Speaker 1: Welcome to zero i'm Akshatrati. Over the weekend, we heard
Speaker 1: the devastating news that salimul Huk had passed away. Salim
Speaker 1: was a leading climate scientist. He was the director of
Speaker 1: the International Center for Climate Change and Development, a lead
Speaker 1: author of the third, fourth and fifth Assessment reports of
Speaker 1: the Intercovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a professor at
Speaker 1: the Independent University in Bangladesh. He was so much more
Speaker 1: than those titles. Salim attended every single COP conference. He
Speaker 1: was one of the most prominent voices championing the cause
Speaker 1: of developing countries, demanding that the global North give the
Speaker 1: resources needed to the global South to adapt to and
Speaker 1: recover from climate impacts. He had a knack for being
Speaker 1: able to communicate the challenges to all audiences in a
Speaker 1: way that was clear, incisive, and optimistic. He will be
Speaker 1: missed by many. We spoke to Salim on the podcast
Speaker 1: last year in Egypt at Koptoona, where he gave me
Speaker 1: one of the best explanations of the idea of loss
Speaker 1: and damage. That issue will be central again at COP
Speaker 1: twenty eight in the UE later this month. We were
Speaker 1: looking forward to catching up with Salim to hear about
Speaker 1: the progress that's been made and the many things still
Speaker 1: need to be resolved. So for today's episode, we are
Speaker 1: going to replay the conversation we had with Salim last year,
Speaker 1: because much of what we talked about and that he
Speaker 1: so passionately believed in, is still as true today as
Speaker 1: it was then. If anything, the stakes are even higher.
Speaker 1: After the interview, I'll give a quick update on where
Speaker 1: things stand on Lost in Damage as we go into
Speaker 1: COP twenty eight. We'll also hear from several of Salim's
Speaker 1: colleagues who wanted to pay tribute to his life and legacy.
Speaker 1: There has been an outpouring of emotion at the shocking
Speaker 1: news of his passing. Here's Salim Mulhak in conversation last
Speaker 1: November at COP twenty seven in Shermilhak, Egypt. You've been
Speaker 1: at every COP meeting since the first one in nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety five. In fact, you were at the Rio Earth
Speaker 1: Summit in nineteen ninety two where the unf Triple C,
Speaker 1: which is the convention under which the COP meetings were created, happened.
Speaker 1: Do you think COP meetings over the last twenty seven
Speaker 1: versions have made any progress.
Speaker 2: They've certainly made progress, So what we are dealing with
Speaker 2: is a planetary scale problem without a planetary government. We
Speaker 2: have two hundred governments around the world on planet Earth.
Speaker 2: Something that is a global problem like climate change, requires
Speaker 2: every country to come together, and the only way that
Speaker 2: can be done is under the United Nations. And the
Speaker 2: good news is that thirty years ago we came together
Speaker 2: and we agreed. We have a treaty. Every single country
Speaker 2: agreed to take actions to tackle climate change. And then
Speaker 2: every year we come together at these Conferences of Parties
Speaker 2: to take stock of where we are in terms of
Speaker 2: fulfilling the agreements that we made. Unfortunately, we're not doing enough.
Speaker 2: We're not doing everything we said we would do, and
Speaker 2: so these meetings are opportunities to see how we can
Speaker 2: accelerate action, how we can do better, how we can
Speaker 2: do more, how we can go faster.
Speaker 1: As many as forty five thousand people are registered to
Speaker 1: come to the COP meeting here in charmil Shake. How
Speaker 1: have COP meetings changed That forty five thousand figure is
Speaker 1: a large number, But from the time that you've been
Speaker 1: coming to COP meetings, what has been the visible change
Speaker 1: for you?
Speaker 2: The original Conferences of Parties were meant for government officials
Speaker 2: to come together and review progress and agree on new
Speaker 2: actions that they would take together. It was involving a
Speaker 2: few thousand government officials and they'd meet most of the
Speaker 2: time behind closed doors and negotiate over very arcane language
Speaker 2: which is unintelligible to the rest of the people. But
Speaker 2: then over time many more people started coming. I myself
Speaker 2: am not a negotiator. I come as an observer, and
Speaker 2: there are many such observers, and we do lots and
Speaker 2: lots of side events and activities. There are networks of
Speaker 2: young people, networks of scientists, networks of farmers and indigenous people,
Speaker 2: and women's groups, and many many more who come to
Speaker 2: the cop TO network. And so what you find nowadays
Speaker 2: is that in addition to the core negotiators, there are
Speaker 2: a periphery of many other coalitions of the willing. And
Speaker 2: that really is what you should keep your eyes on,
Speaker 2: because as of the last few years from the Paris Agreement.
Speaker 2: The key about the Paris Agreement is that we needed
Speaker 2: governments to come together to agree it. But we don't
Speaker 2: have to rely on governments alone to do everything all together.
Speaker 2: A few governments, together with other actors, companies, CEOs, mayors
Speaker 2: of cities, can get together and decide to do something,
Speaker 2: and we have many such coalitions. Every day they'll be
Speaker 2: making announcements on what they are doing. And to me,
Speaker 2: that's really the message from Charmilshake is the doers, the actors,
Speaker 2: telling you what they are doing, telling all of us
Speaker 2: what they're doing, and hopefully we can stimulate them to
Speaker 2: do more, and then the negotiators have to come to
Speaker 2: a decision on what everybody can agree to. One of
Speaker 2: the design flaws in the process is that a decision
Speaker 2: in the cop requires consensus, and so we can only
Speaker 2: get consensus around the lowest common denominator to take a
Speaker 2: little bit of action, not the kind of action that
Speaker 2: we really need from everybody.
Speaker 1: These global negotiations require two hundred governments to come to
Speaker 1: a consensus. How is the climate change negotiation doing relative
Speaker 1: to other types of negotiations under the United Nations? Is
Speaker 1: there more progress or less progress on climate change?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 2: I think the UN Framework Convention is a very good
Speaker 2: example of all countries coming together and agreeing to things.
Speaker 2: It's a bad example of them actually doing what they
Speaker 2: promise to do. So they make promises and then they
Speaker 2: fail to keep those promises, sometimes for legitimate reasons, sometimes
Speaker 2: less legitimate reasons, but there are other FORUA as well.
Speaker 2: There is the United Nations General Assembly, where all countries
Speaker 2: come together. In the General Assembly, Unlike the UN Framework Convention,
Speaker 2: decisions can be made by a majority of countries. In
Speaker 2: the UN Framework Convention, it has to be unanimous, it
Speaker 2: has to be by consensus, so we always end up
Speaker 2: by having the lowest common denominator as decisions and progress
Speaker 2: is always slower.
Speaker 1: In the General Assembly, they also have the Security Council,
Speaker 1: which can vote down or veto a decision even if
Speaker 1: the majority of countries have made them absolutely so.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons why the Conference of Parties is
Speaker 2: particularly important for the more poorer, vulnerable countries is that
Speaker 2: it's the only forum in which they have a seat
Speaker 2: at the table. Security Council include them. The G seven
Speaker 2: does not include them, the G twenty does not include them.
Speaker 2: They're not even invited as observers. The UNFCC COP once
Speaker 2: a year is the only place where they can sit
Speaker 2: around the table with all the big guys and actually
Speaker 2: say something. They may not listen, but at least we
Speaker 2: get to say it. Sometimes we actually get to persuade
Speaker 2: them to do something.
Speaker 1: Now one moment where that persuasion worked was at the
Speaker 1: Paris Agreement, where before countries were agreeing to a two
Speaker 1: degrees celsius warming goal, but because of persistent and motivated individuals,
Speaker 1: especially from island nations, it was possible to add the
Speaker 1: one point five degree celsius goal to the Paris Agreement.
Speaker 1: Seven years on, there is conversations that one point five
Speaker 1: degrees celsius might be impossible. Do you think so?
Speaker 2: Well? The one point five degree goal was I would
Speaker 2: say the pinnacle of achievement of the vulnerable countries, including
Speaker 2: the island countries and the least developed countries, to persuade
Speaker 2: both the rich countries and even the big developing countries
Speaker 2: like China and India to agree to a one point
Speaker 2: five degree goal. Over the two weeks we were in Paris,
Speaker 2: we managed to persuade every single country to agree to
Speaker 2: adopt one point five as a target. That was a
Speaker 2: great achievement. We hope that would drive action. It did
Speaker 2: drive some action, but not enough, and every single day
Speaker 2: now we are slipping away from being able to stay
Speaker 2: below one point five. But even if we don't manage
Speaker 2: one point five, every fraction of a degree counts so
Speaker 2: it's not as if two is another magic figure. One
Speaker 2: point five one is a magic figure, one point five
Speaker 2: to two is a magic figure, one point five to
Speaker 2: three is a magic figure. Every incremental amount of temperatureize
Speaker 2: means lots and lots of people dying, losing their livelihoods,
Speaker 2: and being forced to migrate. So the impacts of climate
Speaker 2: change are now real. They're happening. They will happen at
Speaker 2: bigger and bigger scales, and in the near term. We
Speaker 2: can still prevent the huge scales in the long term,
Speaker 2: but the near term mid level scales are inevitable and
Speaker 2: going to happen.
Speaker 1: One thing that happened after one point five degrees celsius
Speaker 1: was agreed upon as a goal is that a series
Speaker 1: of big reports came out trying to explain to the
Speaker 1: world what a one point five degrees celsius warming would
Speaker 1: look like, because nobody had figured out what that would
Speaker 1: look like. And then they said, what needs to be
Speaker 1: done to reach one point five degrees celsius And that's
Speaker 1: where net zero by twenty fifty the target comes through.
Speaker 1: Where reducing carbon dioxide emissions to net zero by twenty
Speaker 1: fifty would allow the world to keep warming below one
Speaker 1: point five degrees celsius. That target has then been taken,
Speaker 1: as you explained, by subgovernment actors. So it's not just
Speaker 1: national governments, it's also regional governments, it's also corporations, and
Speaker 1: that certainly has galvanized people to come up with plans
Speaker 1: to reach those goals. If one point five degrees celsius
Speaker 1: is dead, should net zero by twenty fifty be dead too.
Speaker 2: I won't call it dead, I'll call it on life support.
Speaker 2: And as I said, every incremental change matters, right, So
Speaker 2: it's not as if we're going to fall off a cliff.
Speaker 2: At one point five we will still be around, a
Speaker 2: lot of people will suffer, but then we can still
Speaker 2: manage to stop it at one point five to one
Speaker 2: and then one point five two. All right, So we
Speaker 2: will keep on fighting to keep the temperature rising below
Speaker 2: two degrees.
Speaker 1: And at least the companies and the governments that have
Speaker 1: committed to net zero by twenty fifty, if they meet
Speaker 1: those goals, then they would have done the morally right
Speaker 1: thing toward one point five degrees sources, even if the
Speaker 1: global goal is.
Speaker 2: Not meant absolutely so, one of the outcomes of the
Speaker 2: Paris Agreement is that while we needed the nearly two
Speaker 2: hundred countries that are in the UN Framework Convention to
Speaker 2: agree to the agreement, we don't need all of them
Speaker 2: to implement it. Implementation can be done by anybody you
Speaker 2: and I can decide to implement a part of the
Speaker 2: Paris Agreement. Kids around the world are implementing parts of
Speaker 2: the Paris Agreement. Companies around the world are doing it.
Speaker 2: So implementation can be done by what we call coalitions
Speaker 2: of the willing who want to take action. And net
Speaker 2: zero by twenty fifty is such a coalition that the
Speaker 2: race to zero that's taking place. We need to make
Speaker 2: it go faster. We need more people to join it,
Speaker 2: but it's certainly moving in the right direction.
Speaker 1: One other way to think about progress is that when
Speaker 1: the Paris Agreement happened, the world had the possibility of
Speaker 1: getting as much as five degrees celsius of warming. If
Speaker 1: we think two degrees celsius is catastrophic, five degrees celsius
Speaker 1: is mayhem. Now, despite not enough action, the worst case
Speaker 1: outcome being talked about is three degrees celsius, which is
Speaker 1: still pretty bad. But what does that progress feel like
Speaker 1: where you have avoided the worst of the worst possibilities.
Speaker 2: Well, I would put that to the achievement of the
Speaker 2: UN Framework Convention. Without it, we would be still heading
Speaker 2: for five degrees. A business is usual from this time
Speaker 2: we started thirty years ago would take us on a
Speaker 2: five degree pathway. A UNFCC treaty followed by the Paris
Speaker 2: Agreement moved us theoretically towards a one point five degree
Speaker 2: in less than two degrees. We are heading above two degrees,
Speaker 2: maybe in the two point five to three degree range
Speaker 2: business as usual today. But if we can ratchet that
Speaker 2: down or ratchet up the actions to reduce emissions, we
Speaker 2: can certainly stay below two degrees. One point five may
Speaker 2: not be reachable anymore politically, but two degrees is certainly reachable.
Speaker 2: And I'll give you one major advance that is outside
Speaker 2: the UNFCC, but it is relevant, and that is the
Speaker 2: global economy moving away from fossils. It's happening at speed now.
Speaker 2: The renewable energy world is faster, more efficient, cheaper, and
Speaker 2: it's just going to blow out all the fossil fuel investments. Already,
Speaker 2: coal is non viable. Nobody can invest in coal and
Speaker 2: make money. Petroleum will follow, and natural gas will follow
Speaker 2: that and that will be the big transition.
Speaker 1: One of the biggest topics that's going to be talked
Speaker 1: about here where government action is going to be crucial
Speaker 1: because there has been none so far, is this subject
Speaker 1: of loss and damage. What does loss and damage mean?
Speaker 2: Loss in damage is now a new phenomenon that is
Speaker 2: taking place which adds to previous actions that we needed
Speaker 2: to take for mitigation that is reducing emissions and then adaptation,
Speaker 2: which is preparing for the impacts of climate change, both
Speaker 2: of which are being done assuming that we can prevent
Speaker 2: climate change. Unfortunately we've failed. Climate change is now happening.
Speaker 2: As of this year. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Speaker 2: who assess the science, have given unequivocal evidence that they
Speaker 2: can detect climate change impacts and losses in damages due
Speaker 2: to those impacts happening as we speak. A good example
Speaker 2: is the floods in Pakistan that took place just recently.
Speaker 2: Fifty percent of that has been attributed to have been
Speaker 2: caused because of human induced climate change.
Speaker 1: And under the Paris Agreement, governments have agreed to do
Speaker 1: something about loss and damage, not specifically what, but since
Speaker 1: that agreement in twenty fifteen, nothing has happened.
Speaker 2: On loss in damage right, not that nothing has happened.
Speaker 2: Some things have happened. There are three ways in which
Speaker 2: loss and damage we have agreed to address. The first
Speaker 2: is what we call avert it, which is prevented from happening,
Speaker 2: and that maps onto mitigation reduce emissions so we won't
Speaker 2: have impacts of higher temperatures. The second one is minimize,
Speaker 2: which maps on to adaptation. If you adapt, you minimize.
Speaker 2: The third one is address, and that we have not done.
Speaker 2: We have done work on averting and minimizing, but we
Speaker 2: now have to address and address boils down to money.
Speaker 2: The people who are suffering the impacts need to be
Speaker 2: given some sort of funding to recover from those impacts,
Speaker 2: and that's what we are demanding here.
Speaker 1: And so over the next two weeks, what do you
Speaker 1: think would be your best outcome on loss and damage?
Speaker 2: So the best outcome we hope we will achieve is
Speaker 2: negotiate an agreement to set up what we are calling
Speaker 2: the finance facility for loss and damage. It does not
Speaker 2: have to be detailed out in any detail, but we
Speaker 2: do need to agree to set it up. Then we
Speaker 2: can take another year come back. In COP twenty eight
Speaker 2: in ABU Dhabi and work out the details. And there
Speaker 2: are very valid questions to be associated with it, namely,
Speaker 2: where would money come from, how much money is needed,
Speaker 2: who would handle the money, who would get the money,
Speaker 2: All legitimate questions which would need a fair degree of
Speaker 2: research and options to be put together, and those we
Speaker 2: can then come back in Cop twenty eight and work
Speaker 2: out the details and negotiate something that makes sense for everybody.
Speaker 1: Now, the first two steps were averting and minimizing and
Speaker 1: towards that there was going to be one hundred billion
Speaker 1: dollars being given broadly called climate finance. That one hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars has never happened annually that figure. They're getting
Speaker 1: close to one hundred billion dollars, but they've never reached it.
Speaker 1: This is rich countries having to give that money to
Speaker 1: poor countries. If they can't give one hundred billion dollars,
Speaker 1: which they agreed upon many many years ago, why do
Speaker 1: you think they'll be able to agree upon even more
Speaker 1: money to be given for addressing loss and damage. Well,
Speaker 1: we are hopeful that they will do the right thing
Speaker 1: because it's the right thing to do, and not be
Speaker 1: miserly because they feel that they don't have enough money
Speaker 1: to spare, and so we are appealing to them out
Speaker 1: of a sense of responsibility, to take that responsibility and
Speaker 1: accept that responsibility and then talk to us about how
Speaker 1: they can fulfill that responsibility. At the moment they're refusing
Speaker 1: to take responsibility, that's not acceptable.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: Moral outrage does work sometimes, but often at the scale
Speaker 1: at which we are talking, where it's two hundred countries,
Speaker 1: where there's hundreds of billions of dollars worth of money
Speaker 1: to be talked about, will moral outrage be enough?
Speaker 2: It certainly isn't enough. Now there's no moral responsibility taken
Speaker 2: by the rich countries at all. So that's the first step.
Speaker 2: Money comes a long way after that responsibility you have
Speaker 2: to start with, and they have to take it. And
Speaker 2: I'll give you an example last year in Glasgow inside
Speaker 2: the UNFCC in COP twenty six, not a single country
Speaker 2: inside the COP offered any money. Mister Biden came and
Speaker 2: offered zero dollars. Ungla Marcel came and offered zero euros.
Speaker 2: Boris Johnson, the host, offered zero pounds. But outside the COP,
Speaker 2: in the city of Glasgow, in the country of Scotland,
Speaker 2: which has its own government, its own parliament, its own
Speaker 2: first minister, missus Nicola's surgeon. She actually put two million
Speaker 2: pounds on the table for loss and damage. She's not
Speaker 2: a party to the UNFZZ, but she is a government.
Speaker 2: She took responsibility. She said Scotland benefited from the industrial revolution,
Speaker 2: became rich because of it, but it also recognizes that
Speaker 2: there are ancillary impacts that were unintended that happened because
Speaker 2: of the emissions of their greenhouse gases. They take responsibility
Speaker 2: and they offered two million not a huge amount of money,
Speaker 2: but more than every other leader offered to provide to
Speaker 2: the victims of climate change. They accepted moral responsibility and
Speaker 2: they invited other governments to do that. Now, the only
Speaker 2: other government while we were in Scotland that rose to
Speaker 2: the occasion was the Province of Wallonia in Belgium. They
Speaker 2: offered a million euros. Since then, one of the parties
Speaker 2: to the UN Framework Convention, Denmark, has actually broken ranks
Speaker 2: with the European Union and offered one hundred million kroner.
Speaker 2: So that's what we want more countries to come forward
Speaker 2: and take responsibility.
Speaker 1: Let's come back to loss in damage. Now, you said
Speaker 1: something that's very important. Pakistan had about thirty billion dollars
Speaker 1: of damage caused by the flooding that happened over the summer.
Speaker 1: How much of that should rich countries be paying for?
Speaker 1: And how is that calculator?
Speaker 2: So the calculations are done by a branch of the
Speaker 2: climate scientists called attribution scientists. It used to take them
Speaker 2: a long time to make these calculations, and they'd come
Speaker 2: back a year later saying how much additional damage was
Speaker 2: attributable to human indiance lamage. They're getting much better now
Speaker 2: and they can now produce their calculations within a matter
Speaker 2: of days of fast moving events like floods and cyclones,
Speaker 2: and they have attributed half the damage in Pakistan to
Speaker 2: the fact that global temperature is already raised over one
Speaker 2: degree centigrade attributable to human induce climate change. So the
Speaker 2: point we're making is that what used to be one
Speaker 2: hundred percent natural events are no longer one hundred percent
Speaker 2: natural events. They are being exacerbated, not caused, but exacerbated
Speaker 2: by the fact that global temperature has gone up by
Speaker 2: over one degree attributable to human emissions. And therefore there
Speaker 2: is a responsibility of the polluters who emitted those Greno's
Speaker 2: gases to offer some support to the victims of their pollution.
Speaker 2: So pollution does not have it's not victimless. There are victims,
Speaker 2: and they exist, They're happening today, so there's a responsibility
Speaker 2: to help them.
Speaker 1: At the end of COP twenty seven, Salim's desire was
Speaker 1: finally fulfilled. All parties agreed to create a fund that
Speaker 1: would aid poor countries harmed by climate impacts. It had
Speaker 1: been a decades long fight, but getting that agreement is
Speaker 1: only the start. Now it has to be put into
Speaker 1: practice at COP twenty eight in Dubai later this month.
Speaker 1: One of the goals is to operationalize the fund. That's
Speaker 1: just cop Jarwin from making it work, which is to say,
Speaker 1: find a place that will host the fund, agree on
Speaker 1: who will add money to the pot, and set guidance
Speaker 1: on how the money will be given out. These are
Speaker 1: not trivial questions. With less than a month to go,
Speaker 1: there are still big contentious issues. I'll summarize two of
Speaker 1: them here briefly, but please do follow our coverage on
Speaker 1: bloomberg dot com slash green for the latest. The first
Speaker 1: issue is who will host the fund, Basically, who is
Speaker 1: in charge of its day to day workings. The usays
Speaker 1: it should be hosted by the World Bank because creating
Speaker 1: a new legal entity could take a long time. But
Speaker 1: developing countries think that the World Bank isn't fit for purpose.
Speaker 1: They say it's controlled by rich countries and is only
Speaker 1: effective at giving out loans, not grants. Grants are what
Speaker 1: are needed for Loss and Damage money to be actually useful.
Speaker 1: There is also the problem that countries like Cuba, which
Speaker 1: are sanctioned by the US, may not be able to
Speaker 1: use the fund if it is hosted by the World Bank.
Speaker 1: The second issue centers around money. Rich countries have consistently
Speaker 1: failed to meet promises on climate finance. In two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine, they committed to providing one hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: each year by twenty twenty to help poor countries build
Speaker 1: projects that cut emissions and adapt to warming. They miss
Speaker 1: the deadline in twenty twenty and may not meet it
Speaker 1: even this year. So far, only a small handful of
Speaker 1: rich countries have committed small amounts of money to the
Speaker 1: Loss and Damage Fund. Poor countries are worried that asking
Speaker 1: for more money for a new fund will end in failure.
Speaker 1: That's why they are calling for creative approaches such as
Speaker 1: putting a small tax on fossil fuel profits or financial
Speaker 1: transactions or insurance premium, but those ideas are also facing resistance.
Speaker 1: COP meetings always feature fights between rich and poor countries.
Speaker 1: As climate impacts get worse, those fights are getting more serious.
Speaker 1: But because there needs to be a consensus among all
Speaker 1: countries for a decision to be made at COP, it
Speaker 1: allows developing countries to have their say. Salim played an
Speaker 1: instrumental role in bringing unity among developing countries on the
Speaker 1: issue of loss and damage. His voice will be greatly
Speaker 1: missed by all those championing the cause. While working on
Speaker 1: this episode, we heard from many of Salim's colleagues who
Speaker 1: wanted to say a few words about his life, legacy,
Speaker 1: and the huge hole he leaves behind in climate diplomacy.
Speaker 1: From Farana Sultana, professor of geography at Syracuse University, we
Speaker 1: heard about his unwavering optimism. Faranah was working with Salem
Speaker 1: on an op ed in The Guardian just before his death.
Speaker 1: We've linked it in the show.
Speaker 4: Notes that was one of the most amazing things.
Speaker 5: He had enormous, relentless.
Speaker 4: Capacity for optimism, and he also kept saying that you know,
Speaker 4: never give up your seat use it responsibly. And what
Speaker 4: kept him going, I think is that he had enormous
Speaker 4: faith in people he worked with. He always said, you know,
Speaker 4: if we educate our young, they will do more. Yes,
Speaker 4: there's great injustices, there's lack of progress, but we keep going.
Speaker 5: You don't see me giving up. He never gave up.
Speaker 5: And you know he died very young. He was only
Speaker 5: seventy one. And you know what the kicker is. My
Speaker 5: co authored OpEd with him was submitted to the Guardian
Speaker 5: last week and he passed away on Saturday. And when
Speaker 5: I had to change our affiliation, his affiliation from is
Speaker 5: tow was I just broke down. My grief is nothing
Speaker 5: compared to his families and those who knew him every
Speaker 5: single day. But I think what gave him hope was
Speaker 5: the fact that there was those of us who would.
Speaker 4: Keep it going.
Speaker 5: We would keep it going, we would keep his legacy alive.
Speaker 5: And my hope is that all the young people he's
Speaker 5: training that they keep it going and they keep it alive.
Speaker 1: Hajjising is head of Global political Strategy at Climate Action Network.
Speaker 1: He told us about Salim's long quest to put climate
Speaker 1: adaptation and loss and damage on the negotiating table.
Speaker 6: Salim was a lone warrior right from the beginning thirty
Speaker 6: years ago when he started talking about adaptation and his
Speaker 6: consistent focus on adaptation and bringing stories from the ground
Speaker 6: and pushing all countries, both developed and developing countries to
Speaker 6: have an agreement adaptation is definitely the biggest achievement. And
Speaker 6: then he joined the fight on loss and damage and
Speaker 6: look at what we achieved at COP twenty seven last year.
Speaker 6: So he's not someone who would just talk about an
Speaker 6: idea and then leave it. He will pick that up
Speaker 6: and then he'll make sure that he puts everything behind
Speaker 6: it to make it real, turning something into a real,
Speaker 6: tangible outcome.
Speaker 1: Emma Howard Boyd is the UK's Commissioner on the Global
Speaker 1: Commission on Adaptation. She spoke to Salim's generosity and his
Speaker 1: focus on the global South's vulnerability to climate change.
Speaker 7: I think it's more the kindness that I remember he
Speaker 7: always had time to speak to anybody he felt that
Speaker 7: was something that he could give, So that's the generous
Speaker 7: side of Selm. For me, it was that quiet reflection
Speaker 7: on those parts of the world that have really suffered
Speaker 7: and been at the forefront of the climate emergency for many,
Speaker 7: many years, making sure that those of us living in
Speaker 7: the global North working on this agenda were reminded of
Speaker 7: the lives and loss of livelihoods that have taken place
Speaker 7: all around the world. I remember sitting in a meeting
Speaker 7: with him as we were starting to hear about the
Speaker 7: fatality is in Europe and him saying, perhaps now the
Speaker 7: world will listen because these numbers, sad and tragic as
Speaker 7: they are, and any life lost to climate change is
Speaker 7: a life that shouldn't be lost, but really small in
Speaker 7: comparison to what has been experienced in other parts of
Speaker 7: the world, and particularly where Sealem was working.
Speaker 1: Faranna Yamin is a climate lawyer, activist and a key
Speaker 1: architect of the Paris Agreement. She told us about the
Speaker 1: support and encouragement Salim gave to people working on climate issues.
Speaker 8: My last conversation with him, and he was totally excited
Speaker 8: and committed and encouraging of the crazy ideas that I
Speaker 8: was raising. So that's kind of the measure of the
Speaker 8: person that he was. He preferred to give you support, encouragement.
Speaker 8: He may have asked or challenged people to think of alternatives,
Speaker 8: but he never let know. He tried to embell it
Speaker 8: and polish and support you in whatever you were doing.
Speaker 8: And yeah, I'm absolutely gutted that we won't be able
Speaker 8: to have more of those conversations. But yeah, he's given
Speaker 8: his all to the climate movement. And I hope that
Speaker 8: his family, his children, his son especially and his daughter
Speaker 8: who survive him and are active in this space too.
Speaker 8: You know, hear all the praise for him and all
Speaker 8: understand what a giant of a figure he was.
Speaker 1: Nigel Topping is the yuki's high level Climate action Champion.
Speaker 1: He told us about Salim's influence and came persistent passion.
Speaker 3: You know, I came into the champion's role really as
Speaker 3: a sort of global North mitigation expert, and after three
Speaker 3: years I left knowing a lot more about the reality
Speaker 3: of climate issues in the global South and adaptation, residents
Speaker 3: lost in damage, and a lot of it was down
Speaker 3: to Salim. I mean, a lot of people would not
Speaker 3: know that he wasn't in negotiated right because he worked
Speaker 3: so closely on the on the issues and he was
Speaker 3: very focused on some versative issues such grace right combined
Speaker 3: with passion, I mean, passion off and tips into anger
Speaker 3: that can get nasty, but I mean, he's one of
Speaker 3: the classiest individuals working on one of the hardest things that
Speaker 3: you can imagine. So yeah, I think you know a
Speaker 3: lot of his influencers by making friends, so by being
Speaker 3: a good human being. Right, It's hard not to listen
Speaker 3: to and have a serious conversation with someone who treats
Speaker 3: you with decency. And there's a lot of great people
Speaker 3: work in climate change, but he's a very rare and
Speaker 3: special person. So he's really sadly missed.
Speaker 1: And finally we heard from Rachel Guide, who is the
Speaker 1: dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University and a
Speaker 1: former Special representative of the UN Secretary General.
Speaker 9: I first met him thirty years ago and at that
Speaker 9: time I was doing some work on flood action plans
Speaker 9: in Bangladesh, you know, and he was extraordinarily wise and patient,
Speaker 9: patient because he saw decades before many others saw what
Speaker 9: the implications were for adaptation, and so it was like
Speaker 9: having an adaptation Yoda in the corner of the room always,
Speaker 9: and at every cop as well, there was Salimo. He
Speaker 9: could talk in terms that anybody on the street would understand.
Speaker 9: He could speak to the detail of negotiated language. He
Speaker 9: could speak in economic and political terms, and he could
Speaker 9: speak with moral authority. He was almost the personification of
Speaker 9: the struggle in the cops for recognition, for adaptation and resilience.
Speaker 9: I can't think of anybody else who embodied the durability
Speaker 9: and the resilience of those who've pushed for this from
Speaker 9: the get go. But I think in his honor, the
Speaker 9: T shirt we should all be wearing is lead, follow,
Speaker 9: or get out of the way, because I think we're
Speaker 9: at that point now.
Speaker 1: Anything else that I should have asked that he would
Speaker 1: like to share about him?
Speaker 10: He had a lovely smile and we will miss him.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Zero. To read Sali Mulhak's
Speaker 1: full obituary, you can find a link in the show notes.
Speaker 1: If you'd like to get in touch, email us at
Speaker 1: zero pod at Bloomberg dot net. Zero's producer is Oscarboid
Speaker 1: and senior producer is Christine driscoll Our. Theme music is
Speaker 1: composed by Wonderly. A special thanks to everyone who shared
Speaker 1: their thoughts with us on the life and legacy of
Speaker 1: salimulhuk i'm Akshatrati back next week.