Speaker 1: I'm Ruby Jones and you're listening to seven AM. Negotiators
Speaker 1: of this year's Global Climate Summit in Brazil almost didn't
Speaker 1: reach a deal, but when they did, the waded down
Speaker 1: pledge left many countries reeling. While the agreement boosts finance
Speaker 1: for poorer nations experiencing the worst of global warming, it
Speaker 1: fails to even mention the fossil fuels driving it. Outside
Speaker 1: the official COP process, dozens of countries signed a pledge
Speaker 1: to phase out fossil fuels, but while Australia signed, Anthony
Speaker 1: Albanezi says his government will keep approving new coal and
Speaker 1: gas projects. Today, Greenpeace Australia Pacific Chief Executive David Rittter
Speaker 1: on what really happened in Brazil and where the COP
Speaker 1: is now just a cop out. It's Tuesday, November twenty five. So, David,
Speaker 1: you just got back from Brazil and you were there
Speaker 1: in Vellum for COP thirty. So first of all, what
Speaker 1: was it like to be there on the ground as
Speaker 1: all of these countries were coming together negotiating their next
Speaker 1: steps on climate action.
Speaker 2: Look, it's an absolutely extraordinary experience. The venue itself is vast,
Speaker 2: There are thousands of people from literally just about every
Speaker 2: country in the world. There's an atmosphere that sort of
Speaker 2: veers between the electric and the frustrated, the board and
Speaker 2: the highly emotional. You are tired of.
Speaker 1: False solutions, we are tired of corporate.
Speaker 2: Of this system. And then of course there's all of
Speaker 2: the energy that's outside the actual venue, that's on the streets,
Speaker 2: that's just circulating around this remarkable global event.
Speaker 1: Really, and I heard a statistic at one point that
Speaker 1: one in every twenty five participants at COP thirty is
Speaker 1: a fossil fuel lobbyist. So is that true? And how
Speaker 1: much influence do those lobby groups have over these talks?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Look, that research came from our good mates at
Speaker 2: Global Witness, and it's a shocking statistic because obviously fossil
Speaker 2: fuels are the number one driver of the climate crisis.
Speaker 2: So why you'd have all these lobbyists loose within the conference.
Speaker 2: It's meant to respond to the crisis. You know, it's
Speaker 2: mystifying to anyone who hears that for the first time.
Speaker 2: The curious thing when you're actually there is people don't
Speaker 2: sort of walk around carrying signs saying I'm a fossil
Speaker 2: fuel lobbyist. And that's because they get access through various means,
Speaker 2: through trade association delegations, through what are called party overflow badges,
Speaker 2: which are the badges that government receives or even as
Speaker 2: part of official country delegations. So there they are, and
Speaker 2: they've got positions of access, and there's no question that
Speaker 2: they're able to have a direct influence on the sorts
Speaker 2: of positions that governments take, which really reflects what's going
Speaker 2: on in the home countries most of the time anyway,
Speaker 2: which is that the fossil fuel lobby is very, very
Speaker 2: active all of the time trying to persuade governments to
Speaker 2: not take the decisions that are in the interests of
Speaker 2: the human race and of nature.
Speaker 1: And just lay out for me, then what it is
Speaker 1: that this summit was meant to achieve, what was the
Speaker 1: goal of COP thirty, what was being negotiated exactly.
Speaker 2: It was a very significant coper. I mean they're all significant,
Speaker 2: but this one marked the first one since a one
Speaker 2: point five degree global temperature mark had been breached over
Speaker 2: the course of a whole year.
Speaker 3: For the first time, warming reached one point five to
Speaker 3: two degrees in the period from February twenty twenty three
Speaker 3: to January twenty twenty four. World leaders have promised in
Speaker 3: twenty fifteen to try to limit the planets long term
Speaker 3: temporatorize to one point five degrees.
Speaker 2: It was the COP by which all the countries should
Speaker 2: have submitted their twenty thirty five climate targets, which are
Speaker 2: absolutely crucial targets for shaping how we're going with global action.
Speaker 1: World leaders are under pressure to present tougher emission reduction
Speaker 1: targets for twenty thirty five ahead of COP thirty in Brazil, thousands.
Speaker 2: Of It was a COP that took place really following
Speaker 2: the fantastic decision from the International Court of Justice or
Speaker 2: the advisory opinion i should say for the International Court
Speaker 2: of Justice, which found that states do have an obligation
Speaker 2: in protecting human rights from climate change.
Speaker 4: Two.
Speaker 1: The Court added that failing to protect the planet from
Speaker 1: the effects of climate change could be a violation of
Speaker 1: international role.
Speaker 2: So, for all of these reasons, the context of the
Speaker 2: COP was highly charged, and it was heralded to be
Speaker 2: a COP where there was going to be a breakthrough
Speaker 2: or hopefully going to be a breakthrough on ending deforestation
Speaker 2: because it was a COP that was being held literally
Speaker 2: in the Amazon as well as hoped by many that
Speaker 2: it was going to be a COP that would really
Speaker 2: give us a breakthrough on a global roadmap for tackling
Speaker 2: fossil fuels and those two things, they are the two
Speaker 2: keys to getting on top of the climate crisis.
Speaker 1: Okay, and so at the end of the summer, then
Speaker 1: what was actually agreed.
Speaker 2: Upon, Well, look if it was an agreement that frankly
Speaker 2: did not reflect the needs of the moment. We do
Speaker 2: need transformation at emergency speed and scale, and it didn't
Speaker 2: achieve that. It didn't achieve a new forest action plan,
Speaker 2: and it didn't achieve the kind of breakthrough on climate
Speaker 2: finance that is desperately needed to support these efforts. Those
Speaker 2: key ingredients simply aren't there.
Speaker 4: The COP thirty climates so much in Brazil, ended with
Speaker 4: cheers and applause, but not without misgivings. The deal contained
Speaker 4: no explicit reference to transition away from fossil fuels.
Speaker 2: But it's very important, I think, to not see cops
Speaker 2: as kind of binary things where it's everything or it's nothing,
Speaker 2: Because there were some significant things that came out of
Speaker 2: this COP. The Brazil presidency did commit to the development
Speaker 2: of a new roadmap from transition away from fossil fuels.
Speaker 5: We know some of you had greater ambitions for some
Speaker 5: of the issues that held I, as President of COP thirty,
Speaker 5: will therefore create two roadmaps, one on halting and reverting deforestation,
Speaker 5: another to transitioning away from fossil shools in a just
Speaker 5: orderly and that.
Speaker 2: Now, that is not the same as a formal commitment,
Speaker 2: but it is something that can be worked with. And
Speaker 2: then of course there was the Belm Declaration, which I
Speaker 2: think is actually the great note of hope from the
Speaker 2: COP and certainly of a very great importance for Australia.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, let's talk about the declaration. What's in it?
Speaker 2: Well, the Bellum Declaration came from a really significant block
Speaker 2: of more than eighty governments which backed the idea of
Speaker 2: a fossil fuel roadmap, with great leadership coming from Columbia
Speaker 2: and also as always from the Pacific Island nations.
Speaker 5: The COP of the truth cannot support an outcome that
Speaker 5: igno science.
Speaker 2: There is no mitigation if we.
Speaker 5: Cannot discuss transitioning away from fossil fuelm.
Speaker 2: This is something we want to do.
Speaker 4: In response to the lack of a roadmap coming out
Speaker 4: of Vellum.
Speaker 2: We were expecting then a smaller group of twenty four
Speaker 2: countries formally signed on to the declaration, and Australia is
Speaker 2: one of those, and we should be really delighted that
Speaker 2: Australia is one of those twenty four nations. And what's
Speaker 2: in it, Well, it references a transition away from fossil fuels,
Speaker 2: it references the International Court of Justice opinion, and it's
Speaker 2: got a by the standards of these things quite fast
Speaker 2: start in the sense that the first conference for the
Speaker 2: Bellum Declaration is going to occur at the end of
Speaker 2: April in Colombia, and that'll be a really significant moment
Speaker 2: because it starts to give us the big mow. It
Speaker 2: starts to give us some momentum around global cooperation to
Speaker 2: end fossil fuel usage, which is what has been my
Speaker 2: sorely lacking from international climate governance over many years. So
Speaker 2: we need to jump on this. We need to grab
Speaker 2: this momentum and give it as much speed and power
Speaker 2: as we collectively can.
Speaker 1: Coming up, what does the Bellum Declaration mean for Australia's
Speaker 1: gas plans?
Speaker 6: So overnight Australia has signed up to the Lem Declaration
Speaker 6: on the Transition of Wave from Fossil fuels. I was
Speaker 6: wondering how that kind of fits with the government's future
Speaker 6: GAT strategy, which stay that natural gas will be needed
Speaker 6: to twenty fifty and beyond.
Speaker 1: A possile fuel.
Speaker 2: Well, it is needed. It's a part of the transition
Speaker 2: which is occurring.
Speaker 1: What you need to back up renewables as firming capacity.
Speaker 2: That's what you know.
Speaker 1: So, as you say, Australia signed the Bellum Declaration, but
Speaker 1: almost immediately afterwards Anthony Albanesi told journalists that Australia planned
Speaker 1: to continue to develop new fossil fuel projects. So does
Speaker 1: this declaration does it mean anything?
Speaker 2: Well, look, I've had a look at the Prime Minister's
Speaker 2: remarks and there is sort of strangely equivocal, kind of
Speaker 2: have your cake and eat it too set of remarks.
Speaker 2: I think it's still sinking in to governments all over
Speaker 2: the world that things have to change. Now. What we
Speaker 2: have seen already in Australia is a scale of change
Speaker 2: that some people would have said was unimaginable even as
Speaker 2: much as a decade or two decades ago, in terms
Speaker 2: of the uptake of renewables, that the rapid wind down
Speaker 2: of coal. We are going to have to see a
Speaker 2: similar jump in speed and ambition going forward, and what
Speaker 2: that needs to very practically manifest in is a road
Speaker 2: map for Australia to phase out fossil fuels, including exports,
Speaker 2: at a timeline that is consistent with the Paris Agreement
Speaker 2: and that would be consistent with the BLM declaration.
Speaker 1: And David, I think there is a lot of skepticism
Speaker 1: at this point around what the cop summits can achieve. So,
Speaker 1: having just been what is your assessment of the value
Speaker 1: of these summits now? On balance? Do you think that
Speaker 1: they provide tangible steps forward on climate or do they
Speaker 1: allow countries to say they're doing something meaningful on climate change,
Speaker 1: even if that action doesn't go far enough.
Speaker 2: I think it's a question we should always be asking ourselves.
Speaker 2: But it is possible to take a nuanced view of
Speaker 2: these things and to say yes, there's no doubt that
Speaker 2: some countries do use participation in these things as a
Speaker 2: cloak for inaction, or even as an opportunity to frustrate action.
Speaker 2: And yet when you've got a global problem, it makes
Speaker 2: sense to bring the countries of the world together to
Speaker 2: solve that global problem. And there have been extraordinary breakthroughs
Speaker 2: in international environmental governance over the years, from the preservation
Speaker 2: of Antarctica to the saving of the whales, the Montreal Protocol.
Speaker 2: And there's no doubt as well that if you look
Speaker 2: at the decades now of the unf Triple C process,
Speaker 2: you do see as a consequence of the commitments that
Speaker 2: are made in these negotiations, that projected temperature rise, although
Speaker 2: it is still in the wildly dangerous and unacceptable realm,
Speaker 2: is much reduced from where we were even at the time,
Speaker 2: for example, of the Paris Agreement itself, and then to
Speaker 2: drill down into that just a little bit more, I
Speaker 2: couldn't tell you. It's literally a countless number of meetings
Speaker 2: I have been in over the years where leaders of
Speaker 2: corporations or members of governments of various stripes will look
Speaker 2: you in the eye and tell you that they are
Speaker 2: making the commitments that they are because of the Powis Agreement.
Speaker 2: So we cannot, I think, ever overlook the very significant
Speaker 2: consequences of the steps that have been achieved. But we
Speaker 2: can also have in mind, with great honesty, the frustration
Speaker 2: that the negotiations don't move as fast as the safety
Speaker 2: of the human race and the safety of nature require.
Speaker 1: Well just on that, then let's come back to the
Speaker 1: critical point of what Australia would actually have to do now,
Speaker 1: so in the next twelve months before the next cop
Speaker 1: to meet the commitments that came out of Brazil, including
Speaker 1: the Bellum Declaration.
Speaker 2: Well, there's a great chance just this week for the
Speaker 2: Australian government to get right its approach to the EPBC
Speaker 2: law reforms. That we absolutely need to see our one
Speaker 2: and only piece of federal legislation to protect nature to
Speaker 2: properly embed climate considerations in there, because you can't have
Speaker 2: a credible Nature Protection Act without having some embedding of
Speaker 2: what's going on with climate change. So that's an immediate thing.
Speaker 2: Beyond that, we do need to see a time bound
Speaker 2: plan for fossil fuel phase out and that is simply
Speaker 2: good government. Any government that is not able to look
Speaker 2: the people of Australia in the eye, the business community
Speaker 2: of Australia in the eye and say we need to
Speaker 2: phase out fossil fuels and we've got a plan for
Speaker 2: that is not doing its job. There also needs to
Speaker 2: be an end to new colon gas approvals and across
Speaker 2: the board in policy terms, Australia should be looking to
Speaker 2: see where it can improve it's twenty thirty five target.
Speaker 2: And then the final thing, of course, is every opportunity
Speaker 2: that Australia can play in scaffolding and standing with the
Speaker 2: Pacific island nations that so often have demonstrated leadership on
Speaker 2: climate change. Any opportunity to do that should be taken.
Speaker 1: David, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 2: Thanks very much for having me. Great to Jack.
Speaker 1: Also in the news, people who send deep fakes of
Speaker 1: another person without their consent could face fines of up
Speaker 1: to one hundred and sixty five thousand dollars under a
Speaker 1: new bill introduced to the Senate by Independent Senator David Pocock.
Speaker 1: The plan would see a dedicated complaints mechanism added to
Speaker 1: the Online Safety Act and would grant the E Safety
Speaker 1: Commissioner powers to enforce the removal of deep fakes and
Speaker 1: issue fines. Australians would also be able to two perpetrators directly.
Speaker 1: Senator Pocock says the government has dropped the ball and
Speaker 1: as it stands, unless a deep fake is sexually explicit,
Speaker 1: very little can be done about it, and the Chief
Speaker 1: Executive of the Business Council of Australia, Bran Black, says
Speaker 1: he's confident the government will be able to reach a
Speaker 1: deal with the Coalition on environmental reforms. This week. The
Speaker 1: BCA has been lobbying the Coalition to strike a deal
Speaker 1: which would cut out the Greens. It wants the government
Speaker 1: to weaken the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, among
Speaker 1: other changes to the proposed laws. He says when the
Speaker 1: laws are passed, they will deliver a net overall benefit
Speaker 1: to business. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening.