optimistontour.com
  • Archives
  • April1st

    "It's all to play for" - with Chris Anderson at TED

    With Chris Anderson at TED

    I’ve spent the last year being assailed by new ideas and ways of seeing the world at an unprecedented (for me) rate. The coming revolution in personal genomics, the project to create artificial life, the Transhumanists’ journey to ‘transcend our biology’, robots that get mood swings, machines that demonstrate curiosity, a post-scarcity world promised by atomically precise manufacture, holidays in space and our continued entanglement with the world’s biggest machine (the Internet). All of these are to one degree and another coming down the line, as long as the Maldives (and the rest of us) can stay above water, using our technologies and ingenuity to remove carbon-dioxide from our atmosphere (while simultaneously ushering in an energy revolution). I’ve met scientists, philosophers, gone diving with a president and invented a cocktail on the way. Now as I approach the end of my journey I’m looking for people who can help me make sense of it, to somehow pull all these strands together into a coherent view.

    In his book Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology Eric Drexler approaches the future by asking three questions – what is possible? what is achievable? and what is desirable? The question of what is possible seems easy to answer. As we learn to control the very atoms of matter, the mechanisms of biology and the power of computation there is, in fact, very little that we can’t do, in a physical (and indeed virtual sense). Solutions to climate change? Already developed. An end to the energy crisis? No sweat, sign on the line. Holiday in space? Why not, join our frequent flyer progamme. World peace even? Seems only reasonable.

    But when we ask what is achievable, well that’s a different story. Because what we achieve will largely be determined by what we collectively decide is desirable. As George Church told me all those months ago at Harvard Medical School as we discussed personal genomics, “The only thing that puts this kind of medicine far away is really will, right? The question is, how motivated are we?” Do we, as a planet, have the will to take the bounty on offer while mitigating the risks? To get the medicine but not the weapons? To enjoy abundant clean energy while dealing with climate change? To use our technologies to bring us closer together, rather than isolate us?

    It’s to ponder questions like these that I’ve come to meet Chris Anderson, the CEO of the TED Talks, the pre-eminent meeting of, as Chris puts it, “people who can offer a lens through which to see the world in a different way.” Every year Chris and his team gather together the world’s leading thinkers from every discipline and give them 18 minutes to tell the rest of the world how they see things. The results can be found on TED.com. Here you can see Ray Kurzweil summarise his law of accelerating returns, or Kevin Kelly talk about his idea of ‘The One Machine’ that the internet will become, or Hod Lipson demonstrate his robots (along with a host of other mind-shifting presentations that make you see things from a different angle). TED tells a different story of our world than the one we’re used to seeing, and it’s the same story I’ve seen on my travels. There is no shortage of fresh ways to see our future. It turns out we’re not necessarily looking at a damage limitation exercise, but a possible renaissance. But first we have to see it. Only then can we have to make it happen.

    Seeing it is a revelation. We’re so used to being told that everything is getting worse, that the planet is doomed or that the next pandemic to finish you off is just around the corner, or that technology will subjugate us. It’s a world where a book called Is it me or is everything a bit shit? becomes a best seller. And it’s not true. Or at least it doesn’t have to be. Klaus Lackner has a machine, that works now, that takes CO2 out the air. George Church has co-developed a process that can take that CO2, mix is with sunlight for pity’s sake! and create gasoline. Thin film solar technologies will soon take power to where there is no grid, while at the same time mobile devices will continue to take the world’s knowledge (accessed on billions of mobile devices) to every corner of the globe. Solar power continues to show exponential rises in efficiency while nanotechnology is already changing the face of manufacturing and will continue to do so. Medicine may soon see an end to a host of the things that kill us. This story is not being told, which is perhaps the biggest threat to our future. Not that it couldn’t be better, but that because we can’t see it, we don’t know it’s an option.

    “The history of ideas is a really thrilling history,” says Chris, “and ultimately that is what will drive all of our futures. There’s a very boring view of the world which is that ‘things happen’ and you can’t really do much about it.” It’s something he’s experienced himself. “After I left university I became a journalist, then I started a company… and then fifteen years were taken over by all the stress of working. I didn’t have much spare time to think. When the whole ‘dot com’ bust happened the huge gift I got was discovering, holy crap, there’s so much amazing new thinking out there.” I know what he means. Before I decided I actually wanted to answer the question “what next?” I was on the same treadmill, too busy to look up to realise that the story we’re told wasn’t necessarily the only game in town. This book didn’t start off with the word ‘Optimist’ in the title. It was my agent Charlie, who when I told him the sort of thing I was finding out, remarked on how uplifting some of it was and suggested the change.

    We communicate through stories. It is stories that grab us the most and it stories we identify with. Hollywood knows this, political spin doctors know this, newspaper editors know this. “What the story?!” ask editors pointedly when young journalists bring well written pieces that lack a narrative. My own editors were keen to make sure this book had a personal story, and encouraged me to make sure it wasn’t lost in the rush of facts. Chris is very interested in stories, and how the Internet, as it continues its prodigious growth across the globe, can help us, for the first time, tell a story that includes everyone.

    The most memorable thing for Chris about the 2009 TED conference was a dance troupe called The Legion of Extraordinary Dancers. “This troop could not have existed ten years ago. They exist because kids who used to just dance down on the street corner started filming themselves, putting it up on YouTube and suddenly the community that they’re comparing themselves to is a global community. This kid in Tokyo sees a move from Detroit and innovates within hours, puts it online and so on, so the pace of innovation is dramatically increased.” John Chu, who created the troupe from finding the most popular of those YouTube clips says, “Dance has never had a better friend than technology. Online videos and social networking have created a whole global laboratory online for dance.” It’s not just in dance. “This is happening in hundreds of areas of human endeavour,” says Chris. “I’ve started to call it ‘crowd accelerated innovation’ and I find it incredibly exciting.”

    Chris thinks rather than letting go of our humanity, we are re-discovering it. What could be more human than the Legion of Extraordinary Dancers? Kids from diverse backgrounds from across the world, innovating and collaborating to bring a new dimension to an art form as old as society, using technology to help them express themselves and innovate physically with their bodies, to meet, to collaborate, to just dance – and then show the world. Look what we did. Here is something of the exponential growth in wisdom, community, understanding I was looking for to go with Ray Kurzweil’s accelerating technologies.

    “The acceleration of knowledge and ideas made possible by the fact that humanity is connected for the first time is vast,” says Chris. “The re-discovery of the spoken word as a tool for communicating is a big deal. If you think about it we evolved as human-to-human communicators. It was the village camp fire, the elder standing there with his painted face on a starry night, fire crackling, drums beating and telling a story and every eye locked on his and all those mirror-neurons in all those brains syncing up with what he was saying. By the end of this story his whole village would go to war against another village or make peace.”

    “So TED is one of the new storytellers?” I ask

    “It’s one of them. That mode of communication kind of got lost in the print age because it didn’t scale, it was a village-sized technology at best. To me it’s thrilling that it now scales and so one great teacher can inspire many people. One of the things that we see as our role is to try and help nurture that process of re-discovering how to do that, because I think we got to a place where lessons became a person in suit mumbling behind a lectern reading their notes for an hour while a class of people snoozed.” Suddenly, horrifying images of my ‘O’ level economics class come pouring into my brain. I shudder. “It shouldn’t be like that,” says Chris. “So, one of things we see, and this was a big kick for me, is TED speakers competing. An unexpected consequence of putting this stuff online is speakers are looking at what other speakers are doing and are putting in far more preparation time than they ever used to.”

    Just as YouTube became a laboratory for dance, TED is becoming a laboratory for the art of oration. Here you will see a statistician blow your mind and end his talk with some sword swallowing. Here you will find Steven Pinker explain that the world is getting safer, and Robert Wright mix philosophy, sociology and stand-up comedy to give one explanation as to why – a theory he calls ‘the non-zero sum game’. I don’t know about you, but that’s the kind of lesson I can get on board with.

    “We’ve actually got to bring back real creativity and find a way of nurturing that in the education process,” says Chris. “In the age of Google the notion of having to cram all these little brains with facts is bonkers. What’s needed is to build skills like how do you stimulate people to ask the right questions? how do you stimulate people to have a meaningful conversation? to think critically? What are lenses you give people to think about the world? I mean, if I’d have been taught Robert Wright’s non-zero view of history that would have had tremendously more value to me than endless facts about French kings.” It seems that the two things Artificial Intelligence needs the most if it’s ever to stop playing chess and start playing Madlibs, are the two things we need the most too: curiosity and creativity.

    What is our collective story today and who tells it? The storytellers of our day-to-day lives used to be the press and our politicians. Like all good storytellers they used emotion to hook us into one of two, on the face of it, very uninspiring, dull stories. Story one: life happens to you, the future is not going to be very good (especially if you vote for that guy), it was better in the old days, you’ve got to look after yourself, the world is violent and unsafe, your job is at risk, the generation below you are feral and dangerous, things are changing too fast and you can’t trust those immigrants/ scientists/ left-wingers/ right-wingers/ nerds/ geeks/ religious people/ atheists/ football fans/ the rich/ the poor/ what you eat/ your neighbour. You are alone. Make the best of it. Vote for me. Buy my paper. I understand. (Story two is, in summary: ‘Shock! People have sex.’)

    It’s hardly inspiring is it?

    But the story is beginning to be told by other people now, by the Legion of Extraordinary Dancers, by speakers at TED talks, by Mohamed Nasheed who battled dictatorship to the brink of his own death and then got on with battling climate change, by Cynthia Breazeal who wants to build robots that help children learn, by Vicki Buck who quit government to create jobs to take on global warming, by George Church who wants you to stay healthy longer, by Eric Drexler who wants to usher in a post-scarcity world using technology on the nanoscale, by the good people at Konarka who take electricity out the sky and give to the developing world. A story being told by the curious and the smart, that inspires the curious and the smart in all of us, by people who wonder and ask the kind of questions that haven’t been asked before. Crucially, none of them wait for permission to ask those questions, or then to find the answers. It is being told through writers who find themselves traveling across America and readers of blogs who might say in the pub, “did you know the technology exists to make petrol out of the air?” It is being told by the cult of the possible, who seek to achieve, to bring us what we desire. Peace. Understanding. Space to love each other. People who encourage us to evolve.

    Eric Drexler has written, “As the Web becomes more comprehensive and searchable, it helps us see what’s missing in the world. The emergence of more effective ways to detect the absence of a piece of knowledge is a subtle and slowly emerging contribution of the Web, yet important to the growth of human knowledge.”

    I think we’re beginning to see, collectively, what’s missing, and crucially we’re now able to do something about it. Technology doesn’t give you permission like your teachers did. It gives you agency – to ask, to learn, to connect, to do. It says, “go on then, show me what you’ve got”.

    “I don’t know that the future’s going to be better,” says Chris. “But I think there’s a very good chance that it will be and I think that’s something that everyone can do to further increase that chance. There are several quite profound and inspiring ways of thinking about the world that suggest there are these trends that have the potential to drive a better future and I think there is such a thing as moral progress, driven not by any difference in the DNA kids are born with, but just driven by what they see, and seeing more of humanity just naturally flicks on certain switches that make people more empathetic. Of course, the future might well be truly horrible. I think it’s all to play for and I think everyone of sound mind and conscience should be in the game, trying to shape it in the right way. It’s a very false and shallow view of history to say that it’s just one thing after another. Ultimately though our history is the history of ideas. It’s a really thrilling history and ultimately that is what will drive all of our futures.”

    Ideas, creativity, curiosity – and dancing. Now there’s a mix.

    More of my talk with Chris, will of course, make it into 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.

  • 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.

  • September12th

    It’s the weekend, and I’m trying to relax – but finding it hard. Thing is, next week is choc-a-bloc with interviews with a wide spectrum of interesting thinkers and so I’m swatting up and thinking of good questions. Monday is Bill Mitchell, head of MIT’s Smart Cities group, Tuesday I visit ‘thin film’ solar panel manufacturers Konarka, Wednesday is Juan Enriquez (I’m particularly looking forward to this) and Friday the mighty Wally Broecker (of ‘er, folks I’ve discovered climate change’ fame) and Klaus Lackner (hopefully to be of ‘er, I think I’ve solved climate change’ fame) – all people I not only want to ask good questions of, but who themselves are pre-eminent question askers.

    isidor rabi

    Thanks Mum

    There’s a great quote from Nobel Prize winning physicist Isidor Rabi that I often trot out in my day job (co-running learning consultancy Flow Associates). Asked why he became a scientist he replied, “My mother made me a scientist without ever intending it. Every other Jewish mother in Brooklyn would ask her child after school: ‘So? Did you learn anything today?’ But not my mother. She always asked me a different question. ‘Izzy,’ she would say, ‘did you ask a good question today?’ That difference – asking good questions – made me become a scientist!”

    There’s a kind of semi-carnival going on outside my hotel, with the fringe benefit that food stalls of all nationalities are serving up steaming portions of culinary goodness. I spend half an hour trying to choose something to eat. With my brain full of genomics, the future of energy and the implications of climate change choosing what to have for lunch suddenly becomes an intractable problem. It’s like my brain has switched into a different gear – and it’s finding it hard to shift to the ‘mundane’ task of choosing what to chow down on. I should be enjoying the atmosphere, the music, the smells, the joy of travelling in a foreign city but I’m distracted. Standing on the corner of Main St. and Vassar St. in Cambridge is, after all, like standing at one of the focal points of our future. If you wander a block in any direction you’ll find laboratories and research institutions that are creating new knowledge (and applications for it) at an incredible rate. Take the Broad Institute for instance, a joint venture between Harvard and MIT, “to pioneer a ‘new model’ of collaborative science [to] transform medicine.” Just down the road is The McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT created “with a mandate to use neuroscience to help people with brain disorders, and to ultimately benefit all of mankind by improving human communication and understanding.” The MIT media lab is round the corner on Ames St where “unorthodox research approaches” envision “the impact of emerging technologies on everyday life—technologies that promise to fundamentally transform our most basic notions of human capabilities”. In the Stata centre you’ll find the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. The list goes on and on… If the future wanted a zip code, I’m standing in the middle of one of the strongest contenders.

    MIT attracts people who ask good questions. Playful minds with a strong desire to find out ‘new stuff’. MIT encourages us to ask ‘What?’, ‘When?’ and ‘How?’ but also seems to have a strong emphasis on ‘Why?’ I’m beginning to feel I want to live here. You can almost smell the spirit of enquiry. It’s in the brick, the sidewalk. I walk past a advertisement that says “For rent: office and laboratory space”. Even the estate agents know that to sell in Cambridge MA, you sell by saying ‘discover stuff here’.  Charles Kettering the inventor once said “My interest is in the future because I am going to spend the rest of my life there. ” If he’d been alive today he might have said, “so I’m moving to Boston…”

  • September6th

    The lovely Taragh Bisset, me and uber-comedians Robin Ince and Andrew O'Neill

    The lovely Taragh Bisset with me, and uber-comedians Robin Ince and Andrew O'Neill

    Girls are forward in Guildford. At least by proxy. As part of my gig for the British Science Festival I conducted an ‘experiment’ to judge how mirthful the town was – in short, a caption competition, on which I had left a box, underneath the place to put a caption, saying ‘anything else you want to tell us?’ Someone wrote ‘No’ which seemed rather redundant, one criticised a part of my set (possibly the only time I’ve been heckled in writing) but another wrote “My friend Fabia thinks you’re cute,” provided a phone number, and continued, “she’s not concerned about your financial status, has firm boobs and will wear socks.” Now, just to be clear the last three points weren’t just randomly volunteered (that would have plain scary) but referred to some of the gags I’d done earlier in the evening. Anyway I thought it only fair to phone said number from stage… and between us, the crowd and I left a rather awkward message. Still, it’s an interesting technique for picking up potential dates. Turns out Fabia is a budding (award winning) playwright and children’s authoress. Her mate Les won the caption competition. The picture was this…
    Public Hare

    Les wrote, “Michelle, they can see your public hare”.

    The gig was fun if a little nerve wracking. It’s been a while since I’ve done any stand-up and I was, well, rusty. The timing was a little off, and I missed a few builds (gags on top of another). Still, it was nice do something live again – and when I’ve finished the book I should really write a stand-up show based on it and get back out again. In fact I’m toying with the idea of doing a few gigs in the US if I can find some amenable clubs. The crew from Greg Atkins TV were there again, filming every success and failure. It’ll be interesting to watch. (We’d spent the afternoon filming my introduction to the series – essentially a very short version of what you’ll find under ‘About the optimist on tour’ link above). Tom, the cameraman did his fabulous Gollum on cue and I did a questionabe ‘Lord of the Ring’ gag about a Gollum/ Yoda love-in. Andrew O’Neill and Robin Ince were, as ever, brilliant. If you haven’t seen either, do so immediately. I particularly endorse Robin’s battle against creationists, and Andrew’s subversive and hilarious battle against racism…

    Andrew O’Neill battles racism:

    Robin Ince battles science denial:

    I also did my first live TV interview with BBC South to promote the gig, and have a new found appreciation for the talents of anyone that can present live as a result. In the media-frenzy that is my life I was also asked to be the guest editor on the science festival’s blog site – and put in a piece to The Telegraph for Tuesday’s science page. To think my first piece in a British national is in the Telegraph! My mum would be pleased, and the exposure can’t hurt…. But I think I need to go and sing ‘the red flag’ a few times.

    Right, off to the airport. I still can’t quite believe I meeting Cynthia Breazeal (sociable robots), Bill Mitchell (smart cities), George Church (Genetics), Rick Hess (solar power), Juan Enriquez (see post below ‘At one with Juan?’), Wally Broecker and Klaus Lackner (again, see post below ‘Cynicism and Climate Change’), finishing off with Hod Lipson (robots again). Also looking forward to meeting my American publisher Rachel Holtzman at Penguin and my good chum Colin, a neuroscientist in NY.

    My mind may be totally fried upon my return… Right off to Heathrow… While I’m flying, why not sign the ‘pardon for Alan Turing’ petition? I think it’s important.

  • August31st

    This week The Times writes about the Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ report on geo-engineering options. The Institue is advocating investment in Klaus Lackners ‘artificial trees’. This pleases me, because in my own review of geo-engineering options as research for the book, I also figured Klaus had one of the most promising and optimistic technologies. As a result I’m visiting Klaus along with climate change guru Wally Broecker at the Lamont-Doherty Observatory in New York on the 18th September. Wally wrote a great book on this subject called ‘Fixing Climate’, which is worth a read (there’s a link to the right).

    The full report (click here) says:

    “The big question therefore is: if we haven’t got enough time to decarbonise the global economy before the mean global temperature rise passes 2°C, is there something we can do to avoid dangerous climate change and a 4°C to 6°C outcome? Is there something we can do to buy us some time while we go about the business of a low-carbon transition, yet which doesn’t distract us from that principal objective? The answer may be ‘yes’ and it is geo-engineering.”

    The emphasis is mine. Lackner claims “The air right behind one of our collectors has as much CO2 as it had in 1800″.

    What is clear is that emissions aren’t going down nearly fast enough. They can be brought down, and lots of dedicated people are working on technology and policy to achieve just this. Yet investment in technologies like Lackner’s is stifled by:

    • ignorance 
    • cynicism
    • short-sightedness

    I understand the comments on blogs and newspaper sites are for, well, people who like to comment and therefore often attract, let’s be honest, loonies. But I am amazed by some of the ‘head in the sand’ tenor of both the posted responses and, indeed, our own government’s reaction. (It still surprises me even though I recently saw Ed Milliband speak at The Manchester Report and have never been more underwhelmed by a politician’s intellect or vision in my life  - and as you can imagine that’s up against some pretty stiff competition).

    A ‘spokesman’ for the Department of Energy and Climate Change is quoted as saying:

    “Our primary aim must be to deliver a global deal which cuts global emissions. It’s clear that geo-engineering technologies are undeveloped and untested and at present remain a long way from being practical solutions to an urgent problem.”

    Perhaps one reason these technologies are ‘a long way from being practical solutions to an urgent problem’ is a lack of urgent investment from government. Last time I checked the atmosphere was a pretty important ‘infrastructural’ resource, that economies rather need to keep functioning. Luckily Obama’s Energy Secretary Stephen Chu is showing an interest. ”That’s exciting, but I don’t particularly want to discuss this in a public forum because I think this gives me a little bit of an opportunity to tailor my proposals to the Department of Energy in a way that makes them more palatable,” says Lackner in this article for CNN.com

    The more I research this, the more I find myself agreeing with ex-politician Vicki Buck, who I’m visiting in New Zealand in December. Vicki Buck is a pragmatic optimist extraordinaire  and has readily agreed to show me all the things she’s involved with, of which there’s a lot. The former (independent) mayor of Christchurch, New Zealand (she held the post from 1989 to 1998), she’s the director of several eco-companies and calmly remarks ‘if we wait for governments to sort this out, we’re buggered’. There’s a nice article about Vicki, modestly entitled ‘Can this woman fuel the world?’ here.

    Certainly having seen the paucity of neurons apparently used in the construction of Ed Milliband’s position, one can sometimes find oneself leaning towards agreeing with her, though I still advocate that government should be part of the solution (if only to make them feel good).

    My favourite comment under the Times article is:

    “According to the Telegraph, these are the same fools who propose painting all buildings white! I think they stupidly believe that this will reflect all the energy back upward into space instead of dissipating it and diffusing into our atmosphere and onto other objects. I assume these people are on fat government research grants. All these silly proposals would just be a drop in the ocean to address the real problems; they only serve to divert the public into paying these fools salaries.”

    If ever there was ever an example (beyond the existence of Ed Milliband) of the need for our schools to place more emphasis on critical thinking methods, this is it. What I find staggering about this statement is the uncritical way it’s presented… the ‘science’ is wrong, the assumptions stated are, well, just that, the cynicism is blatant and debilitating. Reading it is a bit like walking around in an intellectual larder where everything has gone moldy.

    This is why I’m writing the book.

    I’m looking forward to grilling Klaus and Wally (who sound a bit like a puppets from a German children’s TV show when you put them together like that).