StarTalk Radio - Cosmic Queries in the O-zone: Saving the World with Susan Solomon & Stephen Andersen

Episode Date: September 14, 2021

How did we save the ozone layer? Neil deGrasse Tyson and co-host Chuck Nice break down the campaign to save the ozone layer with atmospheric chemist Susan Solomon and sustabaility expert Stephen Andersen. What can we apply to the climate crisis? NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can watch or listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: https://www.startalkradio.net/show/cosmic-queries-in-the-o-zone-saving-the-world-with-susan-solomon-stephen-andersen/ Thanks to our Patrons ryan ogle, David Matthews, Colleen Magee-Uhlik, Ryan Atashkar, Cameron Q Myhre, Jordan Sisinni, and Mien for supporting us this week. Photo Credit: NASA/Expedition 40 crew member, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ on Apple Podcasts to listen to new episodes ad-free and a whole week early.

Welcome to StarTalk, your place in the universe where science and pop culture collide. StarTalk begins right now. This is StarTalk. Neil deGrasse Tyson here, your personal astrophysicist. And this is going to be a Cosmic Queries edition on the subject of mending the ozone layer. Chuck, my co-host, it's good to have you here, Chuck. Always a pleasure. Very excited for this.

Yeah, you know, that ozone layer got mended. That's a thing. Yes, like a pair of socks that we darned. It's like, oh, I have a hole in the toe of my planet. How do I sew that up? It got mended. It got darned. It got darned.

So my two guests, Susan Solomon and Steven Anderson. Chuck, have you ever heard of them? As a matter of fact, I have. Oh, because you're a learned man. Most people haven't. And what's weird is to have not heard of someone who actually saved the world. This is just a weird fact that such a thing could even exist. I'm in the process of working on two Marvel characters and patterning them after these two. Very good.

Susan and Steven. Well, let's get... Wearing the capes and everything, Neil. Capes and all. Capes and everything. Well, let's take that moment to introduce Susan Solomon. Welcome to StarTalk. Steven Anderson, welcome.

Welcome. And to give you a moment to give some of your background here, you each received the Future of Life Award. That's even a thing. That's a thing for your contributions to mending the hole in the ozone layer. And it's given this award. I'm so glad this award exists because, you know, it's given to unsung heroes, people who were under-recognized relative to what they actually accomplished in improving the world.

And so, and by the way, they also participated in the Nobel Prize for Peace when it was given to the International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, in 2007 for their contributions to those reports. So, you know, unlike most of us, they're trying to make the world a better place. Right. And so let's go back in time briefly to 1989, something called the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty. You know, before there was the Paris, you know, talks and the treaties that went on there, we had the Montreal Protocol back in 1989. And that was trying to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of molecules, substances known to deplete it.

And sometimes people refer to it as the most successful treaty of our day. And Susan, you're an atmospheric chemist. I love it. And yeah, and you're a professor of environmental studies at MIT in an endowed chair, the Lee and Geraldine Martin, professor of Environmental Studies, up in Cambridge. And you spent most of your career with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And Chuck, you know, I love it because

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, they concern themselves with the ocean and the atmosphere, right? Yeah. But if you pronounce the acronym, it's NOAA. That was cool. Yes, which is kind of cool. I guess NOAA himself didn't need NOAA because he had God telling him, look, it's going to rain in 48.

Exactly. NOAA, don't listen to those people mocking you. And we have Steven Anderson here, Director of Research, American Director of Research for the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development. Man, you guys are doing such good stuff. Man, what am I doing here with this podcast? I want to hire me.

And you're co-chair of the Montreal Protocol for Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. So this is how people contribute via all of these panels. And you're co-chair of the Montreal Protocol for Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. So this is how people contribute via all of these panels. And you also were a liaison to the Department of Defense from the Environmental Protection Agency. So you are the right people for this formulation here. And Neil, now that we have the requisite introductions out of the way, I just have to do this for both of these fine, fine scientists. What is that?

That is applause, my friend. Oh, that's applause. That's a great deal of applause. A rousing applause is what that is. All right, so let me ask you guys, Susan, let me begin with you. How does this happen? I mean, somebody has to first discover that there's an ozone layer, that it has value to us, that it's getting depleted, that we are responsible for it. And then we have to do something about it, then create a committee, and then an international gathering, and then everybody has to agree to it, and then actually implement it. What, this, is that,

who ever thought that was possible in this world? It seems kind of like a miracle, doesn't it? I mean, it is just amazing that it happened. And Neil, I want to tell you, you are so perfect. I mean, you're great, but actually the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987, not 1989. No biggie, no biggie. Okay, Neil, that's 24 months of failure. So, long story short, I guess, in 1974, two scientists who later won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, Melina and Roland, they won it together with Paul Crutzen.

But Melina and Roland's big contribution was to alert the world to the idea that the chlorofluorocarbons might someday deplete the ozone layer. Now, we thought this was going to be a small effect, a couple of percent, 100 years in the future. Sound kind of like another problem the way some people talk about it? Yeah, don't get us started on that. Oh, my gosh. Used to talk about it, but the interesting thing is that although they had certain things correct, they did not anticipate that things could be even worse than they thought. So it turned out. Just quickly, Susan, you said chlorofluorocarbons. That sounds like a word with one or two too many syllables. So tell us what the chlorofluorocarbon is. Well, you can picture a methane molecule.

I guess most people have heard of methane. Swamp gas or what you put in your, you know, natural gas system maybe. I have to explain it to Chuck. Chuck, it's what you try to ignite at camp. Absolutely. That's it. So take that molecule and just tear off all the hydrogens and put in fluorine and chlorine instead, and you've got a chlorofluorocarbon. Oh, interesting. The most important ones are chlorofluorocarbon 11 and 12, which I'm not going to give you the chemical formulas for, but most of the chlorine that's causing the problem is in that form.

And then there's a whole zoo of other compounds, 113, 114, 115. And where did it come from? Yada, yada, yada. Where does it come from? So we were using these molecules in ever-increasing amounts. And ironically, the main source was actually in your medicine cabinet, in things like hairspray and deodorant. But it was also, you know, oven cleaner and paint

and anything else that you sprayed out of a can had chlorofluorocarbons in them to make the stuff come out the nozzle it was a propellant oh it's it's used for other things too it's used as the cooling agent in refrigerators it's uh it was used i should say um and And it was used in foams. So, you know, foam insulation in the walls of homes that were built in, you know, like the 60s and 70s. But we don't use any chlorofluorocarbon in those applications anymore.

And yet we still have spray cans. We still have refrigerators. We still have spray cans. We still have refrigerators. We still have air conditioners. I mean, isn't technology... Society didn't collapse. Technology is amazing. You know, you can actually do things lots of different ways, which is what Steve's group helped us to show.

So, you know, we were gaily spraying our hair. You remember those horrible hairstyles of the 70s? You know, so big hair, big hair, beehives, beehives. Remember the beehives? They were great. So then these guys said, hey, if we keep doing this, we might deplete the ozone layer. And the amazing thing is that people actually said, oh, well, what can we do about it? And the answer was, well, you know, one thing you could do is throw away your spray deodorant and get the roll-on instead. And a lot of people said, oh, well, that's not really very hard, is it? So a lot of people did it in this country.

Not in a lot of other countries, actually. It wasn't so in Europe, which was the other major producer. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. They use deodorant in Europe? I don't know, Susan. You might want to check your sources. I'm not even going to go near that. Let me ask you, wait, Stephen.

I'm not even going to go near that. Right, I know. Just remind you, he's a comedian. I got it. Stephen, let me ask you, how do you tell people to get rid of what they have if in that moment you don't have something to replace it with? Or did you? That's exactly the question. And I would just add to what Susan said before we move on, that one of the stimulants for action was the scientists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina,

after six months of relative silence after the publication of their warning, went to the American Chemical Society and called for a boycott by citizens of hairspray and deodorant. So these are scientists that are activist scientists. They were right out there. And then the industry, fortunately, in a strange way, reacted so strongly against them that it sensationalized the news. And it spread across the world. And Susan mentioned some Nordic countries, the United States and Canada banned these products.

And then to get to your question, even as the boycott began, there were companies that broke from industry and introduced the alternatives. And so there were pumps and sprays and roll-ons and lots of alternatives. And then very quickly, they found a new aerosol propellant that was not ozone depleting, and they introduced that. So you had this creative tension within the industry, within the aerosol industry, where some of the companies, S.C. Johnson and Menon and others, were in favor of protecting the ozone layer, and they won against their competition, penetrated the market. The products were banned, and as Susan mentioned, you hardly noticed that these product changes were occurring. And then later, with the Montreal Protocol, it was a much more organized process. The part that I worked on with the Montreal Protocol was to evaluate technology, promote the best of the technology, and then, very importantly, to discourage the alternatives that were inferior in one way or the other.

So they were very successful at not trading one problem for another and actually making overall improvement very quickly. So there's a lesson here that if you want to make systemic change domestically or internationally, you've got to, for it to work swiftly and effectively, you've got to sort of energize all parts of that beast or that machine that is that ultimately is the force of change in this world yeah yeah your money okay there you go sorry that's the word sorry i i listen you know i understand i have three sciences in front of me you know but i can say it money like that's what happened we had the free market. You had some pressure by science.

You had a portion of the marketplace say, hey, I'm going to respond. That creates competition. Then before you know it, it's like, hey, I don't want to lose any of this money. Forget, I'm spraying money away. Wait, wait, so Susan. You're right. You're right, Chuck. But you left out something really important, and that is people.

The fact that people really cared about this issue. They actually understood and could perceive that the idea of having more ultraviolet light falling on them if there was less ozone. Everybody knows the ozone layer protects us from ultraviolet light from the sun. And we don't want to get, we get sunburned. It hurts. It's bad for us. We get skin cancer. We get cataracts. The plants get sick. You know, lots of bad things. People cared about it because they could see what was going on. So don't forget the importance of public interest. It's huge in any environmental problem. Otherwise, you're arguing in a void. And even if you're right, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to gain traction.

Yeah, that makes me worry about future problems that don't have ways to get traction, yet they still need to be implemented for the survival of the species. Now you got me all worried. No, don't worry. Don't worry. Have you seen Greta Thunberg going out there? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. It is happening. It is definitely happening.

The young people today are incredibly environmentally conscious. That's true. I can't wait till they take over because the world, we messed up. I mean, at what time in the history of the universe has the adult population ever said, can't wait till the youngins take over to fix things? That's never happened ever. At what time in the history of the universe has the adult population ever said, can't wait till the youngins take over to fix things? That's never happened ever. And we might be living in that for the very first time.

We've got to take a break, but when we come back, we'll take questions from our fan base, from our Patreon fan base, because they all know we have a scientifically literate audience. And so I think they'll be delighted to know they have access to the two of you. And Chuck, you've collated the questions. So when we come back, Cosmic Queries, Mending the Ozone Layer, will return. Hi, I'm Chris Cohen from Haworth, New Jersey, and I support StarTalk on Patreon. Please enjoy this episode of StarTalk Radio with your and my favorite personal astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson.

We're back. StarTalk Cosmic Queries. Mending the ozone layer. Somebody had to do it. And so we got two people in the house, in the virtual Zoom house, who were under-celebrated for what it is they achieved. And it's time more people knew their names. I've got Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist, and Steven Anderson,

who spent a career worrying and thinking about sort of how to create sustainable civilization and what you need to do about that and making it something real rather than just something we've all imagined. And so here we are. We solicited questions from our fan base. Yes. About mending the ozone layer. So Chuck, what do you have coming up? Before we go, can I just ask, just so that people can know, because we do, Susan said it,

everybody knows about ultraviolet light and the ozone protects us from that. So can you guys just, I mean, all three of you or any of you, give us, how does that happen? Why does that happen? This might be the only thing I can contribute to this podcast. Go for it, Neil. Can I take my stab at this? Absolutely. Okay, so the 21% of the air we breathe is oxygen.

And most of it is not oxygen, it's nitrogen. And so that oxygen itself is in a form of two oxygen atoms combined, and we call it O2. O2, that's what we breathe, that's what sustains us. The nitrogen is just filler, basically, relative to our survival. It's the bread in our crab cake. It's filler. Okay. Right's filler. Okay.

Right, exactly. That'd be too much bread for my crab cake, actually. But, okay, so there's a form of oxygen that has three oxygen atoms. It's O3, and that's called ozone. And ozone has the property, which is if you have ultraviolet light that strikes that molecule that's sufficient energy to break the molecule apart back into oxygen and in o2 and so so what do you say what happened to the uv it's gone it goes into the kinetic energy of those two, of the two resulting particles. And so it's gone.

So the ultraviolet from the sun, I get the right number from our two guests, 97, 98, 99% of the UV from the sun does not reach Earth's surface because of the ozone. So even when you do get sunburned, that's from the little bit that gets through after the ozone is trying to do its best and so if you take out the ozone layer that's the end of life on earth as we know it life on earth's surface because ultraviolet light and biology are are incommensurate ultraviolet has enough energy to break apart biological molecules. How did I do, Stephen and Susan?

You did great. You did great. I mean, at the very end, you said the key thing, which is that the UV light hitting your skin or hitting your eyes is enough to actually damage your DNA. And that's what causes, you know, cancer. That's what causes cancer. So the only other thing that I would add is that every 1% change in the ozone layer is estimated to cause a 2% to 3% increase in skin cancer in light-skinned people. So it's not as much of a problem in dark people, but it's not zero problem either.

Everybody's got the same problem with their eyes. It doesn't matter whether they're blue or brown or black. Your eyes will still be subject to cataracts because the light gets through and damages your retina. It's not good news. It's indiscriminate to whether you put the stuff up there or not. So it's happening all around the world. We've got to. Finally.

I got to whisper something to Chuck. Chuck. Okay, wait, Chuck, Chuck. So it all got solved so quickly because of the white people. And the white people in charge. I was going to say, finally, finally. One good thing about being a black man. Finally. Finally. Well, one good thing about being a black man. Finally. Well, don't be too sanguine, Chuck.

I don't want you to get cataracts. And you still can. I wear sunblock every day. But not because I'm worried about UV rays. It's just because I want to look good. You want to glow. You want to glow. I don't want to look good. You want to glow. You want to glow.

I don't want to age from the sun. All right, well, listen. That was amazing. That was great. That was great. Okay, so what do you have? I have a Samuel Case who says, hello, big brains and Chuck. Well, what can I do, right? He goes, I love you all, And thank you for your gift of knowledge.

I run a small AC company in Phoenix, Arizona, and I have been directly affected by legislation regarding climate change. In particular, the 2014 phasing out of HCFC R22. I was wondering if you could explain the actual effects of chlorine or refrigerants on the atmosphere itself. Thank you for giving me this small opportunity to play a part in the exploration of our planet. This is Samuel Case. Very cool. So I guess the question is, what is actually going on up there? There's the ozone mining its own business, the O3 molecule.

going on up there. There's the ozone mining its own business, the O3 molecule, and now this jumbo chlorofluorocarbon molecule meets it. So now take us through that. Now, let me go through that because this air conditioning case is very interesting. He's absolutely right that HCFC-22 depletes the ozone, and it's also a greenhouse gas, powerful greenhouse gas. So here we have a refrigerant that was once used in every air conditioner of small size everywhere in the world. And then under the Montreal Protocol, they're phasing out that chemical. The last uses are occurring in developing countries and for servicing of old air conditioning that hasn't been replaced. of old air conditioning that hasn't been replaced.

So the chlorine in this chemical, as Susan mentioned, migrates to the stratosphere, destroys the ozone, and harms people through these biological and other effects. It also harms, as you know, materials on the surface of built environment and also suppresses the human immune system. So this is an extraordinary environmental effect that in itself justified the Montreal Protocol. But the greenhouse effect from the refrigerant itself, which is the direct effect of that gas entering the high atmosphere and the like, was also serious. And then the third leg of that is the energy that's

used for the air conditioner itself. Because until recently, that came from coal and oil and other polluting sources. And so this change that's occurring in Arizona at this air conditioning company has a broad advantage to society because the new refrigerants are safer, the ozone layer, they're lower in their direct effect on the climate, and the equipment itself is more efficient than the equipment that was sold historically. So it's a change for the company and it's a heroic effort for an individual company to change the tools and the tanks and retrain the workers, individual company to change the tools and the tanks and retrain the workers, but it's for the good of society. And we're just getting through that change from the Montreal Protocol. And now we're entering a new stage where the refrigerant he's using now, which is called HFC410A,

which is a blend of two of these chemicals that are ozone safe, is still a greenhouse gas. So we're making a change to a lower GWP, less damaging refrigerant, and we're increasing the energy efficiency again. So this is a case of continuous improvement and innovation and the strength of the Montreal Protocol that it just keeps giving the signal that you talked about, Neil, and you talked about, Chuck, that there's the profit motive and then there's also a tremendous amount of the altruistic motive of companies that want to do better for Earth and their employees and their customers. Plus they get to advertise that,

that they're environmentally preferred chemicals. That's right. So... They're serving the need. Yeah, I love that. And you guys in Arizona, which last we checked...

Yes. ...sits a quarter mile from the surface of the sun in the summertime. Right, yeah. Earth's orbit swings just to Arizona. Real close. Samuel Case, you too can be a hero, man. Make the transition. There's orbit swings just Arizona, real close. Samuel Case, you too can be a hero, man.

Make the transition. There you have it. Awesome. That was great. Okay, Jeff Johnson wants to know this. Are we at the point of no return with runaway climate change? Are there any potential technologies

that can reverse the effects? Susan, let me get you to respond to that, because you, if you're an atmospheric chemist, you would be plugged into not only the causes and effects of our atmospheric transgressions, but also what could possibly be remedies to it beyond just, okay, stop what you're doing, all right, is there some other sort of chemical geoengineering solution to what's going on here? Well, people have talked about geoengineering the planet. I mean, personally, I'm just not a fan of experimenting with systems that you don't understand very well. Really?

Yeah, yeah. Really? Yeah, yeah. Really? You know, yeah. You know, I don't volunteer for medical trials. I mean, it just depends on how you feel about risk. But, you know, the problem is that we can't, you know, we can't make a decision for the whole world just because some people want to go out there and go skydiving,

right? I mean, some people really don't have the same values about risk that I do. So your feelings about geoengineering, I think, have a lot to do with how you are as far as risk averse or not. And I'm actually, honestly, pretty risk averse. I can tell you that on Mars, where there is no ozone layer, as far as we've been able to measure, the surface of Mars is sterile because the UV light comes straight on down. And if we're ever going to terraform Mars, we're going to need some UV shielding. And we're thinking ozone, of course. But so whatever it is, the risks you want or don't want to take are things somebody's

going to have to think about if we're ever going to be a two-planet species. That's true. But at the moment, we don't really have a lot of species on Mars as far as we know, do we? No. So, you know, not quite the same level of, you know, risk to life up there. All life forms on Mars right now are robotic. It is the robotic planet of the galaxy.

I guess, aren't people still looking for, like, little tiny cyanobacteria or something? I mean, you know way more about that. Michael, it's not on the surface, but there might be underground aquifers that would be shielded from the UV. And so there's some attempt to think about it on those terms. Absolutely. But when you come to the earth and you talk about geoengineering, you got to say, okay, well, maybe it's going to change rainfall. Gee, you know, the people who are already suffering from drought in,

say, Australia, you know, they might not like that too much, you know. So, Chuck, can I answer that a little bit? So I would agree with the caller that we're at the point of no return and that it's pretty desperate. If you look at the IPCC report or if you look at the wildfire fires in California, we're close to the end of the time where we could make easy choices. So right now, there's tremendous opportunity to phase down these HFCs I mentioned that

are controlled now under the Montreal Protocol. A big part of the new opportunity is to phase down methane, get rid of the leaks of methane and cut back on the exploitation. And these gases have a short-term powerful effect on the climate. So if you take out those chemicals quickly, then you won't find yourself as desperate as to require the kind of experimental engineering. Got it.

That's an important fact here, the rate at which things change. Yes. Yeah. But still, you know, I guess the question was about the runaway greenhouse effect idea. And I think that's conceivable. But honestly, there isn't too much evidence that we're close to that point right now. And one of the... That's a different kind of irreversible effect.

Yeah, that's Venus. That's Venus. And, you know, that could happen if we kept going full bore, pedal to the metal. But I just don't think that's going to happen given is kind of like a snowball rolling downhill or a Mack truck on a gradient, a decline, and that as it picks up speed, it's much harder to slow down. And then once you hit the brakes, it's still going to keep going forward no matter what. You know, that's a misconception a lot of people have, Chuck. Yeah. Let's see. Where do I start with this? I guess what I'll say is the thing that is rolling downhill fast is actually the development of the commitments that we human beings have to infrastructure that uses fossil fuels,

which are the source of our CO2. So the problem, and to me, it's hard to talk about it as a problem. I fervently believe that people in the developing world have every right to develop. It is fundamental to their health, their future, their education. Their longevity, everything.

You name it, it's fundamental to life for a developing world to continue to develop. And in order to develop, if they develop using fossil fuels, as they get richer, as is now happening in our globalized society, then more and more power plants will be built and more and more cars will be bought. And the question is, are those going to be fossil fuel powered cars and fossil fuel powered,

you know, coal powered power plants, or are they going to be clean energy systems? So that means you see them writing on the wall based on what the future institutional societal commitments are going to be in the coming decades. Right. And that doesn't look good to you. Let me just let me inject here that the runaway the runaway is that the momentum of technology has to be turned back very quickly because you can't turn it over quick. If you look at what you own, your house, your appliances, your cars, the vacations you plan, all your property, this takes a long time to turn this over. So you've got to get an early start. And the part of the runaway I'm worried about is things like the melting Arctic and sea level rise and liberating the methane from the tundra and so forth. And those are real concerns that if you go too far with that,

it'll be a long time coming back. And Susan's published this on the long life of carbon dioxide. These are extraordinary, difficult changes to make. The sooner you change, the better. And I think we're behind schedule on these kinds of commitments people should be making. Okay, so what you're saying is we're all going to die. That's what you're saying. I can't believe I just laughed at that.

Oh, that's what we do in our field all the time, Chuck. Okay, good, good. But I just want to say one thing. It's great to roll back methane and hydrofluorocarbons and all the rest of it, but let's not forget carbon dioxide is job one. It's really our fossil fuel economy that is our problem. And, you know, if it distracts us from working on reducing fossil fuel use to work on methane, we should definitely not do that. Good news. Good news. You've got to be very smart.

Different people. There's absolutely no overlap. You can do two things at once, right hand, left hand. The industry's got to get moving on all this stuff at the same time or all these jobs will end up as job one or job last. So I would urge all the readers and the listeners of this to investigate themselves, but we've got to get going here. All right. We've got to get going here. All right. We've got to take another break before our third and final segment.

Chuck, I think we only got to like two questions. I know. Okay, we're going to have to go lightning round. We're going to go quickly. Okay. We'll do lightning round in the third segment when we come back, Cosmic Queries, Mending the Ozone Layer on StarTalk. Hey, it's time for a Patreon shout out to the following Patreon patrons, Kyle W. Ordon and Frank Katarski.

Hey guys, thanks so much for your support. You know we certainly appreciate you because you are helping this show happen. And anybody else listening who would like your very own Patreon shout out, please go to patreon.com slash startalkradio and support us. We're back. Cosmic Queries, Mending the Ozone Layer with Chuck Nice. Chuck, you're on social media, Chuck Nice Comic. Yes, everywhere.

Thank you. Everywhere. Good, good, good. And we've got with us our unsung hero guests. Yes. Scientists Susan Solomon and Steven Anderson, who are the recipients of the Future of Life Award. Wow. Given to people who you otherwise didn't hear about,

but somehow managed to save the frickin' world. Wow. Okay? And so the fact that this award exists is kind of a weird, it's a weird fact, right? Because you think if someone saved the world, they'd be on the front page

of every paper. Right. But what it tells you is that there are scientists working behind the scenes in laboratories. There are people who are moving agencies

and institutions so that at the end of the day, an entire system has been shifted. And people don't tend to look at the contents of the day, an entire system has been shifted. And people don't tend to look at the contents of the sausage. They just eat the sausage. Exactly. Sorry to analogize.

No, and you know what, Neil? What you just said, it makes so much sense. And this is one of the problems I have with you three and everyone in your industry, is that you quietly go about your work. Why do you quietly go about your work? All right. So we need, we have to hire like PR people attached to us. So Stephen and Susan, this award, is it a physical thing or is it just some distinction that they hand you? Well, it is a tremendous honor. And I just happen to have my plaque here.

Yay. Which. Oh, cool. Cool. So we got a plaque. Actually, extremely heavy. Yeah. Oops.

Do I have it upside down? For those only listening. Whoops. That's great. There we go. Yeah. For those only listening, it's a plaque, at least 16 by 20, it looks like. Oh, it's gorgeous.

It's completely gorgeous. Yes. And if you didn't have a mantle to put it over, you'd have to buy a house that had a mantle to put it over. I've got to find a really strong nail because this thing is so heavy. Very heavy. It's got the earth hanging at the bottom, too. Right. And right underneath the earth, for those of you who are just listening,

it says, thank you for saving the world. Now, Chuck, how are your superhero characters coming along? Oh, yeah. So right now I have the real Captain Planet and Major Ecology. Okay, there you go. Very nice. Very nice. Very nice.

Yeah, we'll go with that. All right. So we're still, we'll go with that. All right. All right, so we're still, this is a cosmic query. So we've only gotten through like two or three questions. Let's see if we can speed up our answers and get a little more in on this segment. So go for it, Jack. Okay, so this is Nicholas Lenson who says, Hey, there in the book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,

Bill Gates proposes that we will only reduce carbon emissions if we cut the cost of what he calls green premium on every human activity. It sounds like a good framework. Do you think reducing the cost of cleaner alternatives would be enough to eradicate greenhouse gases and emissions released by human activity, which, of course, in the last IPCC, it said that we are indeed the contributing factor here. Finally, we got to that. Well, we knew that. Okay. So, Stephen, let's direct that to you. So, if we go back to the economic drivers that motivate people, we have green energy and non-renewable energy. And it's pretty clear to me that if green energy ever ended up physically costing less than non-renewable energy,

you could change the world overnight. So where are we and where's that headed? The good news is that Bill Gates is right, that it's a tremendous advantage that the cost of electricity from wind and solar has come down. Many of you know that right now that even if you own a relatively recent coal-fired power plant, it's less expensive to reinvest in solar and wind than to buy the coal for that power plant. It's especially true if you look at the downstream effects that you have to go through, cleaning up the coal mines, cleaning up the spoils, getting rid of the combustion byproducts. So that's happening today. And it's really just this dodginess of the infrastructure that Susan mentioned, the idea that you just have to get to work and change this over. And right now

you could look at some case like New Orleans. I don't know if you noticed that the power grid failed during the floods. And one of the huge advantages of this distributed power from wind and solar, and especially when it's co-located in the cities, you can maintain electricity for critical service like medicine and communication and so forth,

even when the power grid's down. So there's lots of co-benefits. If you look at the big institutions like the United States military, they're shifting very quickly to solar and wind and distributed power, and they're electrifying things that people couldn't imagine have been done in the past. So I think that's one of the brightest spots, and Bill Gates is absolutely correct that clean energy is a big part of the solution. Cool. Yeah. What we need is a good country songs written about solar and wind. Because they got tons of country songs about coal miners. But you never heard a country song that said, my daddy was a solar array constructor.

Like, you never heard that. Very good point. In fact, I just reminded myself that that song from the 60s, Big Bad John. Right. Big. Remember that song? He worked in a coal mine.

In fact, he died in a coal mine by the end of the song. Sorry to give away the punchline. Spoiler alert. But you're right. Jim and Dane, Big Bad John alert but you're right jimmy dean baked by ed john so you're right all these like country songs of working in the coal mine my daddy was a coal miner his daddy was a coal miner his daddy was a coal miner daddy's daddy so so it'd be really funny a whole suite of songs. My daddy set up solar panels. Yeah. So, yeah.

All right. Keep going. Fred Gibson wants to know this. What is the most life-changing adaptions to our lives that we'll be forced to make due to our lack of resolve in dealing with climate change. And Fred is coming to us from Winnipeg, Manitoba. So this assumes that not all changes, this assumes not all changes will be smooth and easy and maybe will be forced by law or by other factors. Susan, what do you have? Well, we get to find out how tasty vegetables actually can be if you cook them correctly. You know, I mean, it's not the mushy peas that my mother used to serve us out of the

can, right? Which made us all hate vegetables. But, you know, I'm personally, I'm a pescatarian. I eat fish and vegetables. And I never had such delicious vegetables in my life until I started really thinking about how to make them tasty. And they're easy to make tasty. And I keep thinking they should redo

the Popeye cartoon series where he's looking for spinach in the produce aisle and checking it instead of squirting a can of boiled spinach into his mouth. That's a whole other outlook, right?

Oh, man. No wonder we all hate them. I mean, you know. Stay right here, Bluto. I've got to run the Whole Foods. Okay, Popeye. Don't be too long. All right.

Okay. This is Asher Osborne. Asher would like to know this. I've read that 75% of greenhouse gases are created by about 100 companies. Is this true? And can the average individual really then make a difference? Good question. Is that you, Steve? Yeah, I think that is. I haven't heard that statistic, but there are gigantic companies in the world, and certainly

the 100 biggest companies would be a big part of the problem. I would just point out that those 100 companies are buying from 10,000 companies, and they're selling to billions of customers. buying from 10,000 companies and they're selling to billions of customers. So if you look at the whole spectrum of things, there's still a lot of room for everybody to do their part. And one of the things that's happening very quickly is the companies that have social responsibility are changing their product lines, they're changing their procurement, they're deciding that they should carbon neutralize their total effect. So there's a lot of positive things going on. But it is true that there are some giant companies that are standing in the way of climate protection.

And they certainly have to be reckoned with. And that's, as Neil knows, that's a classic political problem. Susan, what does it mean to carbon neutralize? To go carbon neutral? Yeah, what does it mean to carbon neutralize? To go carbon neutral? Yeah, what does that mean? So it means that the amount that you generate is equal to the amount that you take away of carbon dioxide. Of carbon dioxide. So that way, whatever you do, you're not making the planet worse off. Right, right. So if you're going to, for example, go for a drive, you go for a drive in your electric vehicle instead of your fossil fuel powered car, and you make sure that you pay

the extra for the wind source, you know, electricity, if it does cost you extra. But as we talked about earlier, just make it cheaper and then you won't have to pay any extra for it and that's where your energy is going to come from anyway. So then if you still have a fossil fuel car, you trade it in and get one of those cool new Teslas and just go roaring down the street.

There you go. All right, Chuck, keep it coming. All right, this is Helmer van der Rijk. I think. He says... You tried hard on that one, though. I tried, man. I tried, okay?

I did the best I could, Helmer. Yeah. All right. Dear honored scientists, I am from the Netherlands, and I'm pretty worried about the rising sea levels for obvious reasons. As they should. As they should. As they should. Since your whole country is below sea level.

Nederland means lowlands, I think. All right. Okay. He says, but I got to thinking, Earth could become uninhabitable in many ways, some being more likely than others. In your professional opinion, what is the most likely cause for Earth to become uninhabitable? And it sounds to me like this guy spends a lot of time being depressed. Because he's just thinking about existential threats all over the place. I mean, he can't get away from how are we going out.

So Susan or Stephen, which of you thinks about the apocalypse most? You know, one of the things that the Future of Life Institute is good for is taking on the hard problems. And so one of the reasons I was so pleased to win this award is if you look at the list, award is if you look at the list, it's nuclear and biological weapons, it's changes in inappropriately applied technology of all kinds, and then now it's ozone and climate. So I think there's a whole spectrum. And the way I like to look at this to remain optimistic is if everyone did their job on ozone depleting substances, greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, the people that are in charge of bringing peace to the world and so forth.

You need all of that because there's a lot of mechanisms that could debilitate the United States and the rest of the world. I think everybody's got to do their job. So Chuck, so Stephen has the complete list of what will do us in there. That's right. So Stephen, what are you doing here? Get back to work. What are you doing here?

We need you. Get back to your desk. All right. All right. Chuck, keep it coming. Okay. This is Cody Kleboski. And Cody wants to know this.

Hello, all. The main thing I always hear from climate change deniers is that humans are not to blame for the increase in global temperatures. Can you please explain how we can prove the human responsibility? Accountability. Susan, how do you do that? Well, there's a lot of different ways. I guess the first thing I would say is, you know, the Arctic is getting warmer than the rest of the world.

And we expect that. It's probably— Wait, wait, just to be clear. You mean its temperature is rising faster than the rest of the world? There's been more warming in the Arctic. Right, but it's not actually warmer than the rest of the world. No, I'm sorry.

That would be bad for Santa Claus. No, no, yeah, you're right, you're right. Excuse me, I misspoke. Yeah, so the Arctic regions are warming more because of global warming than other places. And if it was coming from the sun, it would be the tropics that would actually be warming more if it was like changes in solar activity. So that's not what it is. And, you know, it's not because the oceans in the Arctic are

giving up heat, especially just there, because the oceans are actually taking up heat everywhere because they're getting warmer too. So unless you believe that there's magical other ways to make or destroy energy, which most... Which they do. Which they do believe that. Well, yeah, some people do. But, you know, Neil, your listeners are much more learned than that. Not our people. Yeah, we got our people. Yeah, really. What's going on? What's going down? You got to have a source for that energy. If the whole planet is getting hotter and the source for that energy is because we put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So just to be clear, when the report, a report says the temperature of the world has increased by one degree Celsius, that's an average. And it is lowest at the equator and higher higher than that at the poles but people don't

think that and then we're melting you know glacier ice and so maybe they should just give what the temperature increases at the poles that would that could that might be more alarming to people than just the global average yeah it's a good i think, two and a half times more. And the reason is because the ice retreats and then there's more heat coming in and being absorbed. Right, because the ice reflects sunlight. Yeah, that's right. Right, right, right, right, right. So it's a runaway process. All right, Chuck, we have time for like a half more questions. Okay, great, because I saved this one for last on purpose. This is David Peterson. Hello, Dr. Tyson, Dr. Solomon, Dr. Anderson. When I was a child in the 80s and 90s,

I remember the hole in the ozone layer being a very huge deal. The campaign to ban CFCs seemed to have been very successful in comparison to the campaign to fight global warming. What lessons can we learn from the ozone layer campaign and apply them to the global warming campaign? I like it. Yeah. Yeah.

I'm writing a book that's exactly about this, and I'm going to give it to you really quick. No, don't do that. Buy the book. There's your answer. Buy the book. No, go ahead. Go ahead. Sorry.

It's okay. You get it for free. So, the book's not ready yet anyhow. It's because. You get it for free. So it's books not ready yet. Anyhow, it's because people really cared. So you, the people have to care at least enough to vote and preferably to go out to your church or your social club and talk to other people and get them to care. It's political figures have to get interested and really want to try to do stuff. And, you know, Barack Obama, for example, really tried to do stuff. There were politicians who tried to do stuff back then. You got to have industry playing their role and developing new technologies, which Stephen has done so much to

promote and make happen. And you got to have good science and you got to have the economics all work out and it can do so when all those factors ally with one another that's what happened and that's how we solved the ozone problem okay so to quote chuck money from an earlier yeah i mean so it seems to me if i were to add to that that if you really want to change people's hearts and minds, you have to pre-invent something that they could turn to, so they can take the off-ramp and not feel like they're somehow living a lesser

life. That's part of it. But the other thing is... But back to your vegetable analog. You're right. If vegetables are only the sidelight to the T-bone steak on your plate, then no one's investing anything in making those vegetables tasty. But as vegetarians have done and as vegans have done, if the vegetables become front and center and more attention is given,

and so my wife and I are doing just that. We're celebrating vegetables in ways that were unthinkable growing up in this world. So I kind of think you need it there, right? So they can say, well, what am I going to do? You're going to do this. Oh my gosh, it's cheaper and tastier and better. And then it happens immediately. That's true.

But you know what else is important is you got to realize that that steak is actually not good for you if you have it every night. No, really, you have to understand that the problem is serious and that you need to make a change. And, you know, if this year isn't convincing lots of people that it's serious, then I just don't know what to say to those people. I would like to say that Susan's right about that list.

But the part the Montreal Protocol was very good at is that they worked at where the rubber met the road. They identified the technologies and promoted them a lot. And so if you compare the work at the IPCC and the work at the Montreal Protocol, Montreal Protocol name names, listed technology, gave references of where you could get it. So it was a much more publicly oriented system with a lot less bureaucracy.

And I think getting the companies on board with the customers really closes the gap. And 99 ozone depleting substances, or 100 or so, that were now 98% eliminated, which is quite a record. Well, Stephen, I'm delighted that you remain so optimistic. It's true. For someone who's as close to the end of the world as the two of you have been, delighted to hear such a positive outlook. I think that means hope springs eternal

and the human spirit may be what wins out in the end after all. We got to call it quits there. Susan, Stephen, it's been a delight to have you on the show. Congratulations for saving the world. When Chuck has his superheroes back, we'll invite you to comment on them to see if they capture what you did with authenticity. Thank you very much. And if they carry the right combination of superpowers. So Chuck, always good to have you here. Always a pleasure. All right. We're going

to call it quits there. Neil deGrasse Tyson here, your personal astrophysicist, as always bidding you keep looking up.