Bill McGuire - Five Way Interview

Bill McGuire is Professor Emeritus of Geophysical and Climate Hazards at University College London, a co-director of the New Weather Institute, and a patron of Scientists for Global Responsibility. He was a member of SAGE, the Science Advisory Group in Emergencies. He was also a member of the UK Government Natural Hazard Working Group. He lives in the Peak District. His latest book is The Fate of the World.

Why look back at past climates?

Modelling can take us only so far in terms of trying to figure out what our future climate be like. Looking back in time, however, allows us to see both the causes of rapid climate change and the consequences. All the evidence is laid out for us in the rocks, sediments, ice cores and the remains of ancient life, helping us to build a picture of where our climate is headed. The Pliocene, for example, was an epoch when the temperature was up to 4°C higher than during pre-industrial times, and sea levels 15 to 25m higher, but carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were between 330 and 400 parts per million – significantly lower than they are now. This tells us that, whatever we do, we can expect a return to Pliocene conditions – at best. The geological record is never wrong.

You are dismissive of mitigation - accepting it can’t be a total solution, shouldn’t we attempt this as well?

I am not at all dismissive of mitigation. In fact, a major programme of mitigation, adaptation and management will be needed to try and minimise the devastating consequence of an inevitable return to a hotter, prehistoric, climate. What I am dismissive of is so-called geoengineering. For example, solar radiation management – in which the atmosphere is loaded with particles designed to curb rising temperatures – while we are still loading it with greenhouse gases too, makes no sense at all. It is akin to giving a poisoned patient an antidote, while continuing to pump them full of poison. The adoption of SRM will not stop fossil fuel corporations from continuing to suck up oil, gas and coal, and would be taken as an excuse to continue with business as usual. Meanwhile, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere would carry on heading upwards. Artificially removing CO₂ from the atmosphere is also nonsensical. Just taking out one year's worth of emissions (41 billion tonnes) would require the greatest and costliest engineering effort ever devised – and all to avoid cutting emissions. Again, this is designed to attempt to facilitate business as usual, which is unsustainable on a small planet of limited resources. And this  wouldn't even address the 2.5 trillion tonnes we have already added to the air.

Your book is deeply depressing. Is there any way we can influence governments to take more action before it’s too late?

I prefer to think of it as deeply realistic – if that's depressing too, it can't be helped. If I knew how to influence governments to take more action, I would be doing it. The reality is that many governments are now rowing back on green measures, while fossil fuel corporations plan for expansion. It is as if they had a go at tackling the climate crisis, but have given it up as too hard a job. I can't see any change coming until the impact of extreme weather on national and global economies is so severe that they simply have to act.

What’s next?

For me, returning to writing fiction. I always said that my 2022 book – Hothouse Earth: an Inhabitant's Guide – would be my last non-fiction book, but I was persuaded to write The Fate of the World – and I am glad I did by the way. I have had quite a few short stories published, and my debut novel, Skyseed (2020) is still being pushed for film or TV. I have a couple of young adult novels on the go, both with environmental themes, and I want to get these finished and published in the next year or two.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

More terrifying than exciting, but a new paper – which is in the process of being peer-reviewed – shows that the global average temperature, since 2015, has been climbing at the extraordinary rate of 0.48°C a decade, and predicts a 0.5 – 1°C rise in the next 10 years. This would be absolutely cataclysmic, and would show that forecasts that we are on track for a 2.7°C rise by 2100 are just pie-in-the-sky.

Photo Credit: © Hay Festival/Adam Tatton-Reid

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:

Interview by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here