the state beyond that? the reason i'm thinking like that is that we don't have viable carbon capture and storage at scale yet. that's no doubt going to be perhaps, viable in 101520 years time. but by that state, we really ought not to be burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. because we have options, we have solar, we have wind, we have nuclear for willing, or we have

when there's the carbon capture as a climate solution that is used for enhanced oil recovery quick. >'s too capture co2 and sequester it. >> even though the overwhelming majority deployed is ultimately used to extract even more fossil fuel exxon will increase carbon capture as a way to be consistent with the paris climate agreement but the truth is carbon capture could help extract more oil but wouldn't do anything to prevent the catastrophic cost of a climate crisis to make it work from a climate perspective exxon into be fear they will rest of the fossil fuel industry needs to capture and store an ever-increasing amount of carbon for which there is neither the capacity or infrastructure at scale with those obligations in the past and we are reaching net zero emissions by 2050 but the carbon capture facility is less than 20 percent of the carbon produced from which it operates. >> how do you capture enough from extraction transportation and other company operations to remain consistent with the net zero obligation quick. >> that is the big challenge we all face from one energy source

dan simmons and nick kwek have been looking into carbon capture technologies to see if they really couldn back the clock. clock ticks. for this film, we are focusing on c02 — the carbon that is produced mainly by burning fossil fuels and is the biggest contributor to rising temperatures. for decades, we've been able to capture carbon dioxide at scale at the source it's produced. in 2014, this was the first power station to use what's called carbon capture and storage. the flue gases are diverted to a purpose—built facility where the c02 is stripped away in a chemical process. it's then compressed and stored two miles underground. the system here stops around two—thirds of the c02 from reaching the atmosphere. last year, that was three quarters of a million tons. other projects are even more efficient. so couldn't we just ramp this up a notch or two and solve climate crisis for good? well, in theory, that would need tens of thousands more of these and today, we have fewer than 30 worldwide and sort of the same number again promised for the next 20 years. and it seems ccs, at least so far,

exxon's carbon capture facility has only been able to capture less than 20% of the carbon produced by the single plant on which it operates. mr. woods, how do you expect to capture enough of exxon's future emissions from extraction transportation and other company operations to remain consistent with the country's net zero obligation? >> congressman, that's the big challenge we face moving from one energy source to another and it has been widely recognized in order for society to be successful and the iea that carbon capture will play an important role in that and the policy to support implementation will be important to achieve society's objectives. so no matter what solution we go to, there will be extensive need for additional investment in infrastructure as well as the technology to replace today's energy system. so it's not a question of spending more money. it's where you spend that money, and i would make the point that a number are required and large investments in those solutions are required across our economy and across the world as a whole. >> thank you, mr. woods. i under

when exxon promotes carbon capture as a climate solution, does this include carbon capture that's used for oil recovery, do you know. >> our focus has been to capture co2 and sequester it not for eor. >> okay. so even though the overwhelming majority of existing carbon capture technology deployed is ultimately used to extract even more fossil fuel, exxon plans to increase investment in carbon capture as a way to be consistent with the goals of the paris climate agreement. but the truth is carbon capture might help the fossil fuel companies extract more oil, but it won't do anything more from the climate crisis, to make it work from a climate perspective exxon and to be fair the rest of the fossil fuel industry as well would need to capture and store an ever increasing amount of carbon for which there's neither the technological capacity or infrastructure of scale to meet our 2030 or even 2050 obligations in the paris climate agreement. the u.s., as you know, is committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050. but exxon's carbon capture facility is able to capture and bury the use on a

now on bbc news, it's time for click which this week digs into carbon capture and sustainable technologye cop26 climate change summit gets underway. this week — catching carbon. scannable snacks. and food, made from thin air. tick, tick... we've heard the warnings for some time. they have been getting louder and louder. the question is has our time to act run out? 2020 was the joint hottest year on record. hurricanes and flash floods have battered the planet. the earth is in crisis. and maybe, just maybe, this time, something will be done. next week, we'll be at the cop26 un climate change conference in glasgow, where pressure is building on those in power to make big changes. and this is the first of three click specials all about sustainability — what we can change and how much technology can help. we all know plastic is a problem for our planet. left unchecked, the ocean could contain more plastic than fish by 2050. but much of the harm comes from things that we cannot see so clearly, like the fossil fuels emitting greenhouse gases. they currently emit more than 30 billion metric tons

dan simmons and nick kwek have been looking into carbon capture technologies to see if they really couldn back the clock. clock ticks. for this film, we are focusing on c02 — the carbon that is produced mainly by burning fossil fuels and is the biggest contributor to rising temperatures. for decades, we've been able to capture carbon dioxide at scale at the source it's produced. in 2014, this was the first power station to use what's called carbon capture and storage. the flue gases are diverted to a purpose—built facility where the c02 is stripped away in a chemical process. it's then compressed and stored two miles underground. more on how that works later. the system here stops around two—thirds of the c02 from reaching the atmosphere. last year, that was three quarters of a million tons. other projects are even more efficient. so couldn't we just ramp this up a notch or two and solve climate crisis for good? well, in theory, that would need tens of thousands more of these and today, we have fewer than 30 worldwide and sort of the same number again promised for the next 20 years. and

so now, another way to capture and carbon is - to capture and carbon is gaining ground. 0ne to captureaining ground. one that does not have to be whether pollution is created. in fact, you could put it in some of the cleanest parts of the world. i've come to switzerland, look at an exciting and relatively new way to clean up the planet atmosphere and it is being pioneered right here. climateworks is one of the companies hoping the answers to the great carbon clean—up is in the great carbon clean—up is in the thin airaround the great carbon clean—up is in the thin air around us. this huge intake fans called collectors are sucking in the air from collectors are sucking in the airfrom around collectors are sucking in the air from around the collectors are sucking in the airfrom around the —— climeworks. and they are taking out the c02 and because c02 is around us everywhere, you can place these, well, pretty much anywhere on the planet. they could be cleaning up the environment. natalie leads the team here. she moved from carbon capture to direct air capture after seeing expensive project

the carbon dioxide from making electricity, then to capturedirect air capture you just talked about. tt all, do that direct air capture you just talked about.— just talked about. it sounds promising _ just talked about. it sounds promising with _ just talked about. it sounds promising with the - just talked about. it sounds promising with the right - just talked about. it sounds - promising with the right amount of financing. where are we going to put all this carbon we suck out of the atmosphere?— all this carbon we suck out of the atmoshere? . , ., ., , ., atmosphere? that is a great question and auain, atmosphere? that is a great question and again. rain _ atmosphere? that is a great question and again, rain the _ atmosphere? that is a great question and again, rain the university - atmosphere? that is a great question and again, rain the university of - and again, rain the university of edinburgh and the uk as a whole and many other countries worldwide and gas and oil companies have done research and development on this literally since the

and with carbon capture and storage which, if done right, could also be a net carbon removal technologyillion tons of co2 removal by mid century. that might seem like a lot but comparing it to our current emissions, which are 35—billion tons of co2, it only represents about a third of the solution. and so that means to deal with the other two—thirds, we need to get much more energy—efficient and if, on top of that, carbon removal technologies can help us along the way, then that's great, but let's not pin our hopes on those technologies alone. producing food is itself not that green. farming contributes more than 8% of all greenhouse gases. we're already beyond the boundaries of what the earth can sustain in terms of human population, so we need to be much more efficient in what we do. and jp may have a solution. i'm in finland, just outside helsinki — but i can't tell you where, because this is a super—secret test centre, where they're taking co2 out of the air... ..and brewing something rather special. oh, my gosh! you've gotta see this, this is bubbling. in these vats is a newly disc

exxon's carbon capture facility has only been able to capture less than 20% of the carbon produced by the single plant on which it operates. mr. woods, how do you expect to capture enough of exxon's future emissions from extraction transportation and other company operations to remain consistent with the country's net zero obligation? >> congressman, that's the big challenge we face moving from one energy source to another and it has been widely recognized in order for society to be successful and the iea that carbon capture will play an important role in that and the policy to support implementation will be important to achieve society's objectives. so no matter what solution we go to, there will be extensive need for additional investment in infrastructure as well as the technology to replace today's energy system. so it's not a question of spending more money. it's where you spend that money, and i would make the point that a number are required and large investments in those solutions are required across our economy and across the world as a whole. >> thank you, mr. woods. i under

something you can actually do today, and also looking at carbon capture and sequestration, taking the carbon out at the back end of the turbines, sequestering it, putting it back in the ground so that we can continue to have the reliable turbines to, to enable the foundation for renewable energy, rachael, one of things i, you know, i read your newsletter a lot. i just think part of the politics of this is, there's a built in skepticism that a lot of people have. there may be skepticism if you're in the oil and gas industry, or maybe you're on one part of the political equation. you think anything that's green is bad, you know, for your politics or whatever. and i'm just wondering with the skeptics. i, what are you worried about in these discussions as we tilt towards glasgow? what's real, what's not? i think there's a couple of things up. first thing is a lot of companies are pledging to not have 0 missions, but net 0 nations, which basically means those. so say again, there's not, not 0, but net 0, okay? which means that the sum when you add up all of your emissions and all the thing

professor stuart hazell dean from edinburgh university is one of the world's foremost experts on carbon capture him if the technology works. it capture and i asked him if the technology works.— capture and i asked him if the technology works. it has been workin: technology works. it has been working since _ technology works. it has been working since the _ technology works. it has been working since the 1970s - technology works. it has been working since the 1970s in - technology works. it has been i working since the 1970s in many working since the 19705 in many applications worldwide, but not all focu5 applications worldwide, but not all focus on climate mitigation, it is used often in oil refineries, natural gas production, but there is no doubt that millions of tonnes a year can be captured, transported and stored 5afely underground by this type of technology. 50 and stored safely underground by this type of technology.— and stored safely underground by this type of technology. so why is it not being _ this type of technology. so why is it not being rolled _ this type of technology. so why

yet know how to do those industrial processes in a zero carbon way, so we have no choice but to carbon capture the carbon and bury it. so we do have to -- the idea that you have to use it to keep coal plants alive was always a farce. coal plants are already the most expensive way to get power, if you bolt one of these facilities onto it and miraculously get it to work, work best-case can area it's billions of dollars and an energy penalty -- creates to run the carbon capture facility. so, the whole idea of clean coal was always ridiculous, but it does need to be separated out from carbon capturing sequestration which is its own beast. that's a great point and an important one, we're gonna have to find ways to caption carbon from industrial posture, seas and take carbon out of the air as we move ahead. but the other aspect of this, i think is really important, the reason why cylinder was so sticky, for the right. was the story they wanted to tell was, real energy is fossil fuels. that's what the marker says this cheap is. that's what's easiest. the dems want to create these winter and losers, a

and part of the technologies you talked about related to carbon capture utilization and stowed storagethese are technologies being implemented right now. in the washington dc area, there is a plant in maryland that captures carbon dioxide, a co-fired power plant and it ends up as the fizzy bubbles in a lot of drinks. companies are investing in how to develop everything from concrete to yoga pants using carbon capture from the atmosphere and integrated into consumer products. that is a great direction to be headed in. representative: thank you. chair: representative bonamici, you are recognized. representative: ranking member grace said we need to be candidate talk about reality. he was candid and here is reality. last summer, as ms. fransen mentioned, a heat dome in the pacific northwest killed hundreds. drought is threatening crops and farms and glaciers are melting in the sea level is rising. climate change is an existential threat. we can't rely on the free market alone to provide an efficient response to its worst effects. i reject the notion fossil fuel is fine if it is cleaner th

part of the technologies you talked about with relating to carbon capture utilization and storage, these are real technologies implemented right now. here in the washington, d.c. area, there is a plant not too far away in maryland that captures carbon dioxide, and it ends up as the fizzy bubbles in a lot of drinks. companies are investing in how to develop everything from concrete to yoga pants using carbon capture from the atmosphere and integrated into consumer products. it is a great direction to be headed in and we should not close that off. >> i yield back my time. >> your recognize for five minutes. >> thank you, chair and thank you to all of our witnesses. i want to note that ranking member graves in his opening statements says we need to be candid and talk about reality. here is candid and reality. last summer, there's a heat dome in the pacific northwest i killed hundreds. the ocean is affecting our coastal communities and economies threatening our crops and farms and glaciers are melting as c level is rising. so climate change as we know is an existential threat. we cannot rely

overall, it has omitted more carbon than it captured. clearing is the rainforests of sumatra in indonesia. that has also emitted more carbon than it has captured. emitted more carbon than it has ca tured. ., i. emitted more carbon than it has catured. ., i. ., ., captured. how did you go about doinu captured. how did you go about doin: this captured. how did you go about doing this research, _ captured. how did you go about doing this research, how- captured. how did you go about doing this research, how did - doing this research, how did you get this information? irate you get this information? we used some — you get this information? - used some recently published maps that colleagues and i am the number of research institutions created. these maps are of greenhouse gas emissions for forests worldwide over the last 20 years. the maps are based on a compilation of satellite data and field data and re—overlaid the maps with the boundaries of unesco world heritage sites to see what had been happening to the carbon in forests for the last

so overall it has emitted more carbon than it has captured. agricultural clearing, is the rainforests of sumatra and indonesia, and that is also emitted more carbon thanit is also emitted more carbon than it has captured.- is also emitted more carbon than it has captured. how did ou no than it has captured. how did you go about _ than it has captured. how did you go about doing _ than it has captured. how did you go about doing this - you go about doing this research, how did you get this information? we research, how did you get this information?— information? we used some recently published _ information? we used some recently published maps - information? we used some| recently published maps that colleagues and i and a number of research institutions created. these maps are of greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration for forests worldwide over the last 20 years but at the maps are based on a combination of satellite data and field data and we overlaid these maps with the boundaries of unesco world heritage sites to see what had been happe

so overall it has emitted more carbon than it has captured. e're calling land use such as logging and agricultural clearing, is the rainforests of sumatra and indonesia, and that is also emitted more carbon than it has captured. how did you go about doing this research, how did you get this information? we used some recently published maps that colleagues and i and a number of research institutions created. these maps are of greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration for forests worldwide over the last 20 years but at the maps are based on a combination of satellite data and field data and we overlaid these maps with the boundaries of unesco world heritage sites to see what had been happening to the carbon in forests over the last 20 years. it's a matter of using recently available technology in the sky, in outer space, in order to see what's happening on earth. how big a problem is this? this isjust a handful that are putting up more carbon than are absorbing, surely. so, these ten sites, you can think of them as sort of, they are a taste of w

not just of renewable energy but of carbon capture and geo-engineering.is less than 1/10 of that going into military research and development. that is misapplied sense of priorities. i mean, ideally we will develop cheap, universal carbon capture and we could go on burning fossil fuels but we don't know at the moment whether that is possible. we have got to work on it but work on them simultaneously. as far as the sacrifices by ordinary people are concerned, i agree. but that is why the biden administration and more figures like senator elizabeth warren have emphasized so strongly, or tried to, the need for higher taxes on the rich and corporations. so that is the greatest burden of this transition. falls not on the poor but on those who can afford it and, frankly, for many years, got away with, as warren buffett and others have pointed out, paying scandalously low levels of taxation compared to what they paid in the past or what people are paying anywhere else in the developed world. host: michael in morris, illinois. caller: thank you and i want the gue

that is to do this carbon capture and storage. the japanese government's argument, to say many climate scientists suggest this is not the way to go. >> as well as lobbying about fossil fuels, these leaked documents show the world's biggest meat producers are arguing against cutting back. for context on 26% of global emissions come from food. the draft you and reports says -- compared to the average omission intensive western diet. result, the world's second largest producer of beef, claims this is incorrect. argentina, another big beef producer, recommends avoiding generalization on the impacts of meat-based diets on low carbon options. they are you the evidence may-based diarists -- diets could also reduce emissions. as you heard from the documents we are talking about were leaked to the charity greenpeace and passed on to the bbc. here is the head of greenpeace international. >> i think it is an insight into how a small group of these countries are putting profits of those industries in front of science and the claimant. what is

carbon way. we have no choice but to capture the carbon and bury it. we need to develop that technology.is a farce. if you bolt one of these facilities on to it, and miraculously can make it work, best case scenario, it's billions more dollars. and an energy penalty of something like a third of the energy the plant creates to run the carbon capture facility. >> right. >> the whole idea of clean coal was always ridiculous. >> that's a great point. important one. we'll have to find ways to capture carbon from industrial processes and take carbon out of the air as we move ahead. the reason this was so sticky for the right is that what the story they wanted to tell was, look, real energy is fossil fuels. that's what the market says is cheapest. that is easiest. and the democrats want to create winners and losers u.s. government welfare to prop up the other sources. and at some level that is true at a cost -- as a cost matter for many, many years. but it really has unverted now. coal is the thing that needs the government support and welfare and the cleanest energy is actually the cheapest ri

ideally we will develop cheap universal carbon capture and then we could go on burning fossil fuels. but we don't know whether at the moment that's possible. we have to work on a lot of things simultaneously. as far as sacrifices by ordinary people are concerned, i entirely agree, but that after all is why the biden administration and still more people like elizabeth warren have emphasized so strongly the need for higher taxes on the rich and corporations. so that's the greatest burden of this transition. falls precisely not on the poor but on those who can afford it and who frankly for many years now have got away with, as warren buffett has pointed out, paying scandalously low levels of taxation compared to what they paid in the past or what people are paying anywhere else in the developed world. host: let's hear from michael, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. i want the guest to know that i agree with almost everything you said word for word. and i do try on this micro level to do what i can. i recycle everything that i can possibly do and so forth. i don't

you . need something called carbon capture for the _ need something called carbon capture for the atalled carbon capture for the at the point where you're - for the at the point where you're tfuming — for the at the point where you're tfuming the _ for the at the point where you're burning the energy— for the at the point where you're burning the energy you - for the at the point where you're burning the energy you can- for the at the point where you're i burning the energy you can actually suck it _ burning the energy you can actually suck it back — burning the energy you can actually suck it back out _ burning the energy you can actually suck it back out of _ burning the energy you can actually suck it back out of the _ burning the energy you can actually suck it back out of the atmosphere | suck it back out of the atmosphere and then— suck it back out of the atmosphere and then buried _ suck it back out of the atmosphere and then buried down _ suck it back out of the atmosphere and then buried down underneathl suck it back out of the atmosphere i and then buried down underneath th

you need carbon capture. as a point _ technology. you need carbon capture.hnology. you need carbon capture. as a point where you are burning the i as a point where you are burning the energy— as a point where you are burning the energy you _ as a point where you are burning the energy you can— as a point where you are burning the energy you can soak— as a point where you are burning the energy you can soak it _ as a point where you are burning the energy you can soak it back- as a point where you are burning the energy you can soak it back out i as a point where you are burning the energy you can soak it back out of. energy you can soak it back out of the atmosphere _ energy you can soak it back out of the atmosphere and _ energy you can soak it back out of the atmosphere and period - energy you can soak it back out of the atmosphere and period downl the atmosphere and period down underneath— the atmosphere and period down underneath the _ the atmosphere and period down underneath the ground. - the atmosphere and period down underneath the ground. for- the a

you say carbon capture, even though all of the captured carbon is being used to enhance oil extraction and actually increasing co2 emissions in the world. even though there is no economically proven way to store co2 indefinitely. here is the problem. this hearing will show that your actions continue to be inconsistent with the climate goals you now espouse. i wish they were consistent. my goal, honestly, is not to embarrass you. it's not to have a gotcha moment. that doesn't help any of us. you actually have a moment to shine today. you could commit to changing course and taking actions that would avert a climate catastrophe or you can continue to deny and deceive out of a sense of institutional loyalty to your companies' past. the choice is really yours. as you make it, think of the indigenous-led demonstrations last week and the five young activists from the sunrise movement who have been outside the white house on a hunger strike for nine days and counting. they're putting their lives on the line because they know that countless thousands will suffer and die if we continue on our cu

alix: occidental has been into carbon capture for a long time and they are going heavy into direct airnd i asked the ceo of what they will be in 10 or 15 years and they said they will not think of themselves as an oil company. they can take a module and move it around to different plants and if they pick the carbon out of the air, that will be an easy way to make money. that's the kind of business model they will have but that will not happen tomorrow. guy: going at that scale economically, we don't know yet whether that will be viable and maybe better science comes forward and provides a better opportunity. i don't know. it's a skeptical approach but you need to throw significant amounts of money at these different areas to figure out what will work. it's a bit like the arrival of the internet. you have to figure out what works and then scale back stop i suspect that will be the model. alix: you are old so you remember that. there is a milton global conference kicking off monday with full coverage all week of that stuff the senate is back in session and tuesday we get tech returns. gu

about it, you see it's a priority for them on the conference call, going into some detail about carbon capturetry, because it would allow them to understand exactly how much to spend and what they might be able to receiveads a result. but it's a real effort what are we talking here from 22 to 25, they're going to do over $10 billion, right >> this year >> 15 billion on low-carbon investments. >> which is an interesting -- you take the numbers and we're talking $10 million to the mettaverse we're seeing heavy, heavy investment and we're seeing it as we have energy prices at multiyear highs and you have the weekly crude inventory data for the u.s. showing we're actually running out of oil in storage in kushing right now. ia get to the level of 20 million barrels, that's where normal operations start to be impacted in cushing, oklahoma, which is the land locked capitol of oil storage in the u.s. we've had this conversation on our air too. the shift in investments, the focus to things like free cash flow for the oil and gas companies. and yes, there's a future and climate change is part of it and

hydrogen carbon capture. ex spending, but it will be about 20% above where it wasagain, w can do both. we're going to and faster growing in renewable fields. >> there have been so many questions asked. we know for oil prices at $80, a lot of that is the demand picture, but it's also the supply picture do you think lower supply than we've been used to is going to continue for several years to come >> deman decreased really quickly. it's increasing rapidly this year so you're see the price senate work, and we expect that to happen over time >> what do you get the sent of from just investors, and wanding esg, wanding moves to see things moving away from fossil fuels. is it still the same sense when oil was stuff you had to give away, basically? >> this is a sector, indices for any time period, so we have worked to do our message of higher returns, lower carbon, we think is a winning -- low growth, high return, delivers energy, and for many years to come, while growing faster, the new lower carbon solutions that

. >> does carbon capture have to go? >> you know, i hope there is some form of carbon capture in there. i would love to seeing some on carbon pricing, those are very effective tools to reduce carbon emissions. again, i think there is some room to negotiate with senator manchin on this that, you know, it is not going to be nearly as big enough for us to address the challenges. >> so overlap, yes. between joe manchin and ami bera. are you confident that there will be overlap between say, joe manchin, and alexandria ocasio-cortez on climate change? >> i think there will be some disappointment. i talked to some of my progressive colleagues on the floor last night. they were presented the same data we were presented. all of us are are going to be disappointed in some areas. but we can do something big for american families, american workers, as you mentioned the women that are are a big part of our workforce. this is a good bill that has big effect and it is a start, not an end. >> the progressives you've been speaking to, ar

>> i am in iceland where the world's largest carbon capture plant has gone online, which they hope willan impact on climate change. ♪ >> this is the time of year when the temperature difference between sydney and melbourne can be as much as 20 degrees because these systems keep running through. it gets hot and then rapidly cooled because the wind changes. in the immediate future, this front is taking a wild to get toward adelaide in melbourne, 22 degrees, sydney at 22, i will point this out so you know that this is getting hotter and the temperature in adelaide is steady at 20 as the rain comes in. sydney is up to 27 which brings perth to 20. the forecast in sydney, the wind changes again and that comes in when the front system edges across this one. it will drop to 18. a regular thing. the south china sea and philippines see these circulations of clouds and a lot of rain. three or 400 millimeters and there is more to come for hong kong, and the edge of vietnam. listen for luzon, much of the -- less for luzon, but it pushes into other areas, that part is going to be wet. the monsoon is

you say carbon capture, even though all of the captured carbon is being used to enhance oil extraction and actually increasing co2 emissions in the world. even though there is no economically proven way to store co2 indefinitely. here is the problem. this hearing will show that your actions continue to be inconsistent with the climate goals you now espouse. i wish they were consistent. my goal, honestly, is not to embarrass you. it's not to have a gotcha moment. that doesn't help any of us. you actually have a moment to shine today. you could commit to changing course and taking actions that would avert a climate catastrophe or you can continue to deny and deceive out of a sense of institutional loyalty to your companies' past. the choice is really yours. as you make it, think of the indigenous-led demonstrations last week and the five young activists from the sunrise movement who have been outside the white house on a hunger strike for nine days and counting. they're putting their lives on the line because they know that countless thousands will suffer and die if we continue on our cu

those will include carbon capture in soil, lower solar energy costs, and developing greener energiess. australia will lose -- use more gas, at least in the short term, and there is no plan to limit fossil fuels. an environmental lawyer -- >> the document is a collection of existing policies, policies that experts on climate action have already criticized and shown to be absolutely inadequate to maintenance -- m ake net zero. this doesn't contain any plan to wind down the coal, oil, and gas sectors. in fact, it says there will be no change to its policies in respect of those sectors, which are, as we know and ask science tells us, critical to achieving climate action. nuala: climate change is a very divisive issue politically. large parts of australia's economy are reliant on the oil and gas stor. here's our corresponde. >> essentially, the government needed the support of its junior coalition partner, the national party. they represent where most of the carbon intensive industries are, like the coal mining industry, for example. after days otwo and fro, -- to and fro, talks, politica

it looks like modern art, but this is actually the world's largest carbon capture blonde, a bank of fans, drawing in the air and removing it c o 2 permanently. so this is work line works. sucks carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and the seal doors accumulated in the cells. we heated up and then they sent the seal due to conflicts. and we injected into the bedrock and turn it into stone. the greenhouse gas arrives here and is then sent deep into the ground below where it will stay for thousands of years. here we are injecting c o 2 into the ground to where it goes in to post office and rapidly turned to stone. and that's the essence of the complex technology we imitate, and accelerate the process that nature has been applying for millions of years. and by doing that, what able to permanently eliminate some of our c, o 2 emissions. and this is what we need to do at scale. if we are to meet our climate goals, the world released 34000000000 metric tons of c o 2 into the atmosphere. last year . the oca plant will capture just 4000 tons. the equivalent of emissions from $850.00 cause

they plan to plant billions eventually in their carbon capture effort.llenge of climate change but also work towards stabilising the oil market. the saudi saying that fossil fuels, oil must remain part of the global mix of energy for quite some time to come as we manage that transition to a greener, betterfuture you might argue that the saudis would say that wouldn't take was met all their prosperity is bound up in that sea of oil beneath their feet. meanwhile — ahead of next week's crucial climate summit in glasgow, the environmental activist, greta thunberg, has called for honesty from world leaders, about where they're falling down on combatting climate change. greta thunberg, has been speaking to our science correspondent, rebecca morelle. it was a video that went viral — greta thunberg's surprise performance of rick astley�*s �*80s hit. it was to launch the climate live concerts ahead of the un climate talks in glasgow. # we're no strangers to love... so what does greta want to tell politicians at cop26? be honest about where you are, how you have b

projects could include, carbon capture — capturing c02 from the air or from industrial emissions. 0ceanth of c02—consuming plankton. solar reflection blocking sunlight by seeding the upper atmosphere with reflective particles — or sending giant mirrors into space. cloud brightening spraying salt from oceans into the air — creating whiter clouds that reflect more heat. and land management covering deserts, ice sheets and rooftops with reflective material, or genetically—modifying lighter crops that absorb less heat. but 7 are these massive projects realistic? and might they have unforeseen 7 potentially disastrous consequences7 joining me now is gernot wagner, the founding executive director of harvard s solar geoengineering research programme. he teaches climate economics at new york university and is the author of geoengineering: the gamble . some of those ideas, putting dustin some of those ideas, putting dust in the atmosphere to reflect light back out, they sent pretty far—fetched. they sound nuts, yes. and that is a pretty good reaction to have. there is and not the sort things you

alex asked you, hazelton, professor of carbon capture and storage at the university of edinburgh. what's to me, this is a patent body blow to the scottish economy. breakfast to your team to emails and messages in response to i interview last week with professor parameter on the prospects, but a new understanding between the west. i'm this law mccoy, 1st from market peyton, who say.

projects could include, carbon capture — capturing c02 from the air or from industrial emissions. 0ceangrowth of c02—consuming plankton. solar reflection blocking sunlight by seeding the upper atmosphere with reflective particles — or sending giant mirrors into space. cloud brightening spraying salt from oceans into the air — creating whiter clouds that reflect more heat. and land management covering deserts, ice sheets and rooftops with reflective material, or genetically—modifying lighter crops that absorb less heat. but 7 are these massive projects realistic? and might they have unforeseen 7 potentially disastrous consequences7 these are not the sort of things you want to be using to tackle climate change. they're certainly not the go to line of defence. they're not the first thing you think about. we to cut c02 thing you think about. we to cut co2 emissions. that is steps one to ten. and maybe then we ought to be thinking about what else is out. are you saying we have got steps 1—10 to do but that might not be enough. it may not be faster now than we might have to take some of the s