What Is Happening, Why Is It Happening and What Can We Do About It? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that the earth is suffering from man-made climate changes. ISES has invited three experts on climate to share their views on what is really happening, why it is happening, and finally yet importantly, what can we do about it.

1. ISES 2013
David Addison | Virgin Group
www.virginearth.com

3. 3

4. US$25m prize for:
scalable, sustainable ways of
removing GHGs from the atmosphere
GtC yr-1
scale
potential

5. Aim
Avoiding dangerous climate change
Avoiding impacts of
dangerous climate
change
Responding to
dangerous
climate change
Avoiding a given level of atmospheric
GHG concentration
Avoiding global
average temperature
increases
Ensuring that rising
temperatures do not
impact upon core
interests
Providing redress
for injuries core to
interests
Strategy Mitigation
Reducing GHG
emissions
GHG-removal
Drawing GHGs
out of the
atmosphere
Solar radiation
management
Increasing albedo
(reflectivity of
incoming solar
radiation)
Adaptation
Improved irrigation, flood
defences, protection
against new disease
vectors
Rectification
Financial
compensation,
symbolic
reparation
Source: Dr. Clare Heyward (2013) A typology of different responses to climate change. Google it…
Is GHG-removal an undervalued response to climate change?

6. VEC Assessment Criteria: more detailScience&
engineering
GHGremoval
potential
Environmental
/socialimpacts
Economicfeasibility
 Long term net removal of a
quantifiable amount of GHGs from
the atmosphere.
 All atmospheric GHGs (not only
carbon dioxide) Considered, in relation
to their global warming potential.
 scalable to a significant size in order to
meet the informal removal target of 1
billion tonnes of carbon per year for 10
years.
 Removal considered on a net life cycle
basis.
 Technical viability, effectiveness and
efficiency.
 Sufficiently credible to accurately
monitor the system’s performance over
time.
 Demonstrable at least in the
laboratory environment, real-world
demo(s) likely needed.
 Potential for harmful effects and/or other
incidental consequences of the solution
understood and avoided or mitigated.
 At scale operation should not create direct
or indirect environmental / social impacts.
 Ideally the activity would yield
social/environmental co-benefits.
 The system for removal of GHGs must be
commercially viable.
 3 year and 10 year financial outlooks.
 credible scenarios for future cost of energy,
raw materials, management.
 System’s potential for monitoring, reporting
and verification credible enough to enable
revenue generation on the regulatory
and/or voluntary carbon market.
Source: VEC Terms and Conditions. A more extensive breakdown for review purposes is used by VEC.

7. Final Judges
SIR CRISPIN TICKELL
VEC Judge
DR. JAMES E. HANSEN
VEC Judge
F.V.P. Al GORE
VEC Judge
SIR RICHARD BRANSON
VEC Judge
PROF TIM FLANNERY
VEC Judge
PROF JAMES LOVELOCK
VEC Judge

8. Review process
Economic Relevance
Sector Relevance
VGF EM Context
Awarding
+10,000 applications from 100+ countries Review process
Stage 2 review
~100 proposals
Stage 1 review
2,600 formal submissions
Stage 3
Final Judgment
In future
 Conducted in-house to assess the overall viability of
the proposal and worthiness of further review.
 Undertaken by small team in 2010, now by DA.
 In-depth technical review.
 Use of consulting experts under NDA.
 Determine whether entry empirically meets VEC
criteria.
 Entry with a sufficient evidence base will then be put
to the 6 VEC judges: Richard, Al Gore etc…
 Serves as ‘additional redundancy’ – empirical
evidence of stage 2 plus expert opinion.
 Ultimately at discretion of judges.
 Possibility to go to more than one entry.

10. 10

13. 13

14. 14