26 January 2013 | NewScientist | 27

that have proven to be profitable.” The result is domination by

an outdated energy system that stifles alternatives. The potential for a renewable energy revolution is often compared to that of the IT revolution 30 years ago. But IT had little to fight except armies of clerks. Schellnhuber compares this lock-in to the synapses of an ageing human brain so exposed to repetitious thought that it “becomes addicted to specific observations and impressions to the exclusion of alternatives”. Or, as Girling puts it, new pipelines become “routine”.

What might free us from this addiction? With politicians weak, an obvious answer is to hold companies more financially accountable for environmental damage, including climate change. But Schellnhuber says this won’t be enough unless individual shareholders become personally liable, too.

Here, he says, the problem is the public limited company (PLC), or publicly traded company in the US, which insulates shareholders from the consequences of decisions taken in their name. Even if their company goes bankrupt with huge debts, all they lose is the value of their shares. The PLC was invented to promote risk-taking in business. But it can also be an environmental menace, massively reducing incentives for industries to clean up their acts.

“If shareholders were held liable,” he says, “then next time they might consider the risk before investing or reinvesting.” More importantly, it could prevent us being locked into 20th century technologies that are quite incapable of solving 21st century problems. Fat chance, many might say. But just maybe Keystone XL and its uncanny ability to draw global attention will help catalyse growing anger at the environmental immunity of corporate shareholders. n

Fred Pearce is a consultant on environmental issues for New Scientist

Comment on these stories at newscientist.com/opinion

Why is it important to save the Royal Institution (Ri)?It is of tremendous historical importance. It’s an iconic building not just for the UK but for the world, a focal point for the public understanding of science and a laboratory where people like Lawrence Bragg and Michael Faraday did cutting-edge research. It should be a world heritage site.

Could the Ri continue to exist if the building was sold?No. It’s impossible to move it out. You can move the National Gallery or the British Library, but not the Royal Institution. The institution is the building, and the building is the institution. If the building is sold, that’s the end.

How bad is the Ri’s financial plight?I don’t think people fully appreciate the problems that the institution faces, partly because the financial details haven't been divulged. People are bandying about numbers that are probably significantly lower than what is needed. As far as I can see we don’t have a lot of time; it looks as though the plug is being pulled.

How did it come to this?The problem has arisen partly because the Ri got into significant debt. But it has had two years to find a strategy to convince credible sponsors and it hasn’t done it.

How much money is required?Just to keep the doors open will require at least £2 million a year, meaning an endowment of £60 million. That doesn’t include paying off the debt.

In the grand scheme of things, that’s not a huge amount of money.That's correct, but the question is whether we can put together something credible to pull in that sort of funding. The only viable solution I can see is for the Royal Society to enter into some sort of partnership which would provide a level of credibility that potential funders might find acceptable.

One minute with…

Harry Kroto

You have started a campaign to save the Ri…Yes. I’m doing it as a private individual, but one who knows pretty much everyone who was involved in the institution prior to 2000, when the strategy that led to this demise was put in place.

How has the response been so far?Amazing. I’ve received messages from all over the world. People recognise that the institution has global significance. Many see it as a shrine to electricity, the lifeblood of the modern world. But we can’t just rely on that.

What does the Ri need to do to reinvent itself?The institution has not moved with the times as much as it could have done, by recognising it could have a global role to play rather than a provincial or UK one. Its position as a central point for UK public understanding of science is already pretty healthy, but it doesn’t bring much money. So it must become the platform for 21st-century educational science outreach on a global scale, by exploiting the potential of the internet. Interview by Graham Lawton

We must find a way to rescue the Royal Institution from having to sell its historic London home, says the Nobel laureate

ProfiLeHarry Kroto is a professor of chemistry at Florida State University. He won the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1996. His campaign to save the Ri is at savetheri.wordpress.com

130126_Op_Comment.indd 27 21/1/13 18:13:41