optimistontour.com
  • Archives
  • May27th

    A version of this article appears in the BSA‘s “People and Science” magazine

    I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard senior scientists lament the lack of appreciation for science in the general populace. “If only people valued science we wouldn’t have all these problems with…” and here you can fill any number of our current scientific Bête noirs – climate change scepticism, the belief that homeopathy is any better than placebo, vaccine denial etc.

    I sympathise with this point of view, which is why it makes my blood boil that some of those same senior scientists treat science communication either in the way Lindsay Lohan treats the highway code (as a rather troublesome bore) or pay it lip service, thinking the odd public lecture to the already interested somehow gets them off the hook.

    It still amazes me that Carl Sagan was ridiculed by many of his peers who regarded his work in public engagement as something that devalued him – when the exact opposite was, of course, true. Richard Feynman suffered similarly from short-sighted colleagues – although, to be fair, he was also shagging some of their wives, so this may have had an impact. But I’ve had this conversation with brilliant scientists and communicators like David Eagleman and Robin Lovell-Badge who tell me they often suffer the same disdain from many of their peers if they engage in communicating with the public.

    Things have improved, though not enough. If I had a pound for every time in the last year I’ve heard Professor Brian Cox being lightly dusted down (out of his earshot) for “not really being a proper scientist” I could probably buy him quite a nice dinner. (Obviously I wouldn’t tell him how I funded it). The people who so readily attack Cox don’t realise he isn’t making programmes for them. He’s making pop videos about physics – and thank God. We could do with a few more pop videos about physics frankly. I do a lot of work with schools and I can tell you that Brian does more to inspire teenagers about science than our current education system (more on our how our schools stifle creativity to follow).

    Part of the problem is, I suspect, a widely held belief that you can only really appreciate, value (and therefore truly champion) science if you’ve put in some serious hours actually doing it or, at the very least, reading a lot about it – so the answer to getting the public on science’s side is to have more of us take scientific subjects at school, and reading the weighty tomes of Roger Penrose and the like.

    Really? Well I’m not gay, but I believe discrimination based on sexuality is abhorrent. My bookshelf has no volumes by Armistead Maupin, my DVD collection none of the films of Derek Jarman. I hate musical theatre. I once considered seeing Judas Priest in concert, but didn’t go. You don’t have to be gay to care that society enshrines equal rights regardless of sexuality, and you don’t have to do science to be concerned that our society is evidence based.

    So, perhaps we should ask ourselves: how did the gay community manage to get most people to care about something that, statistically, they have no personal investment in, while science is still battling to be valued by so many?

    I’ll tell you why. Because the gay community went out fighting, and science needs to do the same. Oscar Wilde once said “As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular”. Lazy pessimism and lazy thinking are vulgar and it’s about time all of us stood up and said so.

    Which is why, finally, it’s so nice to hear the likes of Government Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington saying, “We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of racism. We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] anti-homosexuality… We are not—and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this—grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method.” I’m heartened by the popularity of Ben Goldacre. I applaud Simon Singh’s recent libel battle. I look forward to Mark Henderson’s Geek Manifesto. Things are getting better, but it’s taken far too long – and there’s still a long way to go. We’ve got a lot of catching up to do.

    Max Plank famously said “Science advances one funeral at a time.” Let’s make sure science communication doesn’t carry on advancing at a similar pace. Particularly when we have a planet to save.

  • March26th

    With 'singulatarian' Ray Kurzweil

    With 'singulatarian' Ray Kurzweil

    Back to Boston.

    It’s amazing how quickly you can accept international travel as work-a-day. When I started my journey a flight heralded a feeling of adventure in me. Now, it’s like getting in a car. Another thing that’s changed is my attitude to my interviewees. When I first secured an interview with my quarry in Boston I was slightly intimidated. ‘How do you talk to someone like that?’ I asked myself, the ‘that’ in question being Ray Kurzweil. Now, as I come to end of my journey and try to tie it all together I find less trepidation in myself. I’ve spent the last year meeting extraordinary people, and I’ve got used to it. Turns out extraordinary people have plenty enough ordinary about them to get hold of.

    I arrive in Boston, deal with the ever rude and superior immigration staff and am picked up by Tracy Wemett, who you may remember as Konarka’s PR woman and driver of some, shall we say, reckless enthusiasm. Tracy, on hearing of my return to Boston has generously offered me her basement for the week, which makes a welcome change from hotels. Still, we’ve got to get to her apartment alive which, given her driving, is not a certainty.

    Since I saw Tracy last it seems I haven’t been the only one to notice her maverick approach to the road. One speeding ticket too many and she’s been required to take a driving education course by the state of Massachusetts. The results are reassuring. She tells me, “I was told I’m the sort of person who will make a road where there isn’t one.” She pauses. “Apparently that’s not good.”

    I spend the next day preparing for my interview with Ray. (I also take a visit to meet genius-entrepreneur Howard Berke at Konarka, who was, like many genius-entrepreneurs, a mixture of enthralling, socially odd and genuinely entertaining. More on him in my chapter on Solar).

    Ray Kurzweil is variously an inventor, guru, madman, prophet or genius depending on who you listen to. One indisputable truth is that Ray is a very good inventor. He invented the first machine that could scan text in any font and convert it into a computer document, a technology he applied to building a reading machine for the blind (which led to him, on the side, inventing the flatbed scanner and the text-to-speech synthesizer too). Stevie Wonder was the first customer – and this in turn led to Ray inventing a new breed of electronic synthesizers that captured the nuances of traditional ones. (In a former life as a musician I coveted the ‘Kurzweil K2000’ but not being very successful musician I could never afford one). Our interview opens in much the same way as Ray’s last book The Singularity is Near (hereafter referred to as TSIN). “The philosophy of my family, the religion, was the power of human ideas and it was personalised,” he says. “My parents told me, ‘you Ray can find the ideas to overcome challenges whether they’re grand challenges of humanity, or personal challenges’ ”.

    Ray’s journey to visionary genius/ techno-prophet/ crazy person (delete as appropriate depending on your prejudices) had its genesis in his attempt to work out a way to time his inventions for maximum impact. “I realized that most inventions fail not because the R&D department can’t get them to work but because the timing is wrong. Inventing is a lot like surfing: you have to anticipate and catch the wave at just the right moment,” he writes on page three of TSIN. So Ray started looking at technology trends and he saw something extraordinary – a clear, unmistakable pattern of exponential innovation, something he calls ‘the law of accelerating returns’ – a phenomenon centred around the idea that technology regularly doubles in efficiency. Such doubling is seen, for instance, in the increasing processing power of computers. Reality has kept pace with the predictions of ‘Moore’s law’ with almost unwavering allegiance, with performance per dollar doubling about every 18 months. But Ray says the effects of the law can be found, well, nearly everywhere, that the law of accelerating returns is the governing law of all creation.

    To understand the implications of Ray’s idea you have to get your head around how potent a force it is if something has the propensity to double. Think of it this way. Let’s say you travel a metre with each step you take. If you take ten steps you’ll have covered ten metres. Now imagine that instead of each step progressing one metre, it somehow doubles the distance you covered with the last one. So while your first step covers one metre, your second covers two and by your third your stride is four metres. The difference between ‘normal stepping’ you and ‘doubling stepping’ you is extreme and gets ever more so. As a doubling stepper your first ten steps will cover not ten metres, but one thousand and twenty four. Instead of covering the equivalent of about 1/10th of a football field you’ve covered over ten. And with your next step you’ll cover ten more – with the step after that covering another twenty whole pitches.

    By the time you’ve done just 27 steps you’ve traversed 67 million metres, or to put it another way, you’ve gone one and a half times round the world. Your next step? You double that distance and do another 67 million metres. At this rate you could walk to the sun and back (and be 85% of the way to Mars) in 38 steps (your last step having covered 137,438,953,000 metres). One can only imagine the trousers you’d need. Meanwhile, normal stepping you is about a third of the way down a football pitch. Now, of course, you can’t step like that but technology, says Ray, can. And he’s not wrong.

    Certainly on my trip I’ve seen other examples of mankind’s exponential adventure, in the plummeting cost of genome sequencing, or the ‘cost per watt’ performance of solar technologies for example. Ray cites these examples and others. The first hundred pages of TSIN almost bludgeons the reader with graph after graph, based on historical data showing exponential growth in the number of phone calls per day, cell phone subscriptions, wireless network price-performance, computers connected to the internet, internet bandwidth and so on. These all have a computing flavour, but Ray sees exponential growth of knowledge too, citing exponential growth in nanotechnology patents as an example. What about the economy? Ray plots exponential growth in the value of output per hour (measured in dollars) in private manufacturing and in the per-capita GDP of the US. Ray quotes example after example because he want us to get past what he sees as an inherit prejudice in our human thinking.

    “Our intuition is linear and I believe that’s hard-wired in our brains. I have debates with sophisticated scientists all the time, including Nobel prize winners that take a linear projection and say “it’s going to be centuries before we…” and “we know so little about…” and here you can fill in the blank depending on their field of research. They just love to say that. But they’re completely oblivious to the exponential growth of information technology and how it’s invading one field after another, health and medicine being just the latest.”

    You can’t get to Mars in 39 steps wearing linear trousers (like the one’s most of our minds wear). You need exponential ones (like technology has). But because we’re hard-wired to think in linear, rather than exponential terms we fail to see when things are coming, argues Ray. We’ll be far further than we think, far quicker than we expect. Ray predicts for instance that by the middle of the century we’ll have artificial intelligence that exceeds human cognition, a game-changing explosion of intelligence that we will merge with to usher in the next stage in our evolution – a human-machine hybrid, enhanced with similar exponential bounty brought to us by entwined revolutions in nanotechnology and biotechnology. Aging will be ‘cured’ and we’ll be able to move onto a more stable platform than our frail biology. At the same time we’ll have solved the energy crisis and dealt conclusively with climate change.

    “All these Malthusian concerns that we’re running out of resources are absolutely true if it were the case that the law of accelerating returns didn’t exist,” he says. “For instance, people take current trends in the use of energy and just assume nothing’s going to change, ignoring the fact that we have 10,000 times more energy that falls on the Earth from the Sun every day than we are using. So if we restrict ourselves to 19th Century technologies, these Malthusian concerns would be correct.” In other words, the law of accelerating returns in solar energy will soon see a green energy revolution, as the technology keeps doubling its efficiency. Ray reckons five years from now solar will be taking coal to the cleaners when it comes to cost per watt. We won’t be switching to solar because we want to save the planet, we’ll be doing it to save our bank accounts.

    “I just had a debate this week at a conference held by The Economist with Jared Diamond who basically sees our civilization going to hell in a hand-basket and points out various trends and makes this assumption that technology is a disaster and only creates problems and he has really no data to point to, it’s just aphorisms and scoffing at technology with no analysis. But he’s got a bestselling book because people love to read about how we’re heading to disaster.”

    Part of understanding what Ray is getting at requires you to understand that he sees all creation as an exercise in information processing. Everything can be expressed as data coming in, some kind of manipulation or interaction, and some data goes out. So, two atoms collide (data in), they interact in some way (data processing) and emit light and heat (data out). This is the most boring way ever to describe fire, but it doesn’t take away from the essential premise that everything can be viewed as a manipulation of information. In other words, everything (including you) is an ‘information technology’ and therefore the law of accelerating returns becomes the fundamental law that governs all creation.

    In 1999 Ray published a book called The Age of Spiritual Machines in which he applied this law to make predictions, and handily he made a bunch for the decade from 2009. Critics and advocates alike have lept on these, loudly proclaiming “Ray was right!” or “Ray was wrong!” depending, it seems, on how they view the world – and all ignoring the fact that Ray didn’t say his predictions were for one year, but for the period beginning 2009. “Most of Kurzweil’s predictions are actually astoundingly accurate,” writes one blogger, while another asserts his forecasts are “ludicrously inaccurate.” Oh dear.

    My own analysis is that, with the odd caveat, Ray seems to be on the right track with his predictions and many seem extremely prescient. According to Ray 89 are correct, 13 are “essentially correct”, three are partially correct, two are ten years off, and just one is wrong (but he claims it was tongue in cheek anyway). Certainly there is some pride in Kurzweil’s response to his critics and you could argue he’s stretching the point a bit when he defends some of his predictions, massaging the semantics of the prediction to match the current situation, but, all that aside, he’s still been right more often than he hasn’t. By anybody’s reckoning that’s prediction nirvana, and a skill any investor would love to have (oh, Ray’s latest venture? A hedge fund.)

    But part of the problem with Ray Kurzweil, or rather part of the problem in talking about Ray Kurzweil is that he raises strong emotions. Trying to separate reasoned debate from the howl of emotion that his work provokes is hard. Take the view of Douglas R. Hofstadter, now a cognitive scientist at Indiana University, but more famously the author of Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid – an attempt to explain how consciousness can arise from a system, even though the system’s component parts aren’t individually conscious.  (This is a key area of study for Ray too, because it is through reverse engineering the human brain that he believes we’ll be able to unlock the mechanisms of mind, replicate them in machines and so free ourselves from the biological limitations of our brain). Here’s what Hofstader has to say about Ray’s ideas:

    “I find is that it’s a very bizarre mixture of ideas that are solid and good with ideas that are crazy. It’s as if you took a lot of very good food and some dog excrement and blended it all up so that you can’t possibly figure out what’s good or bad. It’s an intimate mixture of rubbish and good ideas, and it’s very hard to disentangle the two…”

    That’s like Stevie Wonder saying, “I can’t work out if Paul McCartney is a genius or a wanker”. Such is the trouble with talking about Ray. (You can see the full text of the interview this comes from here)

    As I comment throughout An Optimist’s Tour of the Future, the advance of new technologies, particularly biotechnology, make many people (including me) uncomfortable – and then Ray comes along and says, ‘belt up, things are going way faster than you thought, and by the way, that means I’m not going to die. Would you like to transcend your biology with me? Hurry now’. It’s no wonder our linear-trousered brains are stretched to the limit, no wonder some people find Ray just too difficult to engage with. And on the other side of the coin are those who do see Ray as some kind of prophet, whose ideas save them from the sticky issue of their mortality. Ray’s ‘Singularity’ – the moment at which ‘strong AI’ arrives and we merge with it – has been called “the Rapture of the nerds” (a phrase coined by science fiction author Ken MacLeod). These Utopian-techno-nerds don’t really help Ray’s cause. I advocate the approach of Juan Enriquez, the founder of Harvard Business Schools’ Life Science Project, and another Boston resident, who told me, “Do I always agree with Ray? No. Does he make me think? Always.”

    It seems to me (from my linear trousered perspective) that progress in robotics, AI, synthetic biology and genomics brings philosophical questions such as “what does it mean to be human?” into your living room, and not in an ‘interesting-debate-over-a-glass-of-wine’ sort of way, but in a ‘right-in-your-face-what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it?’ sort of way.

    When the possibility that the hand your mate Robin lost to cancer three years ago can be replaced by a robotic one with a sense of touch becomes a real option we begin to ask ourselves, ‘Is that hand really part of Robin? If I shake that hand am I really shaking Robert’s hand? Gee I don’t know. I feel kinda weird’. (By the way, Robin isn’t fictional, he’s Robin af Ekenstam and you can watch a video of his new hand being attached here). And just as we can start to engineer robot hands and merge them with humans, we will soon, thanks to the law of accelerating returns, be able to engineer to genuine robot intelligence and merge it with our brains, argues Ray.

    “The basic principles of intelligence are not that complicated, and we understand some of them, but we don’t fully understand them yet. When we understand them we’ll be able to amplify them, focus on them – we won’t be limited to a neo-cortex that fits into a less than one cubic foot skull and we certainly won’t run it on a chemical substrate that sends information at a few hundred feet per second, which is a million times slower than electronics. We can take those principles and re-engineer them and we’re going to merge them with our own brains”.

    It’s statements like this that bring Ray into conflict with many scientists who think he’s not so much running before he can walk, as getting in jet fighter straight out of the crib. Although, for Ray, that’s kind of the point. Crib to jet fighter is really just a few doublings after all, the law of accelerating returns in action. But for some, Ray is a bit like Tracy. He makes a road where there isn’t one, they say.

    One thing is certain. If a conscious human-like intelligence is ‘computable’ (i.e. it can be run on a machine substrate) the processing power to compute it will be within reach of the even your desktop very soon. Hans Moravec wondered, “what processing rate would be necessary to yield performance on par with the human brain?” and came up with the gargantuan figure of 100 trillion instructions per second, which is one of those numbers that generally makes most of us go “hmmm, I think I’ll make a cup of tea now.” To put this number in context, as I was ushered into the world in the early seventies IBM introduced a computer that could perform one million instructions per second. This is one millionth of Moravec’s figure. By the dawn of the millennium chip-maker, AMD, were selling a microprocessor over three and half thousand times quicker (testament to a technological journey that had been populated with continual exponential leaps in processing power throughout the intervening period). This yielded a chip that is still 280 times less powerful than the brain’s computational prowess (by Moravec’s reckoning) but is a staggering upswing in power nonetheless. Intel have just released their ‘Core i7 Extreme’ chip which is forty times faster than the AMD device from 2000 and computes at the mind-numbing speed of 147,600,000,000 instructions per second – or about one seventh of Moravec’s figure. At this rate your new laptop will achieve the same computational speed as the human brain before the decade is out. Soon after that, if the exponential trend continues, your laptop (or whatever replaces it) will have more hard processing muscle than all human brains put together. This will happen sometime around the middle of the century according to Kurzweil.

    Supercomputers have passed Moravec’s milestone and it’s therefore no surprise to find various projects using them to try to simulate parts of animal and human brains, merging neuroscience and computer science in an attempt to get to the bottom of what’s really going on in that skull of yours. It’s important to realise that simulating something often takes more computing power than being something (aircraft simulators have more computers than actual aircraft for instance) and a complete simulation of an entire human brain running in real-time is still beyond the reach of even the most powerful computers. But not for long. Henry Markram’s Blue Brain project (which works by simulating individual brain cells on different processors and then linking them together) believes “It is not impossible to build a brain, and we can do it in ten years.” He’s even joked (or not, depending on how seriously you take the claim) he’ll bring the result to talk at conferences. Markram has similarly upset more conservative voices in the AI field. Even Ray thinks he’s over-optimistic. (The prediction falls outside the curve predicted by Ray’s graphs by a hefty margin).

    You can see Markram’s TED talk (where he suggests he’ll be bringing the Blue Brain back to the conference as a speaker within a decade) below.

    I find myself thinking back to my talk with George Church, Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School. If you accept evolution as an explanation of how humanity came to be, that the common genetic code of all living things is proof that you, I and Paris Hilton all, at some point, evolved from the same source (that source being a collection of molecules that became the first cell) then one way of looking at the human being (and therefore the human brain) is ‘simply’ as a collection of unthinking tiny bio-machines computing away – reading genetic code, and spewing out ‘computed’ proteins and the rest. We’re machines too, just wet biological ones. You are an information technology.

    Robotics pioneer Rodney Brooks makes this argument as well. “The body, this mass of biomolecules, is a machine that acts according to a set of specified rules,” he writes in Robot: The Future of Flesh and Machines

    Needless to say, many people bristle at the use of the word “machine”. They will accept some description of themselves as collections of components that are governed by rules of interaction, and with no component beyond what can be understood with mathematics, physics and chemistry. But that to me is the essence of what a machine is, and I have chosen to use that word to perhaps brutalize the reader a little.

    In short, intelligence and consciousness are computable, because you and I are computing it right now. I compute, therefore I am. George Church was less brutal in his take on the ‘human machine’. “I think of us more and more as mechanisms,” he told me. “We’re starting to see more and more of the mechanism exposed and it just makes it more impressive to me, not less. If someone showed me a really intricate clock or computer that had emotions and self awareness and spirituality and so forth I’d be very, very impressed and I think that’s where we are heading, were we can be impressed by the mechanism.”

    But something’s not sitting right with me, and it’s not that I don’t like being called a ‘machine’ (believe me, that’s nothing compared to some of the heckles I’ve had). In fact, the machine metaphor makes a kind of sense given what I found out at Harvard.

    It was Cynthia Breazeal, head of the personal Robotics lab who I met last time I was in Boston that expressed it best.The bottom line is there’s still a long way to go before we can have a simulation actually do anything. I mean they can run the simulation but what is it doing that can be seen as being intelligent? How does that grind out into real behaviour, where you show it something and have it respond to it? I still think there’s a lot of understanding that needs to be done. I do, I really do. I think we’re making fantastic strides but I think,” (she dropped to a conspiratorial whisper, smiling) “there’s a lot we still don’t know!”

    Cynthia nailed the root of my discomfort. Someone can give you the best calculator in the shop, but if you’ve never learned any maths, it’s largely useless to you. If the brain is computable, it’s not that we won’t have the processing power to recreate its mechanisms, but that we’re still a long way off working out how to drive that simulation. If you’d never learned to read your eyes could take in the shape of every letter on this page, but it’d mean nothing to you, and printing it out photocopying it a hundred times (or even inventing the printer and photocopying machine in order to do so) wouldn’t help you either. Just as you had to learn to read, AI and neuroscience research, collectively, have to tease out not only what it is they’re looking at, but what it means.

    Sure, there’s exponential growth in processing power, but the jury is out as to whether there is an equivalent growth in understanding how to use that power more ‘intelligently’, to create (to paraphrase one of Henry Markram’s analogies) a concerto of the mind by playing the grand piano of the brain. If there had been, maybe your new laptop would be one-seventh as smart as you are. But it isn’t. This is where the strength of projects like the Blue Brain (and Cynthia’s work) really lie – as tools to slowly help us to pose the right questions that will lead to a better understanding of intelligence, emotion and consciousness.

    This is what I really want to ask Ray. “Have you got any graphs that clearly show an exponential growth in understanding? or in the ability of us to collectively make sense of the great philosophical questions, the intractable questions – ‘What is life?’, ‘What is consciousness?’” I ask. “Have we seen the law of accelerating returns in our understanding of these questions? Is our knowledge, our wisdom also keeping pace?”

    “Well, I’m actually working on that in connection with my next book which is called How the mind works and how to build one, says Ray.

    Well he would be, wouldn’t he?

    More of my interview with Ray will, of course, be in the book…

  • October20th

    Paul phones me this morning to say that an interview today is looking ‘unlikely’ although the president ‘might’ have time to meet me at his home this evening, but that’s pure speculation on his part. “Look, I think it would be useful for you to come to a lecture the president is giving today about Gandhi, and try and talk to him there,” says Paul. “As my interview?” I ask a little incredulously. “No, no, just, you know, to put you in the president’s mind.” It’s now clear to me that despite months of e-mailing, Paul has left arranging my interview to the very last minute. I get the feeling he’s genuinely embarrassed, having assumed he’d have no problem slotting me into the president’s diary during my time here, and suddenly finding that, er, he can’t. Both the president and I leave Malé tomorrow – me to visit eco-resort Soneva Fushi and him to talk pre-Copenhagen Climate Conference strategy with the Indian government. “Look, you’ll get your interview, even if we have to change your flights,” says Paul, but I’m beginning to fear that my flight being turned into a pig is more likely (and probably the cheaper option).

    The lecture – a talk to commemorate UN World Peace Day (a day chosen because it is also the annual anniversary of Ghandi’s birth) – isn’t until the afternoon, so I take the morning to explore some more of the capital. I visit the National Museum, and am shown around three floors of artefacts that attempt to tell the rich history of these islands. My guide is Asma. Just finishing her ‘A’ levels Asma hopes to find further education abroad relating to museum practice (there are no opportunities here she tells me). I promise to put her in touch with my friend Ross Parry who I know from my day job co-running Flow Associates and who is ‘the big cheese’ at the world-leading Museum Studies course at Leicester University – and where foreign students flock before returning home to help revitalise the interpretation of their cultural heritage.

    Too much history, not enoug space

    The National Museum of the Maldives

    Early settlers in the Maldives were Buddhists. The nation’s conversion to Islam is told in the legend of Berber Abul Barakat – who thwarted of the evil sea demon, or Jinni, through recitation of the Qur’an, thereby bringing to an end the long-standing ritual of providing the beast with a virgin upon which to feast. On hearing of this demon-quashing theology the then King Shenuraza concluded the Maldives should follow the teachings of Muhammad. Islam remains the state religion to this day.

    Various colonial powers have had a crack at invading and ruling the islands – the Portuguese, the Dutch, the British – with bloody results, demonstrating with depressing regularity that regime change often comes hand-in-hand with brutality and loss of life. Reflecting on this gives today’s lecture greater resonance. Nasheed’s democracy movement embraced the non-violent resistance championed by Gandhi, and in doing so succeeded in birthing a political revolution with minimal bloodshed.

    I also take time to pop into the National Art Gallery. It’s a great space. There’s no sense of an ‘in the know’ hierarchy of arts aficionados and a blissful absence of those overly wordy and simultaneously patronising labels. I find myself more interested by the work on display here than in any gallery I’ve visited.

    Rothko's watery mirror - The brilliant 'Blue 05' by Samah Ahmed

    Rothko's watery mirror - The brilliant 'Blue 05' by Samah Ahmed

    I arrive in good time for the lecture and sit next to a man called Per, who turns out to be a) recovering from Dengue fever and b) the head of the Red Cross in the Maldives. On my other side, a very fat and aggressively cheery fellow called Wahid makes easy conversation, laughing and smiling with each inhalation and exhalation of breath, while telling me of his role in the recent transition of power.

    The lecture is inspirational and Nasheed, as is his habit, delivers it without looking at his notes. He’s a compelling speaker, not because his delivery is overly slick, but because you can tell he believes every word. It’s something I’ve seen in the various speeches I’ve watched in preparation for my hanging-in-the-balance interview. During an early conversation with Paul, the PR man had told me, “the thing with the president is that he just tells the truth. Which can cause me some problems.”

    Nasheed talks of one of Ghandi’s core principles – “that to bring down the might of an Empire, with all its guns, bombs and tanks, you don’t fight fire with fire. Total rejection of violence in all its forms is, strangely enough, the best way to combat dictatorship.”

    nasheed lecture crowd

    Gandhi’s logic was flawless. If protestors challenge the existing regime, say by assembling for protest, and get away with it, the authority of the ruling power is undermined. But if the protest is suppressed by brutal means then the regime loses legitimacy. It’s a lose-lose situation for the oppressor. But it hinges on the resolve of the protesters to take whatever punishment is dealt out without retaliating. This requires enormous acts of will – and strong examples of non-violent leadership.

    Nasheed turns the lecture to the subject that has brought me to his country: reactions to climate change. He sees no value in criticising developed nations for the advent of man-made global warming, instead citing Gandhi’s doctrine of forgiveness and his famous maxim ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’. For him ‘tit for tat’ politics and historical grievance will not lead to a solution. A recurring soundbite in his rhetoric on climate change goes, “This is not like your standard disarmament negotiations or trade negotiations. You cannot negotiate with the rules of physics.”

    “The Maldives is a small country,” he says to the assembled crowd. “We emit less than 0.1% of global greenhouse gasses. The Maldives has played no part in causing the climate crisis. And yet, we stand to lose the most from global warming and rising seas. It would be so easy for us to point the finger of blame at Western nations for causing the climate crisis. It would be so easy for us to refuse to help solve a problem we did nothing to create.  However, the problem with this line of thinking is that it will make ‘the whole world blind.’ Unless every country on Earth agrees to cut carbon pollution, all of us will suffer as temperatures rise. The Maldives has announced plans to become the world’s first carbon neutral country. We do this not because we can solve global warming on our own. We do this because we hope to lead by example. If the Maldives can become carbon neutral, bigger countries might follow. By doing the right thing and showing the way, we can make a far bigger impact than blaming others for causing the problem. To quote Gandhi: ‘Be the change you wish to see in the world.’ ”

    Moving forward without rancor over the injustices of the past is, admits Nasheed, not always easy to do. It’s difficult to imagine that the fit looking, bright-eyed young president before me has been brought to the brink of death twice through torture, but when he speaks now, you can hear the memories – a tiny modification of his tone, an imprint of something that he will not speak of (at least not in public) but that still troubles him.

    “I understand, from my own personal experiences, how difficult it is to forgive. It is especially difficult to forgive people who refuse to say sorry for the hurt they have caused. But at the same time, I don’t believe that retribution, or going for a witch-hunt, will make us happy.”

    "I know how hard it is to forgive..."

    "I understand... how difficult it is to forgive"

    Nasheed practices what he preaches. Few would have blamed him for throwing his former nemesis Maumoon Abul Gayoom in jail. Instead the erstwhile dictator now leads the opposition. On his election Nasheed said, “A test of our democracy will be how we treat Maumoon.”

    The lecture ends (you can see the full text of it here) and I search out Paul who tells me with some trepidation that getting an interview with the president today remains “very unlikely”. I remind him this is my last full day in Malé and I think he can see I’m finding it hard to hide my exasperation. He looks a little like a rabbit in headlights, poor boy. After all, he knows how far I’ve flown, and that I’m here on these dates at his invitation and the promise of a presidential audience. “Look, could you do me a favour?” he says “Go and introduce yourself to Ziattey, he’ll be with the president, you’ll recognise him from his ponytail. He’s Nasheed’s right-hand man, they go back a long way. If you can convince him then you might get your interview”. It seems Paul thinks I have a better chance of getting my interview than he has. (In all fairness, I get the feeling Paul is constantly grappling with a moveable feast when it comes to dealing with the presidential diary and he’s been doing his absolute best.)

    At a buffet lunch in a private room I find ‘Ziattey’ (former democracy campaigner Mohamed Ziyad) and introduce myself. “I’m hoping to interview the president,” I say and recount my months of communication with Paul. He assesses me with a kind of bemused indifference. Being Executive Services Secretary Ziyad looks after the Secretariats of the President, Vice President and Special Envoy and visiting authors are, I would imagine, of as much interest to him as the next Simon Cowell manufactured slice of Christmas muzak is to me, i.e. of no interest at all. “This is the first we’ve heard of you,” he says. “Paul hasn’t mentioned you to us at all. There is no chance of you getting an interview. The president is busy.”

    Bollocks.

    There’s a part of me that’s about to lose it, but I suspect throwing a tantrum in a room filled with government officials will totally scupper the now, admittedly, wafer thin possibility of an audience with Nasheed. I’ve not given up yet.

    I spy the jocular Wahid (who sat next to me during the lecture) talking to the president as they both nibble on spring rolls from the buffet. Wahid, as ever, looks like he’s just heard (or is about to tell) the funniest joke ever told. They’re an odd pairing – Nasheed has the look of a jockey, while Wahid looks like a Maldivian Oliver Hardy. I use the fact I ‘know’ the larger man to infiltrate the circle, via a Ziyad-distracting ‘dummy’ visit to the buffet (where I admittedly do pick up an Onion Bhaji).

    Bhajing in on the president

    Bhajing in on the president

    I compliment Nasheed on the lecture and remind him of our brief introduction after the cabinet meeting. Ziyad is instantly on to me and I see him moving towards us with a look of ‘must save the president from the author’ on his face. I make my last ditch effort, explaining (very quickly) to Mohamed Nasheed that I have travelled here on the promise of an audience with him and leave the island tomorrow. Ziyad is now with us. This is absolutely the last hope I have. The president turns to him.

    “My diary is pretty full today”. Ziyad nods. “So, the only way we can do it… is now? We can do it now I think.” My hopes rise. He wants to help me out and is trying to find a way. Bingo. My dad always used to say, ‘If you want anything done, go to the top’.

    Ziyad looks slightly annoyed. I’ve exhibited out-and-out brass-neck by directly asking the president for an interview moments after he has told me it’s impossible. I’ve shown his authority no respect and now his boss is on my side. I’m an irritant he wasn’t expecting when he woke up this morning, and you can’t blame him for being miffed.

    “How long do you need?” asks Nasheed. The ways thing are looking I suspect I’ll be lucky to get 10 minutes. Still, in for a penny, in for a pound.

    “An hour?” I say.

    To my complete surprise the president says, “OK, but it has to be now.” Bingo! again.

    “Here?” I ask.

    “No, we’ll do it at the presidential offices.”

    Before I know it I’m in a coterie of officials, (including, I notice, security staff with those funny earpieces) being escorted out of the building. Ziyad ushers me into the back of black windowed car that starts to drive off before I’m fully in it and he reprimands the driver. From this moment on he becomes helpful, if still rather peeved. But if Nasheed has agreed to talk to me he’ll make it happen.

    We arrive at the presidential offices and rush straight through security. In the lift I try to break the emotional stand-off between us by asking him if he was with the president when he was exiled in Sri Lanka and Britain. “No, I was here,” he says.

    “That must have been difficult?” I respond. “The last regime didn’t really make it easy for you.”

    He looks at me like I’ve just said the most facile thing possible. And then his face saddens a little. “It was hard,” he says softly. That’s an understatement. I subsequently find out that as a key figure in the democratic movement he was targeted and abused by Gayoom suffering arrest, solitary confinement and torture. The businesslike man escorting me to my interview was so severely treated by the National Security Services that it took a long spell in intensive care to recover. Now he confidently walks the corridors where the former regime endorsed and ordered the indignities he was forced to suffer. I’ll probably never get a chance to talk to Mohamed Ziyad again and that’s a shame. His story, like so many who fought for change here, is extraordinary.

    Mohamed Ziyad

    Mohamed Ziyad

    I’m ushered into a wood-paneled meeting room and a few minutes later Nasheed enters, smiling. It’s less than 15 minutes since Ziyad had told me there was no chance of me getting an interview.

    In person Nasheed is both compelling and, well, normal – and surprisingly candid and open. There is little of the guarded phrasing typical of career politicians. By contrast he’s ‘fresh’ and disarming. Early in our conversation he says “You know I’m always told ‘be cautious – not to do that, don’t say that, you can’t be saying this’. I end up saying something ‘wrong’ every week and they don’t like it.” He smiles. “But I have to go on saying what I believe in.” The ‘they’ in question is the government machine he’s inherited, which clearly frustrates him. It’s a common refrain I’ve heard in my travels – that the way governments work is frustrating, compromised and slow (it’s particularly revealing to hear it from a head of state) –  and increasingly I realise I’m meeting people who’ve decided to get on a do things without waiting for government to catch up.

    Examples include:

    • Harvard genetics pioneer George Church who has been working to create a surveillance and licensing strategy for the synthetic biology industry for the last five years. “Part of the reason governments don’t want to act is because they don’t want to be accused of being clueless, which they are when it comes to my field.”  So George has just got on with creating an international consortium of more or less all of the key players in synthetic genome and gene synthesis. He hopes that when the details are worked out the government will ‘rubber stamp’ it.
    • …or Vicki Buck, the ex-mayor of Christchurch, New Zealand (who I’ll blog about as my virtual self – this blog – catches up with the real me just back from the Antipodes) who sums up her view rather brilliantly as, “if we wait for governments to sort out the climate change thing, we’re buggered”. Vicki quit politics to become a Clean Tech entrepreneur, and her eco-directorships now outnumber her limbs.

    The logic, and it’s seductive, is we do not need to wait for legislators to give us permission or guidance. Indeed, it’s increasingly clear, many argue, that they cannot. The mighty ‘ideas broker’ Nick Gerristen who I meet in New Zealand said:

    “One of the biggest issues I see is that we are expecting a system that led us to where we are, to now ‘remarkably’ be able to correct itself and take us further – in many senses do a 360 degree turn and contradict itself. For me Copenhagen was a stunning example of this reality – the end of the world system has started….and so yes, we need something else…more elegant, subtle but more powerful  enabling and encouraging individuals to reclaim their personal sovereignty… to encourage thinking and most importantly action.”

    Einstein encapsulated it nicely too:

    “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”.

    Even Arnold Schwarzenegger is saying something like it.

    “I believe technology and economic focus will overtake the politics and regulatory efforts of national governments. We are beginning on a historic great transformation, a new economic foundation for the 21st Century and beyond. We in California do not wait for Washington or Beijing or Kyoto. We are moving forward and making great progress.”

    When both Einstein and The Terminator agree on something it’s compelling in a whole new way. (In my mind’s eye I suddenly imagine the physicist and the cyborg discussing the relativistic characteristics of the Uzi 9 millimetre machine gun).

    'I agree with the German'

    'I agree with the German'

    'The Austrian has a point'

    'The Austrian has a point'

    Nasheed isn’t waiting either – as demonstrated by his commitment to, and action on turning the Maldives carbon neutral. But he still has to deal with the frustrations of government, does he not? He laughs and says something I didn’t expect.

    “I think what’s helping me is Tom Sharpe,” – an out-of-the-blue reference to the English satirical author whose comic novels are famous for graphically and lewdly lampooning authoritarianism. “The comedy of it all – of government, of endless meetings, another meeting and again another meeting. You’d be amazed at the kind of ‘work’ I do,” chuckles the president. “Apparently I am doing work they tell me. I hope to find a conclusion for each meeting, but in the end what you decide upon… is to have another meeting.”

    The Copenhagen Climate conference must have been a special kind of hell for Nasheed, yet he was hailed as “the real hero” of the conference by Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen. “The Copenhagen Accord is a long way from perfect. But it is a step in the right direction towards curbing climate change,” said Nasheed, before returning home to get on with leading by example.

    Nasheed understands better than most how to negotiate the seemingly impossible, and to have the patience to endure the  almost infinite progression of baby steps to a resolution.

    “When you reach a dead end in trying to convince someone or trying to do something it would be best to give it a moment, and give it some thought. There’s no value in just banging on. There’s always more than one avenue to any  destination. All roads actually, finally lead to Rome. Even in a dead end, when things get really, really bad you have to keep going – however badly you suffer, whatever losses you incur, you just have to keep going. You have to make a tiny step. Don’t just be stuck with a single option.”

    By example Nasheed recalls his interrogations at the hands of the last regime’s Chief of Police, Adam Zahir – which became a battle of wills. “I can see many would say there is no point reasoning with him, but there is nothing else better than reason,” he says. “And despite his reputation, you could see he was wobbly”.

    Zahir was the only person Nasheed asked to resign when power was transferred. I’m fascinated by how he works with those who remain in a military and police force that formerly worked to oppress him. He answers with a typical optimistic pragmatism.

    “I think they, being very hard people, with their military background and minds, actually look up to me because I did not capitulate.” Suddenly he becomes stern, and the pencil he is holding becomes a pointer. “They tried their best,” he says stabbing it forward. “They tried to get me to capitulate.” He lightens. “You know some of the police officers I work with now are my personal interrogators.” He’s almost amused by the irony, but then a hint of metal creeps back into his voice. “They know who they’re talking to”.

    Our talk turns to climate change.

    “This is the biggest challenge we will ever face,” he says. “Not terrorism, not piracy, not drug dealing: nothing compared to this. So we really need to try and do something about it. No matter how small or however insignificant we may be.”

    “Are there some parallels between a man in solitary confinement and a tiny nation in the midst of the world’s biggest problem?” I ask. “Do you think something in your solitary confinement prepared you for this role?”

    He looks at me squarely and I worry for a second my question might be taken as making light of his ordeal, that I’m trying to spin it as a useful experience and have therefore have trivialised what happened to him. But instead he exclaims, “I think you’re very right there! Yes! If you can muster the faculties to survive in solitary for long periods of time you must have some mechanisms, some tools upon which you can build a strategy for stopping global warming. Very true.” He points, not at me, but as if as some philosophical target hovering between us. “I was just one person right in the middle of some huge, very sophisticated machinery. And we are in solitary, in a cell, surrounded by bigger nations and big countries with huge achievements and we are just probably nothing, but still…” He shrugs. “…we have our ideas. We want to survive. We are not asking for much.”

    From this point on it becomes hard to separate the man from the nation. When he speaks ‘I’ and ‘we’ become interchangeable. When he recalls the struggle for democracy or talks of the current battle against global warming the language is also transposed freely between the two (indeed he often slips between timeframes when answering a question). For him it seems the two are not separated, but two events in an ongoing war to help his homeland flourish. Perhaps this is why so many people find Nasheed a compelling negotiator – an ability to come across not just as a representative of his country, but an embodiment of it. In our time together I certainly begin to get this feeling. It’s as much in the way he rebuffs hard line Islamists (who have publicly criticised him this week for removing his wetsuit and exposing his chest at the close of Saturday’s water-bound cabinet meeting) as it is his views of political and environmental realities. “No sane Maldivian would think you could be in the water with anything on you. What are they talking about? Have we ever gone swimming with a T-Shirt on? No! So why should the president? That is not the Maldives.” The message is something like ‘I’m a Maldivian first, and the president second’.

    Nasheed hoisted by own petard

    Nasheed hoisted by own petard

    That sea, which is such a part of the Maldivian national psyche is also, many believe, the biggest threat to the nation. Certainly if enough of the ice sheets currently melting in the Antarctic and Greenland slip off the land into the water the Maldives are likely to be one of the first nations to disappear below the waves. Nobody will care who’s wearing a T-Shirt or not then.

    Given the severity of the threat he sees to his nation how does he keep optimistic?

    “With the belief that there is hope, that there is a bright future. By seeing another picture other than the very fearful picture that is staring you right in the face.” He slips time frame and we’re back in the democracy battle. “What I would try to do is imagine another country, another homeland, another time, other circumstances”

    That can’t always be easy to do though? Earlier in our conversation Nasheed had told me that nearly everyone around him told him the fight for democracy was ill-fated (“My family, everyone, told me ‘You have a good life, two daughters, a good wife, you have a home, a job – what is the point?’”) and it’s not hard to find commentators who suggest the battle against global warming is futile. This is the view that we should be battening down the hatches and giving up – a view that sees the Maldives’ plan for carbon neutrality as a ridiculous and facile footnote on the inevitable march to climate Armageddon.

    “There is always the option of resigning yourself to whatever you have and then not think about other possibilities and other futures,” he says. “But working against the odds has been our thing and it has given us some tools for working towards a better picture. You have to believe that you can.”

    At its core then it’s all about having the right vision?

    “I’ve always been optimistic. I feel if you can show the light at the end of the tunnel it’s bearable to move out from difficult times and situations – if you see some light at the end. It’s easier to go towards that and reach that goal. I know that this is huge odds, but if you look at the situation the Maldives were in five years ago, most people would have said ‘what is the point with the democracy movement? we are wasting our time.’”

    The fact I’m having this conversation with a head of state who was a former political prisoner, whilst sat in the presidential offices, rather amplifies the essence his argument.

    The big picture, the goal, the brighter future, optimism that things can be achieved. All admirable ideals, but how does one hold onto these when you’re embroiled in the ‘endless meetings’ and the ‘comedy’ of government he talked about earlier? By way of an answer he sighs and puts his hand to his temple in a gesture of comic resignation. This inspires me to ask if, in a strange way, he misses his days in solitary and spent under house arrest, where he had plenty of time for thinking. He smiles.

    “I really do,” he says almost wistfully. “I’m surviving from the reserve – and my feeling is you will only be able to survive for five years on a reserve – and this is probably why five years is a natural term for anyone to be a leader.”

    “Your brain is too full with the day-to-day now?”

    He sits forward. “You don’t get the bigger picture,” he says urgently. “You lose the concepts. So then you get hold of processes, frameworks, strategic plans, matrices – it’s all very good…” He tails of. “But if you don’t see the bigger picture…” he shrugs.

    This is the essence of leadership. Keeping to a simple vision, even when things get complicated. Later during a visit to Australia, a man called Bruce Ward (who helps me investigate the way soil carbon could reverse the effects of global warming) wisely remarks ‘Keeping things simple isn’t easy’.

    The president points to the clock indicating that our time is nearly up. I have one more question, and then a request. First I want to know what it’s like being a head of state. This is the first president I’ve met (and will possibly be the last).

    “You’re quite young to be president. Do you ever wake up and go ‘my God, how did I get here?’” I ask.

    He smiles, and takes a moment to think.

    “You do feel that, you know, you’re not so grand, you’re not so big – but people take you to be. But you only have one of a president, so the whole system is arranged around looking after me.” He pauses. “It leads you to very awkward situations, where you think ‘Oh my God, can I have some moment for myself?’ Every single step you make, everyone, someone is watching you.”

    Nasheed is both ordinary and extraordinary at the same time. Like his idea for an underwater cabinet meeting he manages to mold day-to-day reality with something singular and exceptional. He is both a leader and eminently approachable (as evidenced by the method by which I finally got my interview). Having met him it seems almost obvious that he’d want to have a cabinet meeting underwater.

    Time is short and I decide in the little time I have left to do a bit of advocacy for Klaus Lackner and his carbon scrubbing technology (see my post on meeting Klaus here). The president hasn’t heard of Klaus (although he has heard of Klaus’ key advocate, the mighty Wally Broecker). As I explain the potential of Klaus’ work you can see his brain working. His eyes go up and to the right. He leans forward. How much money does Klaus need? (Nasheed tells me he is hoping to put aside $100million each year for investment in his carbon neutral project). I repeat the figure Klaus gave me of $20million to take his technology to the next stage – a design that can be rolled out worldwide. Suddenly I find myself suggesting to the president that maybe one of the deserted islands in the Maldives might act as a good demonstrator for the technology, to show the world its potential. As an act of cheek it goes beyond anything I’ve ever done (Clearly this is a day for sticking my neck out). The bloke from New Cross has just overstepped the mark. Except the president says, “So he should come down here, and we could give him some room…”

    Should I put him in touch with Klaus?

    “Please do!”

    And what would be the best way of doing that I wonder?

    “I think the best way would be to get in touch by personal e-mail,” he says, scribbling his contact details on a piece of paper and handing it to me. I’m dumbfounded. A president has just handed me his private e-mail address. (It’s not a government e-mail account, it’s hosted by one of the world’s popular web-mail providers.) I want to phone my mum and shout ‘Mum! Guess what?!

    I have one last question. What’s his one tip for approaching the future?

    “Never give up hope, you know? Never give up. Just keep moving.” He pauses. “Tomorrow must be better. Tomorrow is better.”

    Our interview is over and we pose for a photo together as I thank him for his time. He smiles readily and, ever the diplomat, thanks me for my questions.

    nasheed and author

    And then he is gone. A presidential aid escorts me out the back entrance of the offices and I am once more on the humid streets of the capital. I have a huge grin on my face. It’s not just that I finally got my interview, it’s because the interview has made me feel lighter.

    Nasheed is a lightening rod for optimism, and it’s hard not to feel better about the future after spending time with him. And then it strikes me forcibly that it’s not just him, but all the people I’ve been meeting. From Nick Bostrom, the philosopher, to George Church the geneticist. From Wally Broecker the climate scientist to Cynthia Breazeal the robotocist. From Hod Lipson the Artificial Intelligence pioneer to Xavier Claramunt, the orbital hotelier. All of them are inspired by what can be done, all of them are doing something to make it real. And none of them is waiting for permission.

    During our interview Nasheed had said

    “Thoughts are real, they’re material. Once you have given thought to something, it then becomes material very often and quickly. If you can see a bigger picture then you work for that.”

    He is, of course, right.

  • October18th

    If it wasn’t for the armed soldiers observing me and my companions as we step onto the jetty, I could be in paradise. The sky is a pure shimmering blue, the sand underfoot is soft and fine, the sea a crystal clear aquamarine teeming with life. A light breeze rustles through the palm trees, which offer shelter from the sweltering sky.

    Welcome to Paradise

    Welcome to Paradise

    This is the military island of Girifushi and the soldiers looking at us, with a mix of slight disdain and bemusement, are likely ex-employees of the dictatorial regime who tortured the man we are all here to see. Later this week I will ask Mohamed Nasheed how he feels about being in charge of a military and a police force that used to oppress him – and his reply is typically surprising and positive.

    Today the government of the Maldives will hold an underwater cabinet meeting in an attempt to draw the world’s attention to the perils of climate change – and position the Maldives as a front line state in the battle against global warming. I’m the odd one out. Everyone else here seems to be either a journalist (I meet cheery correspondents from Good Morning America and Al Jazeera) or an activist (like the fabulously named Susannah and Ya’acov Darling-Kahn who are behind sixbillionreasons.org – and who are also using their trip to the Maldives to take a 20 year overdue honeymoon). TV Maldives has turned a lagoon on the other side of the island into an underwater studio. Three metres underwater cameras are trained on a sub-surface arrangement of tables and national flags, carefully positioned around an outcrop of coral. In a tent on the shore TV executives hustle and bustle around banks of audio-visual equipment that feed them images and sound from the bottom of the lagoon. Their expressions betray excitement and national pride along with what I can only describe as the ‘I hope we don’t cock this up’ look.

    Most people here will take in proceedings from the shore. After months of careful e-mailing with the president’s PR liaison (the impossibly youthful looking Paul Roberts) I’m lucky enough to be allowed to see the action from the water.

    We’re briefed in the press area where everyone seems good natured except for a couple of press photographers who are demanding access to the water too. “Taking pictures of journalists is of no interest to me,” exclaims one grumpily, “so I must be allowed closer”. Later, as we bob about in the water while the president addresses the TV cameras amassed on the shore the same person will try and manhandle me out of his path saying, “if you’re not shooting can you just get out the way?” I’d say there are about 100 people on this island with one form of camera or another and only these two are being arsey. Paul later tells me these same photographers have turned up at the last minute and demanded to be allowed access to the event ‘because they had flown a long way’.

    I’m kitted out with a mask, snorkel and fins while being briefed by the man who will be our escort in the water. Because none of the cabinet ministers will be able to talk during the event they are all following a printed ‘order of service’, which will guide them through their headline grabbing meeting.

    1.    President signals OK
    2.    Cabinet reply OK
    3.    President signals LOOK SLATE
    4.    Cabinet open manual page 3
    5.    President signals statement OK
    6.    Cabinet signal statement OK
    7.    President signs statement
    8.    Cabinet pass the slate one by one
    9.    President signals cabinet ascent

    …and so on.

    Dictatorship, Nasheed-style

    Dictatorship, Nasheed-style

    The statement in question, to be delivered taken to the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December, is printed on an underwater slate and calls for nations around the world to cut greenhouse gas emissions.  I’m guessing everyone’s confident that the statement is OK. A late amendment motion could be tricky.

    I’m taken to the waters edge and we dive in. It’s deliciously warm. As I come to the surface I’m struck by how incongruous and just brilliant my life at this moment is. I may be writing a book about the future, but right now I feel incredible. I know that when my time comes and my life flashes before me I will remember this. I’m grinning from ear to ear. Even the grumbling photographers who’ve managed to intimidate Paul into allowing them in the water make me smile. It’s strangely comic to observe them cajole and hassle our escort, demanding to be taken closer still to the meeting below us. It takes a special kind of skill to be fed up in these circumstances. It’s almost admirable. (In defence of the photographers I will later see their work and have to admit that being grumpy hasn’t affected either’s ability to take a fine picture).

    I swim around the perimeter of the meeting avoiding scuba-clad cameramen and the wires that trail into the lagoon from the shore. It’s a bizarre experience, precisely because it is in many ways so, well, ordinary. Cabinet ministers pass the statement to each other in an orderly procession of aquatic cordiality, occasionally handing an waterproof marker to the person next to them who has just spend the last second or two looking around for theirs in the underwater equivalent of fumbling in your jacket. The familiarity of the exercise, I realise, is the thing that will make the event great TV. It is both ordinary and extraordinary simultaneously. Who isn’t intrigued by a government meeting taking place underwater? More people will tune in to watch this than they would to see someone battling a huge shark. Battling huge sharks is within the parameters of what we expect from the underwater world. Having a sit down to sign a governmental accord is not. It’s a brilliant piece of PR. (Hill and Knowlton take note). I warrant it’s the only time you’ll see an entire cabinet dressed in rubber and it’s not something to do with the Tory’s.

    "Have we watered this down too much?"

    "Have we watered this down too much?"

    The fish seem largely unimpressed, darting around the coral as if having a bunch of cabinet ministers, a president, a brace of support divers, underwater camerapeople and some office furniture in the water is an everyday occurrence.

    Everyone sticks to the order of service and there are no new motions, or dissent from the assembled rubber-clad dignitaries. Given that most of them had to take diving lessons to be here I suspect that the majority are keen just to get through the thing without drowning or making a tit of themselves.

    The meeting lasts about 20 minutes. The ministers raise from their seats and begin to swim back to the lagoon’s edge. I find myself swimming just to the right and slightly above the president. He gazes my way and I must look startled because he makes the underwater signal for ‘Are you OK?’ I respond to assure him I am. I’m more than OK, but there isn’t a hand signal for ‘Bloody hell! I’m at an underwater cabinet meeting in the Maldives! How cool is that?!

    The party reaches the shore and I look up. A myriad of microphones and camera lenses stare back. The world’s press is clamouring for the best vantage point and is launching into a barrage of questions which Nasheed answers from the water, being careful to link the threat he sees to the Maldives with that faced by the rest of the world. There’s also some good-natured banter about the benefit of having a cabinet meeting where none of your ministers can talk, and whether underwater meetings might become a regular feature of the Nasheed administration. “The whole idea is that this doesn’t become a regular feature,” he replies.

    It’s odd to be in the middle of international news event. I feel out of place bobbing around behind the president as the sun sparkles off the water, with possibly the biggest smile I’ve had on my face since I started this trip. It’s a delicious mix of politics, paradise and the thought ‘how the hell did I end up here?’ Subsequently my mug finds it way into the newspapers and websites of the world. There’s the president, patiently answering questions, and just behind him a grinning loon from New Cross, South East London who probably couldn’t answer the question ‘what is your name?’ at this moment.

    Optimist infiltrates government. (Picture: Associated Press)

    Optimist infiltrates government. (Picture: Associated Press)

    As we climb out of the lagoon I conclude that not nearly enough cabinet meetings are held underwater. On the short walk to lunch the president is waylaid numerous times by journalists eager to grab some face time with him. I’m relaxed because my interview, scheduled for tomorrow, has been in the diary for months. Or so I thought.

    Over lunch Paul, the PR liaison starts to use worryingly vague and expectation-limiting language. I’ll ‘probably’ get my interview ‘in the next two days’, it’s ‘usually’ not a problem, although the president ‘has a very full diary’. My confidence is not bolstered when Paul suggests it might be ‘helpful’ to say hello to president now ‘just so he knows who you are.’ Paul introduces me in a way that gives the strong impression this is the first time he’s told the Nasheed anything about me. I compliment the president on the day’s success and say I am looking forward to our interview tomorrow. He looks confused. ‘Are we having an interview?’ he asks.

    In Paul’s defence, today has been a huge media exercise, perhaps the biggest international coverage in the news media the Maldives has ever had. The man from New Cross is no doubt way down the agenda, but nonetheless, I’ve flown over 5,000 miles for the single purpose of interviewing a man who it seems I may not get to talk to beyond 30 seconds of presidential bemusement and one underwater hand signal each. I express my concerns to Paul who assures me my interview will take place. ‘Call me tomorrow morning,’ he says. ‘We’ll see how things are looking then.’ None of this has a ring of certainty about it. A local journalist informs me that ‘this kind of thing isn’t uncommon out here. You’ve kind of got to roll with it.’ It seems like good counsel, not that I have much option, but if the situation prevails I may find myself having to adopt techniques recently showcased by arsey photographers… For now however, the sun in shining, lunch is good, people are smiling. There are worse places to be.

  • September18th

    Flanked by dudes - Wally Broecker (L) and Klaus Lackner (R)

    Flanked by dudes (L - Wally Broecker, R - Klaus Lackner)

    Today I meet Wally Broecker and Klaus Lackner, arguably two of the most important men on the planet. Wally, a “towering scientist”, has played a crucial role in alerting us to, and helping us understand global warming… and Klaus has developed a technology that can help reverse its effects. Wally isn’t always happy with how he’s described. “Of late, I’ve become known as the first person to use the words ‘global warming’. If my career has boiled down to that it’s a big failure”.

    My journey today starts with a weekly ticket for the New York subway which, by happy coincidence, has the word ‘Optimism’ printed on the back of it. First stop: Klaus’s 10th floor office at Columbia University (the building, inexplicably smells of ham sandwiches). Klaus is giving me lift to Wally’s office at the leafy campus of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, an institution dedicated to studying the planet at a ‘big picture’ level (understanding ‘earth-wide’ systems and how they interact).

    In the short time I have in Klaus’ beat up car it becomes abundantly clear he has a deeply analytical mind, inherited perhaps from his lawyer father who worked to build a fair judiciary in Germany after World War II. But as well as a scientist’s need for clarity there’s an empathy for the ambiguities of the human condition. As we cross the George Washington Bridge Klaus recalls in his perfect but slightly accented English the traumatic effects of conflict on his older relatives. Perhaps this gives some clue as to why Klaus isn’t just an ‘ivory tower’ theoretician. Like his father Klaus is determined to do, not just think. “I have an engineering bent,” he says. “So I’m not just looking at how and why things work, but how one can make things work. I’m very much interested in how to build things.” The world may one day be very glad that Klaus is like that.

    Before meeting Klaus I’d had time to wander around Columbia’s beautiful Manhattan campus. On Schermerhorn Hall I find the inscription “For the advancement of the Natural Science speak to the Earth and it shall teach thee”.

    Speak to the Earth

    If Wally wanted a better summary of his career than “the first person to use the words ‘global warming’ ” this might be it. He’s been speaking to the Earth and listening to its replies since 1952. In a dialogue that’s now lasted over 55 years the Earth and Wally have enjoyed a long chat, the latter always listening hard and famously discovering, amongst other things, Thermohaline circulation – often referred to as the ocean’s ‘conveyor belt’, a global pattern of shifting water that spans the globe.

    “I think the greatest pleasure is beating nature to one of her secrets,” Wally tells me later. “I’m an ‘inverse engineer’ in a sense. We have an Earth system and I’m trying to work out how it’s put together. Most engineers go the other way. They design a system and build it.”

    As Klaus and I approach Wally’s office I find a playful summary one of those conversations with the planet. Pinned to the wall outside his office is a huge furry pink and blue toy snake, underneath which a piece of paper bears the words, “I am the climate beast and I am angry!” It’s arguably Wally’s favourite metaphor. His assertion that “The climate is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks,” is one of the most quoted summaries of our problems with Carbon Dioxide (CO2 being the ‘stick’ in question).

    Climate Beast goes Hannah Barbara

    Climate Beast goes Hannah Barbera

    At 78 Wally has a charmingly curmudgeonly manner that seems to have little time for indulging in niceties with visiting authors (“What are you doing here? You’re writing a book? Oh yes, I have some vague recollection”). But as our conversation progresses you begin to understand there’s good humour underneath. Wally likes to play. In fact, he has a long-standing reputation as a prankster, and is rather disappointed that his students aren’t equally mischievous. (Many of the professors I’ve been meeting see pranks as a good thing – a sign of creativeness and the playful spirit needed to ask new questions, devise experiments and think laterally).

    One of his own favourite pranks was, with the help of colleague Dorothy Peteet, jacking up the car of the normally calm George Kukla (another Lamont staffer) and placing it carefully on cinder blocks just a mite bigger than the normal gap between the chassis and the ground. When George tried to drive off his wheels spun impotently. The normally calm research scientist lost his cool, not least because he was entertaining “a very important man from China, one of the first Chinese visitors that came here.” Wally laughs. “We asked him whether Chinese did pranks like that and he said: ‘Only small children’ ”. He smiles and laughs again. Another favourite is a college escapade where Wally and friends captured the senior class president, locked him in a cage and hosed him with water. Rather unnecessarily Wally adds, “We didn’t like him much”. Of today’s generation of students Wally laments, “They’re too serious. There was one student who bought a dozen eggs and pitched them at my window. But that wasn’t a prank. He was just fed up with me”.

    Our meeting takes place in the Gary C. Comer Geochemistry Building, whose recent completion prompted Wally’s first office move in decades. Gary Comer was a successful businessman and keen yachtsman (with a particular interest in arctic waters) who wrote to Wally in 2002 after navigating the Northwest Passage, untroubled by ice.

    If you’re not familiar with the Northwest Passage the brief summary is this. For the best part of 400 hundred years European nations (and in particular Britain) launched scores of missions to try and find a navigable path through the Canadian Artic. The prize would be a sea route thousands of miles shorter (and therefore considerably cheaper) to China and the Far East. In commercial terms the rumoured Northwest Passage was a prize worth fighting and dying for. Indeed, many of those who went never came back. The stories are horrific – ships trapped in the ice for up to five years, decimated crews limping back in damaged craft, the disappearance of entire missions and, it is now largely acknowledged, cannibalism. Ice thwarted nearly every attempt. Others were scuppered by madness, mutiny and politics – before the ice could get them. In the end the passage was navigated in 1906 by Roald Amundsen, in the tiny, shallow hulled Gjøa. It was concluded that for anything but the tiniest vessels the Northwest Passage did not exist. (For a fuller history of the Northwest Passage, which I wrote for the National Maritime Museum go here.)

    In 2001 Comer and his crew decided to see if they could take his 151 foot motor yacht Turmoil through the passage, expecting to fail and having the safety of a sea plane on hand should they get into real difficulty. But despite the fact they were on one of the largest private yachts in the world Turmoil’s crew sailed right through in just 19 days with hardly any ice to bother them. Rather than being jubilant, Comer became deeply concerned. Global warming, it seemed, was already making some very real changes to the planet. Today, several large commercial ships have made the same journey. The ice barrier, at least for large parts of the year, has gone. For those who’ve studied climate change, or the history of the Northwest Passage, that is an incredible and incendiary fact.

    If you’ve suddenly been awakened to the reality of climate change and want to find out more, as Comer did, it won’t be long until you come across the name Wally Broecker. He’s variously described as “the Grandfather of Climate Science”, “one of the world’s greatest living geoscientists” and is the recipient of a brace of awards, which if listed would make your eyes glaze over, but include the US National Medal of Science and the Tyler prize (awarded annually “for environmental science, energy and medicine conferring great benefit on mankind.”) Smart chap. (That Wally chooses to hang out with Klaus is no small endorsement). Comer began dedicating what was left of his life to funding climate research projects (sadly he died from prostate cancer in 2006). Under Wally’s guidance he donated large parts of his fortune (built from the Lands End mail order clothing company) straight to respected scientists – as well as putting up the cash to erect the building I am now sitting in.

    Gary Comer Building

    The Gary Comer Building - Wally's office is at the front

    When Wally talks about climate, people listen. He insists the warming we’re seeing now is fundamentally different to historical shifts in the climate. In summary he says, “It’s bigger and faster”.

    A lot of people find the idea of manmade global warming hard to grasp – so called ‘climate sceptics’. Some argue that climate scepticism is driven by vested interests (those for instance represented by the oil industry), or by an unwillingness on the part of consumers who worry that accepting climate change will mean having forego energy-rich lifestyles. Those who don’t accept the prevailing scientific consensus can be vilified as selfish or simply burying their heads in the sand. My own feeling is that ‘man in the street’ climate scepticism is as much a function of not really understanding how global warming works as willful short-sightedness. I think it’s genuinely hard to believe in something you can’t personally make sense of, and not everyone has a scientific learning. Even one of the Twentieth Century’s greatest minds, physicist Richard Feynman famously said, “What I cannot create, I do not understand” meaning, “if I don’t know how it works, I don’t buy it”. And with a media that tends to report science with the same diligence that David Letterman studies employment legislation, it’s no wonder a lot us wonder if manmade climate change is really happening at all. But however you slice it, the fact is more CO2 means more warming, and most of the CO2 put into the atmosphere in the last 150 years has been put there by you and me using energy created by burning fossil fuels.

    This naturally begs the question ‘what are we going to do about it?’ As I see it there are four options. Do nothing. Cut CO2 emissions. Try to engineer counter-measures that will produce a counteracting cooling effect (this is generally called ‘Geo-engineering’ of which the wackiest idea is launching large mirrors into orbit) or invest in Klaus Lackner. Because Klaus has done something extraordinary.

    Klaus’ team has built a machine that strips CO2 out of the ambient air. Or to put it another way, on one side of Klaus’ machine is air that contains current levels of CO2 and on the other is air with roughly the same amount of CO2 in it as was present before the Industrial Revolution. “We got money from Gary Cromer and spent the last 5 years in Tucson, Arizona proving that this works,” says Lackner, the ‘we’ in question being Klaus and two brothers, brought to the table by Wally, Allen and Burt Wright (another set of Wright Brothers experimenting with air who may well go down in history).

    Think about this for a second. Klaus’ technology can begin to reclaim the CO2 we’ve been putting out, which is good news because the oceans and the land can’t sequester it fast enough to keep up with our prodigious output. This isn’t about reducing emissions, it’s about treating emissions in the same way we treat sewage. It’s a crucial component in a CO2 processing infrastructure for the planet.

    It isn’t the whole answer (although with enough of Lackner’s machines it arguably could be). “If you’ve built a coal plant with carbon capture in mind I can’t compete with that,” says Klaus. He’s clear that capturing carbon at source is the cheapest way to curb CO2 concentrations. But even if every power station suddenly became a zero-emitter of carbon tomorrow there are plenty of other places pumping it out, especially in the transport sector, which accounts for nearly a quarter of the world’s emissions. As Klaus points out, “an airplane has a hard job running on electricity”. A further ten percent comes from building heating systems. You cannot capture this CO2 ‘at source’ (the power station or oil refinery) and as the tax on carbon emissions inevitably rises, air capture may offer some emitters the best option for offsetting the CO2 they’re contributing to the atmosphere. And let’s not forget the huge amounts of the CO2 we’ve already emitted is still hanging around and needs to be dealt with too.

    The Lackner/ Broecker position is that creating waste isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Not dealing with it is the bad thing. Nobody suggests you stop going to the toilet, but we did install sewage systems once we began to suffer the numerous epidemics that lots of human waste visited on (especially) city-dwelling populations. (In the UK it was actually the fact that parliament got unbearably stinky, being next to the open sewer that was the Thames, that finally moved the legislators to action – a worrying parallel that has a resonance with how governments are behaving in response to climate change today). In short, we stopped adding to the pollution problem, but could still go to the toilet. You’ll find few people arguing against sewers and sewerage treatment today (and if you do, don’t accept a dinner invitation from them).

    A good idea

    A good idea

    Lackner’s carbon scrubbers are one option for treating our ‘carbon sewage’. It makes impossibly simple sense. What’s more Klaus’ machine isn’t just an idea on paper. Lackner’s self-confessed ‘engineering bent’ has delivered a working prototype.

    Carbon scrubbers aren’t a new invention. They’ve been used for decades, for instance, in submarines to keep the air breathable. Until recently however, the prevailing wisdom was that such scrubbing technology could not be adapted to remove the relatively small proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere without using up huge amounts of energy. Indeed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) dismissed Klaus’ work with a single line in a report of carbon capture and sequestration. “The possibility of CO2 capture from ambient air (Lackner, 2003) is not discussed in this chapter because CO2 concentration in ambient air is around 380 parts per million, a factor of 100 or more lower that in flue gas”. In short you’d be nuts to try and find the CO2 needle in the atmosphere haystack. Anything that might work would take up too much energy (and thus add more CO2 to the atmosphere than it removed). Wally had his reservations too. The first time he saw Lackner talk he thought he was nuts. ‘Energetically nuts’ to quote him directly. “Then we had more time to talk, and I immediately tried to hire him.” Lackner was even on the IPCC committee that dismissed his ideas as fanciful, perhaps because at that point he didn’t have a working machine to show them. As with so many things, people have to see it before the believe it. That ‘engineering bent’ was about to come into its own. Lackner, set out to prove his methods could remove CO2 at acceptable levels of energy expenditure, and Wally was right behind him. That’s because Wally believes we’re not going to change over from fossil fuels fast enough to deal with the problem, and that a plan that only focuses on cutting emissions “is going to kill us”.

    “People like Jim Hansen [the NASA climate scientist the Bush administration tried to silence for saying, climate-wise, ‘Houston, we have a problem’] say we’ve got to stop burning coal and that if you can capture and store carbon that just encourages burning coal. We look at it the other way. Coal is there. It’s going to be burned. We better damn well figure out what to do about it.”

    Wally gives an example. “When the G20 met it Italy and said we’re going to stop the warming at two degrees, that’s madness.  That’s 450 parts per million…”

    “… and we’re only ten years away from that concentration of carbon in the atmosphere,” says Klaus, finishing Wally sentence for him (they do this quite a lot to each other, giving an indication of just how attuned they are).

    “There’s no way we can do that. We can’t change over from fossil fuels fast enough,” says Wally. “The world leaders still don’t really get it. That’s why we need air capture.”

    So how do Klaus’ machines work?

    The key component is a hanging gallery of strands of a ‘sorbent’ resin. If you were a chemist you’d call this sorbent sodium hydroxide and (if you were a chemist) you might know that sodium hydroxide will, given almost no provocation, react with CO2 to create another material with the equally catchy name of ‘sodium carbonate’. Even better (CO2 capture wise) this resulting concoction will happily bind with another molecule of CO2, creating sodium bicarbonate (or baking soda to you and me).

    Saving the planet with baking ingredients

    Saving the planet with baking ingredients

    Capturing CO2 though is only one half of the job. Somehow you’ve got to get the CO2 off the sorbent if you want the apparatus to be reusable and therefore cost effective. Restocking the whole shebang with a new supply of sorbent resin makes things prohibitively expensive and energy hungry.

    This is where Lackner’s resin comes into its own, by doing something that even Klaus admits is counter-intuitive. In the presence of water the resin changes its affinity for CO2. In fact it starts to shed its recently collected bounty. The ‘collection’ reaction takes a reverse step, moving from sodium bicarbonate back to sodium carbonate. What this means is that if Klaus pumps water vapour into his machines CO2 from the sorbent will ‘fall off’ the resin and quickly dissolve in the water. Condensing that vapour allows the captured CO2 to bubble out the top, in the same way CO2 bubbles rise to the top of fizzy drinks.

    There’s a kind of sweet poetry to one greenhouse gas (water vapour) collecting up another (CO2). After all, one of the problems with CO2 in the atmosphere is that it encourages more water vapour into the air, thereby amplifying the warming effect. Here, thanks to the chemistry of Lackner’s sorbent, the opposite is happening. Water vapour is being used to call CO2 out of the air (rather than CO2 calling water vapour into it).

    When I ask ‘Can the chemistry of the sorbent be improved further?’ Wally jumps in with a guffaw. “They don’t know how the chemistry works!” he exclaims with boyish joy. In short, Klaus isn’t sure why the water vapour makes his resin give back some of its CO2. “I can tell you for sure what it does. That we can see. But at the moment I can only speculate why it does it. I’ve a good theory, and in the next year we will prove whether I’m right or wrong. One of the reasons I’m excited about where we are right now is we are setting up experiments to understand the chemistry. Once we’ve done that we can engineer the chemistry. It is very unlikely that an adapted off the shelf resin picked by dumb luck will turn out to be the best solution. So I guarantee you these machines will get better.”

    In his office Wally’s points to a sealed tube (next to a can of Dr Fozzes Fart Beans) that contains some of the first CO2 captured by one of Lackner’s early prototypes, a machine that helped to take the ‘energy consumption’ argument against ambient air capture and kick sand in its face. Klaus now says that for every 20 CO2 molecules his machines will put in the atmosphere (if they’re powered by electricity generated from fossil fuels) they’ll take out 100. And he’s just at the beginning of his journey. With investment, experience and improved manufacturing that ratio will improve. (Klaus already has a long list of improvements he wants to research). Which is why it’s scandalous that Klaus has struggled to raise the $20million he estimates he needs to turn his working prototype into a blueprint for a mass manufactured unit.

    “Last summer we started to seriously try and raise money to build a company,” says Klaus. “And then the economy took a nose dive.” Wally makes a bombing noise. “The fact that Klaus has trouble raising money is absurd,” he says, bristling. In fact the two men are reeling from a recent decision by congress to block funding for a research hub dedicated to carbon capture and storage. The amount? $25 million a year for 5 years. Or  0.00016% of the $787 billion the US government pulled out the hat for its American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – money for stimulating the economy out of the economic crisis. The great irony here is that ambient air carbon capture will likely be a trillion dollar industry.

    Klaus believes his machines can create CO2 cheaper than existing commercial processes. “The US consumes roughly 8 million tonnes of commercial CO2 a year,” he says. “Some of that I believe air capture could be competitive for and so you could push this forward and make it happen without having government support.” There’s a clear commercial model for Klaus’ machines which, says Wally, means they “can be implemented faster” than other solutions. “We have an edge,” says Klaus. “You start small, selling CO2 into the market, improving your technology, and you can be ready before the coal plants have figured out the best way to capture CO2 at source”. One area Klaus sees a clear market is for commercial growers who enrich the atmosphere of their greenhouses with CO2 to generate higher yield crops. “Rather than ship the CO2 in, you create a greenhouse with an air scrubber attached. It’s cheaper, and if you’ve any excess CO2 you can sell to the guy next door”.

    Using current market prices for CO2 and the current efficiencies of his machines Klaus estimates each unit will yield a 15% return on investment, and this is before you take into account the money saved from offsetting your emissions (the cost of which will only rise). “As a business it’s bigger than Exxon Mobil,” Wally suggests.

    It strikes me as ironic that when it comes to saving the financial system governments around the world couldn’t move fast enough to act, citing it as the platform our economies run on, therefore justifying swift and decisive action. Yet there is another platform all the banks run on. It’s called the planet and the social and financial implications of global warming will do more to hamper Wall St. than anything they’ve done to themselves. When, I wonder, did a human-friendly atmosphere not become an infrastructural investment? A back of a napkin calculation suggests that Klaus’ machines could offset all the carbon we pump into the atmosphere each year and start to reclaim the backlog for the equivalent of a 3% tax on car prices for the next 10 years.

    When I first came across Klaus’ work it was one of the most optimistic things I’d heard in years, and I’m an optimist by profession. When I tell people about what’s been going on in Tucson their eyes light up. ‘Really?!’ they say. ‘That’s great. How come I don’t know about this?’ When I tell them he’s finding it hard to get investment they’re dumbfounded.

    “I think it’s built in our nature that if the crisis is tomorrow we’ll jump, we’ll have the adrenaline to do whatever it takes to solve the problem,” says Klaus. “If I told you 50 years ago that what was happening in banking would lead to a meltdown… would we have done anything? We are not good at thinking beyond a 50 year timeframe.”

    I wonder if this is something to do with the length of our lives? Maybe one benefit of increasing life-spans (which I cover in my chapter on Transhumanism in the book) is that we’ll be more inclined to think long term. When you have to clean up your own mess you tend to make less of it.

    There’s no way around it. Klaus is good news for the planet, if he can get the money. Even better news is that he isn’t the only one developing machines that eat carbon out of the air. “I convinced David [Keith – renowned climate scientist] that this air capture stuff works so he now has a competing effort.” Peter Eisenburger, also at Columbia, is attacking the problem as well.

    The more people working on technologies to take back the CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere the better. Someone has to win Richard Branson’s $25million ‘Earth Prize’ too, which will be awarded to any team that ‘can demonstrate a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases (although I’ve heard concerns that Branson’s ‘prize’ is actually a strategy to buy billion dollar intellectual property at a million dollar price). “Who will actually take it forward is now a horse race,” says Keith.

    Before I left for the US, Klaus was starting to get a little press in the UK. His technology was given the cautious thumbs up from both the Royal Society (a UK based Fellowship of “the most eminent scientists of the day”) and The Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Unfortunately the press hooked onto the term ‘synthetic trees’ for Lackner’s machines. The natural reaction to this from a lot of people was ‘sounds daft, why not plant real trees? They absorb carbon don’t they?’ The answer is that while trees do absorb CO2, they take a long time to do it and also put a lot of it back into the atmosphere when they die and decompose. We’ve poured so much CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution that trees simply can’t absorb the stuff fast enough, even if we planted billions tomorrow, and even if we could make sure they kept their carbon sequestered after death – perhaps by turning them into biochar (something I’ll investigate when I visit eco-entrepreneur Vicki Buck in New Zealand in November).

    “Let imagine a world in which we suddenly have lots of Lackner scrubbers and you bring the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere down to pre-industrial levels,” I say. “Does the planet start cooling almost immediately, does the warming stop?”

    “We’ve warmed up the ocean and that’s a damper,” says Wally. “That’s holding back the warming of the planet too, because it sucks up a lot of the heat from the atmosphere, but as we cool the planet the ocean’s going to give that heat back, and slow down the cooling process”.

    “The land would give its extra heat back in a couple of days,” explains Klaus, “but the oceans will take decades to give it all back, although you will see it going back down quite fast in the beginning”.

    Of course, we can’t suddenly snap our fingers and fill the world with enough of Klaus machines to offset our carbon emissions. “You can’t do it overnight, but I do believe you could do it in a decade once you know what you are doing,” says Klaus. “So, you have a 30-40 year delay until you are back to normal.”

    Our talk is nearly at an end and I ask how Klaus how he goes about convincing people he’s onto something.

    “The problem I’ve found (and it’s getting bigger all the time) is that I’m suspect to both sides of the debate. The people who make energy or are into coal feel I’m trying to stop them, because I’m saying you’ve got to take climate change seriously and business as usual is not acceptable. On the other side you have people who have some idea of what ‘being green’ means and that allowing people to use fossil fuels and then capturing and putting the CO2 someplace is not acceptable to them.” (The issue of sequestering CO2 raises traditional anti-pollution hackles of many green, ironically hampering experiments that might help us understand the safest and best way to lock it away – a subject I’ll cover in the book)

    “Are traditional environmentalists part of the problem now?” I ask.

    Wally snorts. “Oh yeah”.

    Is he optimistic we can solve the CO2 problem?

    “It’ll be solved. The question is where will CO2 get to before it’s solved?” Or to put it another way, how bad will things have to get? Klaus agrees. “I’m optimistic that ultimately it will be solved. But my view of human nature is that we will not solve it until we get seriously goosed.”

    “Maybe in twenty years when the impacts become obvious we’ll get serious,” says Wally.

    “But let me give you an optimistic view,” says Klaus. “Back in the 90s I was asked ‘how do you see this moving forward?’ and I said, ‘In this decade, the 90s, you will see scientists thinking about it and not much more. The next decade there will be a big political debate and not much more. The decade where steel starts to go into the ground is 2010 onwards. And people get really serious about it between 2020 and 2030. In a way, we are on that track.”

    Wally announces that he has to go for a beer with George Kukla (the car prank obviously long forgotten) and our meeting ends, but not before he shows me a picture of him getting an honourary degree from Cambridge University along with the other 9 recipients that year. One of them is Bill Gates. “Why isn’t he giving you some money?” I ask. “I did send him some stuff but didn’t get a reply. He likes David Keith, that’s why.” I bid Wally goodbye with my thanks and Klaus gives me lift to Dobbs Ferry train station for my trip back to Manhattan. As I get in the car I turn to Klaus and say, “You must be excited?”

    “Oh yeah,” he says. “Oh yeah.”

    As the train makes its early evening journey along the east bank of the Hudson river I watch the multiple reflections of fading sunlight flickering on the water and vow to do whatever I can to advocate for Klaus. But for now my mind is full. By the time I get downtown I need something trivial to refresh me. Colin comes up trumps and takes me and some other friends around a string of Manhattan bars where we drink beer and discuss the relative merits of 80s popsters The Pet Shop Boys and Duran Duran. The latter, I suggest, were more fun and had better songs. Other’s disagree. It’s the kind of conversation I need. Sometimes after a day talking about things that really matter, you need an evening discussing things that don’t.