Speaker 1: Kyoda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page,
Speaker 1: a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Climate
Speaker 1: Change Conference COP twenty nine has wrapped up with a
Speaker 1: significant but controversial final agreement. Negotiations came down to the
Speaker 1: wire over a one point three trillion US dollar deal
Speaker 1: to help finance poorer countries to deal with the impacts
Speaker 1: of climate change and to cut emissions. But only about
Speaker 1: three hundred billion dollars of that target will come from
Speaker 1: direct payments or loans from richer countries, which has sparked
Speaker 1: backlash from nations in the direct line of fire from
Speaker 1: rising sea levels and increasing temperatures. So what does this
Speaker 1: deal actually mean? And is getting a deal better than
Speaker 1: getting no deal at all? Today on the Front Page,
Speaker 1: University of Canterbury Professor of Political Science and International Relations,
Speaker 1: Ronwin Hayward is with us to discuss the details. First off,
Speaker 1: from when for those who don't know what actually is
Speaker 1: COP so.
Speaker 2: The Confidence of the Parties is a term that's used
Speaker 2: for all the world's countries who've agreed to come together
Speaker 2: every year to discuss progress on protecting communities and also
Speaker 2: reducing emissions as a result of climate change. So that's
Speaker 2: basically what it is. And they've committed each year to
Speaker 2: come together to review their progress, and they've made several
Speaker 2: pacts and agreements, so one of them being the Paris
Speaker 2: Climate Agreement, where they've agreed to take a series of
Speaker 2: actions to reduce emissions and to invest in adaptation or
Speaker 2: actions to protect people.
Speaker 1: So at COP twenty nine, what was the agreement reached
Speaker 1: at the weekend?
Speaker 2: The big agreement around this COP has been around how
Speaker 2: much countries would contribute to support those who are on
Speaker 2: the front line of climate change, particularly the poorest countries
Speaker 2: and the small island states. So the big number that
Speaker 2: was arrived at was US three hundred billion dollars a year,
Speaker 2: which is to both help developing countries to reduce their
Speaker 2: emissions but also to protect themselves from climate And it
Speaker 2: is an eyewateringly large amount of money. But when you
Speaker 2: think that something like the Tairafiti Hawkes Bay Gisbin cyclones
Speaker 2: cost us in New Zealand alone three billion dollars, you
Speaker 2: can see why all of the countries that are facing
Speaker 2: really significant extreme events every year are saying that actually
Speaker 2: three hundred billion hardly touches the sides because most countries
Speaker 2: now would be experiencing at least a three billion to
Speaker 2: five billion incident. What we know will happen is that
Speaker 2: as our temperatures rise over the one point five degrees
Speaker 2: of warming we had back in the eighteen eighties and
Speaker 2: eighteen nineties when we started emitting lots of fossil fuels,
Speaker 2: we are going to see about a fourfold increase and
Speaker 2: extreme events. So these countries are really anxious not only
Speaker 2: about the disasters that they're already experiencing, but how they're
Speaker 2: going to afford the disasters to come, so they're actually
Speaker 2: asking for much more. They're asking for at least US
Speaker 2: one trillion a year now. Of course, right now every
Speaker 2: country is incredibly strapped for cash, and developed economies are facing,
Speaker 2: like ours, really high bills and challenges to meet basic
Speaker 2: infrastructure needs, protect their own populations, provide education, health and housing,
Speaker 2: and so it's a very difficult time to be asking
Speaker 2: for a lot of money. On the other hand, it's
Speaker 2: never going to be an easier time as well, so
Speaker 2: this is a very fraught time and international negotiations and
Speaker 2: we've got big wars going on in the background and looming,
Speaker 2: so it's been extremely fraught.
Speaker 3: It's a gift of the God. Every natural resource where
Speaker 3: this oil, gas, wind, some gold, silver, copper, all that
Speaker 3: unnatural resources, and countries should not be blamed for having
Speaker 3: them and should not be blamed for bringing these resources
Speaker 3: to the market because the market needs them, the people
Speaker 3: needs them.
Speaker 1: Was it always going to be quite difficult? Given the
Speaker 1: president of this year's host country, Azerbaijan, described oil and
Speaker 1: gas as a gift from God.
Speaker 2: It was going to be a disaster. Really, it's like
Speaker 2: we're looking at a slow train wreck coming. When we
Speaker 2: have oil states chairing these meetings, you've really got to say,
Speaker 2: it's like a turkey chairing the organization of Christmas, and
Speaker 2: it is an extremely difficult situation. But not only that,
Speaker 2: but we have a lot number of fossil fuel interests
Speaker 2: in the room as lobbyists, and they are out numbering
Speaker 2: the number of small states. For example, the small states
Speaker 2: like the Pacific are very organized at the moment, but
Speaker 2: still it's extremely difficult to get an even playing field
Speaker 2: and have sensible conversations about how we can actually move forward,
Speaker 2: protecting people, developing in a way that brings everyone with us,
Speaker 2: protects people's economies, but also protects children and future generations
Speaker 2: in the long term.
Speaker 1: Well, during the talks, representatives of dozens of climate vulnerable
Speaker 1: islands and African nations stormed out the likes of Sarmoa's
Speaker 1: environment minister. For example, they were furious their calls to
Speaker 1: have a portion of the fund allocated to them have
Speaker 1: been ignored. Surely we should listen to these smaller nations though, right,
Speaker 1: given it's their shorelines already being lost to sea level
Speaker 1: rises and as such.
Speaker 2: Yes, it is really crucial that we support particularly the Pacific,
Speaker 2: and New Zealand has taken up a position successive governments
Speaker 2: of the left and right that we will support the Pacific,
Speaker 2: that the Pacific are our neighbors. But it's made tenser
Speaker 2: because there's a big Cold war going on really between
Speaker 2: the US and China over influence in the Pacific. So,
Speaker 2: even though it's extremely expensive and the Trump administration may
Speaker 2: not want to spend as much or any money on
Speaker 2: international aid to help other countries, even the US will
Speaker 2: have to pause and think carefully about its presence in
Speaker 2: the Pacific because it wants to make sure that it
Speaker 2: supports its allies and it has good relations in the Pacific,
Speaker 2: which is an extremely strategic area of the world as well.
Speaker 2: So for many of the governments in the Pacific, that's
Speaker 2: really besides the point. Though. They're already having to move
Speaker 2: populations inland. We've seen in Fiji many small communities have
Speaker 2: had to relocate. They're already having to think about what
Speaker 2: ways in which they will be able to move large
Speaker 2: numbers of people and protect them still stay as an
Speaker 2: effective community. So those are really hard decisions. We're starting
Speaker 2: to see some of those hard decisions being made here
Speaker 2: in New Zealand. One of them is in Westport, and
Speaker 2: we know how expensive and difficult it's going to be
Speaker 2: to move a town that feels very attached to its
Speaker 2: place and very proud of where it is. So these
Speaker 2: are issues that New Zealand shares with the Pacific.
Speaker 1: We're developing countries almost compelled to accept this deal. Given
Speaker 1: next year, of course, Donald Trump is back in the
Speaker 1: White House and so it's doubtful they'll get anything better.
Speaker 2: There's more a case that diplomats, especially from Europe, were
Speaker 2: extremely anxious to make sure that these talks didn't fall over.
Speaker 2: So a lot of the protesters that were outside in
Speaker 2: the halls where I was watching virtually as an observer
Speaker 2: go to cops, but as a researcher, I was interested
Speaker 2: in what was happening. So outside in the halls, they
Speaker 2: were protesting to say, no deal is better than a
Speaker 2: bad deal. So that was a kind of hard line
Speaker 2: for many of the small island states and Africa was
Speaker 2: prepared to walk away and allow the talks to collapse
Speaker 2: if they weren't getting adequate recognition. Now for Europe, that
Speaker 2: would be a disaster because we're in a time where
Speaker 2: actually the wider world needs to be collaborating. It needs
Speaker 2: to collaborate, not just over climate change, but it needs
Speaker 2: to collaborate over really difficult issues like the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: So there are lots of political reasons why Europe is
Speaker 2: desperate for a deal and desperate to make sure that
Speaker 2: people stay in the room and keep talking. And that's
Speaker 2: actually to the advantage of everyone. But small island states
Speaker 2: and Africa really did make an effective stand say, look,
Speaker 2: we could leave and then you don't have to pay anything,
Speaker 2: but we would be in chaos really because once we
Speaker 2: stopped talking to each other, we've only got war as
Speaker 2: a way really of sorting things out. I think one
Speaker 2: of the wider questions that the United Nations is going
Speaker 2: to have to face is how is it going to
Speaker 2: make these decisions in the future. Because one of the
Speaker 2: things that was really making small islands in Africa anxious
Speaker 2: was the way in which oil states, and there were
Speaker 2: thinly veiled references all the time to Saudi Arabia, were
Speaker 2: able to block progress. Every time the EU and the
Speaker 2: small islands of Africa had nearly reached an agreement, there
Speaker 2: was a block on progress by one country vetoing it,
Speaker 2: and usually that was an oil state. Now we have
Speaker 2: to think differently about how we're going to make decisions
Speaker 2: so that we're not just protecting oil economies at the
Speaker 2: end of the day.
Speaker 1: The BBC's Environment correspondent Matt McGraw, he wrote, the Big
Speaker 1: Fight over Money reopened old divisions between rich and poor
Speaker 1: with an anger and bitterness I have not seen in years.
Speaker 1: Would you agree with him?
Speaker 2: I would agree with him, but I would say that
Speaker 2: it it's not new. In my experience of having to
Speaker 2: give evidence at international meetings for climate over the last
Speaker 2: three years, I've seen a real escalation of this tension
Speaker 2: between yes, poorer nations on the one hand, but also
Speaker 2: countries like China and Bolivia and Russia and Saudi who
Speaker 2: as a block of countries are often collaborating together. And
Speaker 2: then Europe and developed economies who are saying, well, we
Speaker 2: can't afford to keep supporting the rest of the world
Speaker 2: if some of these big economies that are developing rapidly,
Speaker 2: including Brazil and China, are not also contributing. At the
Speaker 2: same time, India is arguing, well, they have been exposed
Speaker 2: for many, many years to really significant floods and disasters
Speaker 2: have been exacerbated by this climate created conditions of when
Speaker 2: countries are using lots of fossil fuels, they should be
Speaker 2: exempt or at least they should be an understanding the
Speaker 2: historical impact of some of those developed countries and the
Speaker 2: effect that they've had over time, and these have become
Speaker 2: extremely tense that you only need to look at the
Speaker 2: world at the moment, and we're an extremely tense situation.
Speaker 2: So finding a way in which we can act together
Speaker 2: is going to be very hard. But the world has
Speaker 2: been in this situation before. When I think back to
Speaker 2: my grandparents understanding of what it was like around World
Speaker 2: War One World War two. After those terrible periods, the
Speaker 2: world came together Let's hope it doesn't take a world
Speaker 2: war to end some of this incredible tension that we're seeing.
Speaker 2: But certainly the cop talks are part of a deepening
Speaker 2: polarization and growing nationalism that we're seeing around the world
Speaker 2: in all sorts of ways.
Speaker 4: More than two hundred people have died after the Blancia
Speaker 4: region was hit by the worst flooding in decades, and
Speaker 4: many locals say they're frustrated by the lack of warn
Speaker 4: and support build as a multi hazard weather event, this
Speaker 4: storm has come with a heady blend of rain, wind
Speaker 4: and snow that's attacked almost every inch of the country.
Speaker 4: Arctic blasts hit north of West Yorkshire first thing, bringing
Speaker 4: with it five hours of heavy snowfall.
Speaker 5: Emergency services in the United States have rescued thousands of
Speaker 5: people from flooded parts of Florida after Hurricane Milton crashed
Speaker 5: through the state yesterday, killing at least sixteen people.
Speaker 1: When it comes to climate change, surely richer countries want
Speaker 1: to tackle this issue as well. We've already seen major
Speaker 1: damage caused by back to back hurricanes in the US,
Speaker 1: Spain was devastated by rain earlier this year, and right now,
Speaker 1: Storm Burt has caused chaos across the British Isles. Why
Speaker 1: is there still this kind of resistance towards something we
Speaker 1: know is happening.
Speaker 2: Partly it's just economics. Partly it's because countries are having
Speaker 2: to appeal to their own local voters who are very
Speaker 2: concerned about their own local disasters. So we know after
Speaker 2: the wake of any of these disasters, we see a
Speaker 2: surge in people understanding the impacts of climate wanting to
Speaker 2: spend money on disaster protection, but disasters elsewhere feel distant,
Speaker 2: and being told that you're having to spend more than
Speaker 2: two hundred and thirty five million a year to support
Speaker 2: other countries at a time when your country feels under
Speaker 2: pressure is really difficult. So we need governments to be
Speaker 2: able to find a way in which they can act
Speaker 2: together so that they are encouraging their voters and their
Speaker 2: communities to see that this is something that we are
Speaker 2: all in together, that we are all helping, which is
Speaker 2: why the world's governments have often relied on the United
Speaker 2: Nations and often relied on doing things together. Right now,
Speaker 2: that's very difficult when we're seeing this growing nationalism. But yes,
Speaker 2: one thing that is for sure is that most countries
Speaker 2: accept that climate change is happening. I mean Trump accepts
Speaker 2: climate change is happening. Now the debate is how much
Speaker 2: is he willing to pay for it? And this time
Speaker 2: if he pulls out of the Paris Climate Agreement, it
Speaker 2: will be because he doesn't want to pay for the
Speaker 2: restoration and support and protection of other countries. So that's
Speaker 2: a very different debate from saying I don't believe climate
Speaker 2: change is happening, but actually having to protect our world
Speaker 2: from the impacts that we're having on it is becoming
Speaker 2: a real reality.
Speaker 1: The Guardian reported that apparently New Zealand was one of
Speaker 1: the countries resistant to increasing the contribution to three hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars US a year from the initial two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty billion dollar offer.
Speaker 2: Does that surprise you, No, it doesn't surprise me. One
Speaker 2: of the questions that I would probably ask is why
Speaker 2: is that. I think part of the reason is that
Speaker 2: just throwing money at this problem is not necessarily going
Speaker 2: to solve it. If that money comes in the form
Speaker 2: of loans with very high interest from commercial organizations and
Speaker 2: banks in that situation, then you're only going to trap
Speaker 2: poor countries in greater debt. So I think it's quite
Speaker 2: important that we think carefully when we're tossing around large
Speaker 2: figures of finance about what form is that finance going
Speaker 2: to be delivered in and how And this is unprecedented
Speaker 2: really for the United Nations. They haven't haven't got a
Speaker 2: structure that is sufficient for really dealing with how to
Speaker 2: financially support a large number of highly vulnerable countries all
Speaker 2: at the same time. So part of the reason for
Speaker 2: being a little cautious is to make sure that we
Speaker 2: have a good structure in place and that we use
Speaker 2: things like our losses and damages mechanisms and get them
Speaker 2: working as well. At the same time, I think New
Speaker 2: Zealand's priority it seys itself as supporting in particular the Pacific,
Speaker 2: So I hope that is an area where New Zealand
Speaker 2: continues to really be a supportive player in our region
Speaker 2: of the world.
Speaker 1: In other deal news, New Zealand's Climate Change Minister Simon
Speaker 1: Watts he was co chairing Carbon market deal negotiations. He
Speaker 1: said after years of negotiations, international carbon markets under the
Speaker 1: Paris Agreement are now fully operational, resolving one of the
Speaker 1: most sophisticated and technical challenges in climate diplomacy in layman's terms,
Speaker 1: what does that mean.
Speaker 2: It's called an emissions trading scheme, and I must admit
Speaker 2: I'm a bit in two minds about them. It's where
Speaker 2: a country is able to pay another country to reduce
Speaker 2: emissions and then use that towards their own actions. So
Speaker 2: it might be that you pay another country to plant
Speaker 2: a forest or to not develop a particular project. The
Speaker 2: difficulty is that it is hard for countries like New Zealand,
Speaker 2: where we've got a very high meetane impact, it's going
Speaker 2: to be it's very hard for us to reduce that
Speaker 2: methane impact. We're going to have to think very carefully
Speaker 2: about how we do that. It's the same with our
Speaker 2: carbon impact. So for countries, they are often looking at
Speaker 2: ways they can invest overseas to also make a difference
Speaker 2: and reduce their carbon impact and their methane and greenhouse
Speaker 2: gas impact overall. The difficulty is that the Ministry for
Speaker 2: Foreign Affairs and Trade has had is to try and
Speaker 2: get rules and regulations that everyone agrees to around the
Speaker 2: world that can keep this transparent. We've had some disastrous
Speaker 2: investments ourselves in New Zealand. We've invested in the past
Speaker 2: in Ukraine and very dodgy deals that turned out to
Speaker 2: be really not worth the paper that they were written on.
Speaker 2: And so making sure that there are good regulations in
Speaker 2: place and that these kind of schemes don't become just
Speaker 2: a slush fund for moving money around and doesn't make
Speaker 2: any difference to the climate is essential, and that's why
Speaker 2: it's been so hard to negotiate. So a lot of
Speaker 2: the key parts of that have been nailed down. There
Speaker 2: is still some concern that there are some significant elements
Speaker 2: of nation to nation agreements that might enable some greenwashing
Speaker 2: to go on that needs better scrutiny and transparency. But
Speaker 2: certainly in New Zealand has played a huge role in
Speaker 2: the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade over over a
Speaker 2: decade trying to get these laws and regulations right.
Speaker 6: We need to stop pretending that's these conferences that are
Speaker 6: being held again in countries with no respect for basic
Speaker 6: human rights, that they these countries who get to set
Speaker 6: the agenda, that their interests are people and plan as
Speaker 6: well being. Of course, that's bullishit and we have to.
Speaker 2: Call that out.
Speaker 1: Ron When every time cop happens, it kind of gets
Speaker 1: dismissed as just a lot of hot air. You've got
Speaker 1: thousands of people traveling via planes to discuss reducing emissions.
Speaker 1: Deals get reached, but then your trumps of the world
Speaker 1: come along in exit agreements. Is there's still a purpose
Speaker 1: to these meetings, do you think? And are they having
Speaker 1: an impact?
Speaker 2: I think that there are two parts of that argument.
Speaker 2: So on the one hand, I tend to agree with
Speaker 2: people that say, why are we all flying everywhere? So
Speaker 2: for somebody like me who's a researcher and a political scientist,
Speaker 2: I'm interested in these negotiations. I can watch them online.
Speaker 2: I don't need to physically be there. But for negotiators
Speaker 2: who are in the room, especially trying to get tight
Speaker 2: rules around how we use money, that matters that they're there.
Speaker 2: And there is a role for some of the community
Speaker 2: groups and organizations to scrutinize what's happening. So just this week,
Speaker 2: for example, we've seen community groups really putting pressure on
Speaker 2: the international community to support small island states to do
Speaker 2: better into the future. So it does matter that these
Speaker 2: aren't closed door meetings that the public can go and
Speaker 2: can watch and can see what's happening. And also at
Speaker 2: the same time, we've got to be very careful that
Speaker 2: we structure these meetings in a way that is actually
Speaker 2: serving its purpose, which is to reduce emissions and to
Speaker 2: protect people. And when these meetings are held hostage oil
Speaker 2: states who can hold out the last minute on a
Speaker 2: decision and veto it and then we can't make any progress,
Speaker 2: then that process of making decisions needs an overhaul. But
Speaker 2: if we didn't have the international community, then it's important
Speaker 2: to remember before the Paris Agreement, we were looking at
Speaker 2: a five degree warmer world, which is unimaginable in terms
Speaker 2: of how disastrous that would have been. So, for all
Speaker 2: its flaws, bringing the world together, focusing our attention for
Speaker 2: a week at least on our climate and on what
Speaker 2: we can do about it, and trying to hold governments
Speaker 2: to account, and trying to remind populations at home that
Speaker 2: it's not just their government that's beating us drum. Everybody
Speaker 2: is affected by climate. This isn't something made up, it's
Speaker 2: something that actually is a real issue facing us. That's important.
Speaker 2: And while the Paris Agreement is really struggling now without
Speaker 2: successful strong international leadership, it is at least holding us
Speaker 2: at about two point seven worst case to AR scenario
Speaker 2: two point seven degrees warmer than we were back in
Speaker 2: the eighteen eighties, which is better than the four to
Speaker 2: five degrees we were looking at, but it's still terrible.
Speaker 2: It still means for a child that was born in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty, that child in their lifetime will see four
Speaker 2: times the number of extreme events that I will see
Speaker 2: as somebody who's fifty five and twenty twenty for the
Speaker 2: remaining part of my life. It's almost unimaginable the kind
Speaker 2: of disasters that we're now looking at for our children
Speaker 2: and their children, And I think it's extremely important that
Speaker 2: we keep doing everything we possibly can to keep people
Speaker 2: in the room, keep focused on this issue because it
Speaker 2: really matters in the long term.
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining us, Bronwini look, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
Speaker 1: can read more about today's stories and extensive use coverage
Speaker 1: at enzherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
Speaker 1: produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also
Speaker 1: a sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front
Speaker 1: Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and
Speaker 1: tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.