I come from Britain, I actually come from the west of Britain, where the Gulf Stream is a really major factor. The Gulf Stream has shut down several times before, as evidenced by scientific findings, and the effect on a country like Britain would be enormous, because really we are on a latitude with Canada, and if that Gulf Stream shut down, certainly one of

the effects for us would be to plunge us into, you know, kind of near-arctic conditions. I think the question that would we then go to climate engineering, I find it a little bit of a hypothetical question, because at that point we will be so desperate.

Yes, we probably would move to climate engineering. Do I think it's a good idea? No, I think it's a stupid idea. I think it's much better to, it's such a risky, tiny percentage chance of some kind of large-scale technology working, and by that time the feedback loops of the climate

going wrong will be so enormous that, you know, it's like a tiny boy on the back of a huge elephant by that time. I think climate engineering is honestly a ridiculous proposition, far better to focus now on far

more doable, realistic, manageable technologies that aren't so pie in the sky. So I am, I don't even think that they work mostly. I think they are very, very hypothetical, whether you're going from, you know, kind of sulphur spraying or, you know, spraying of drops to form clouds or mirrors up in

the sky. This is the stuff of science fiction, whereas the things, the technology that we could be looking at now, panels, renewable energy, better batteries, carbon capture, these things are great interventions, early interventions that we can do and we can prove we can do.