Speaker 1: Welcome to zero. I am Akshatrati. This week moving money
Speaker 1: to the right places. Here at Bloombergrain, we are starting
Speaker 1: to Geurope for next month's COP meeting in Baku in Azerbaijan.
Speaker 1: As regular listeners of the show know, I love COPS,
Speaker 1: the sheer energy and ideas, and the rainbow of delegates
Speaker 1: that show up every year. This year's meeting will be
Speaker 1: smaller than recent COPS and will come days after the
Speaker 1: US election. It will also happen in a region that
Speaker 1: is between two active conflicts, and yet world leaders cannot
Speaker 1: avoid talking about how to tackle climate change. The big
Speaker 1: question that's going to be on the table at COP
Speaker 1: twenty nine has to do with finance. Specifically, it's to
Speaker 1: do with money that is moved from rich countries to
Speaker 1: poor countries to help we're dealing with climate change. The
Speaker 1: initial promise sum was one hundred billion dollars each year.
Speaker 1: By twenty twenty, that didn't happen, but by twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: rich countries claimed it was happening. At COP twenty nine,
Speaker 1: they now need to agree on a newer, bigger figure
Speaker 1: because the more emissions need to be cut and the
Speaker 1: more there needs to be adaptation to a hotter planet,
Speaker 1: the more expensive it gets for poor countries who did
Speaker 1: not contribute as many emissions to heating the planet in
Speaker 1: the first place. It is something we'll talk about a
Speaker 1: lot over the coming weeks. Like when I crossed paths
Speaker 1: with COP twenty nine president at the Climate Week in
Speaker 1: New York, already had a list of questions for Mukdarbabayev.
Speaker 2: Your name is Akshatra Yasha.
Speaker 1: One of the big things I wanted to ask him
Speaker 1: was about the Loss and Damage Fund, which was set
Speaker 1: up to help climate ravish countries pay for immediate recovery.
Speaker 2: I used supportive of the I and why Akshak, You're
Speaker 2: right that Loss and Damage Fund and the operationalization of
Speaker 2: this fund is one of the prioriti on COP twin
Speaker 2: can I and we make the good progress last week
Speaker 2: in Baku.
Speaker 1: We'll bring you more from my conversation with the COP
Speaker 1: twenty nine president in a future episode as we get
Speaker 1: into the specifics of how these proposals are likely to
Speaker 1: play out in negotiating sessions. But first it's helpful to
Speaker 1: take a step back to understand how climate finance works
Speaker 1: in the first place, why it's so hard and what
Speaker 1: the most promising solutions seem to be. There's no one
Speaker 1: better equipped to explain all of this than Avinash Parsod.
Speaker 1: He was previously an advisor to Barbados Prime Minister Mia
Speaker 1: Motley and he's someone we've had on the show before.
Speaker 1: In that episode, we talked about how climate finance should
Speaker 1: be thought of in three buckets. The first bucket is
Speaker 1: the largest. It represents big projects that provide big returns,
Speaker 1: say a wind farm or a major investment in drought
Speaker 1: resistant crops. Put money in and get more money out.
Speaker 1: The second bucket represents instruments that make it possible to
Speaker 1: borrow money today from future people, things like government bonds
Speaker 1: that can be used to build sea walls that will
Speaker 1: cost money to day but save a lot more money
Speaker 1: from avoided flooding. And in the third bucket is funds
Speaker 1: to deal with extreme climate impact, like the Loss and
Speaker 1: Damage Fund. We will be hearing a lot about money
Speaker 1: for this bucket has to come in the form of
Speaker 1: grants from rich countries. Avinash has been thinking about this
Speaker 1: problem for a long time, how to make global markets
Speaker 1: work to unlock climate financing, and in his new role
Speaker 1: as special advisor on climate change to the president of
Speaker 1: the Inter American Development Bank. He is putting those ideas
Speaker 1: into action. In this episode, we talk about the kinds
Speaker 1: of poor old global finance solutions that worked in the
Speaker 1: past and why we're still waiting for them to be
Speaker 1: deployed on a larger scale. By the way, this episode
Speaker 1: sits in two buckets. It's a COP twenty nine episode,
Speaker 1: but also part of a new recurring series we are
Speaker 1: calling Moving Money, where we demystify how money gets to
Speaker 1: the right places to deal with climate change. Avinash, welcome
Speaker 1: back to the show.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Now. One thing that is becoming more in or obvious
Speaker 1: to people is that when you run the numbers, it
Speaker 1: has been clear that the cost of climate damage is
Speaker 1: globally will be more than the cost of the solutions
Speaker 1: to tackle it. And yet there is still a bottleneck
Speaker 1: that is typically around money, getting the financing to deploy
Speaker 1: these solutions. You've talked about finance all your life. Why
Speaker 1: is it such a difficult proposition when it makes economic sense.
Speaker 3: Well, it's often because the people who benefit and the
Speaker 3: people who pay are different. And I think that's the
Speaker 3: challenge with climate finance. The whole world benefits and some
Speaker 3: more than others, some more climate runnable than others. And
Speaker 3: we're asking a different set of people who perhaps not
Speaker 3: suffering most from the climate today to make the biggest contribution,
Speaker 3: partly because they have contributed the greatest amount to the
Speaker 3: climate problem through a century of emissions.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: One of the ways of trying to deal with this
Speaker 3: is by breaking it down, breaking down climate finance into
Speaker 3: the three buckets we talked about earlier, and the irony
Speaker 3: is the the smallest bucket is the hardest to fund,
Speaker 3: and that's because it's climate related loss and damage. It's
Speaker 3: estimated to be about one hundred and fifty billion dollars
Speaker 3: per year and rising. The more that we don't mitigate
Speaker 3: the climate, we don't adapt to the changing climate, this
Speaker 3: number gets bigger. But the only really way to address
Speaker 3: that figure is through a cash transfer, and that's the
Speaker 3: hardest thing politically to do. Cash transfers come out of
Speaker 3: aid budgets, and aid budgets they're shrinking, they're not expanding.
Speaker 3: And the total aid in the world of the rich
Speaker 3: countries is around two hundred billion dollars right and we're
Speaker 3: saying that one hundred and fifty billion. It's almost the
Speaker 3: same amount is additionally needed a doubling of aid. Well,
Speaker 3: we're nowhere near the political discourse where there's a doubling
Speaker 3: of aid. Some people are having aid, So that is
Speaker 3: the challenge. And I think that if and this is
Speaker 3: something that to be honest, talking to you at shutters
Speaker 3: help crystallize in my mind, if this is about handing
Speaker 3: around a cap, we're never going to get to these numbers. Therefore,
Speaker 3: we need a systemic mechanism, a mechanism that makes this
Speaker 3: automatic and easy and daily and a key part of
Speaker 3: economic activity. And the thing is that there are actually
Speaker 3: many of these mechanisms around that are actually there that
Speaker 3: many people are completely unaware of it. It's almost like
Speaker 3: there's a there's a plot to make people not be
Speaker 3: aware of them, because it'd be so dangerous people were
Speaker 3: aware of them.
Speaker 1: Well, one of those mechanisms is what we have through
Speaker 1: the cop system, the conference of Parties that happens every year.
Speaker 1: It forces developed countries and developing countries to make plans
Speaker 1: about how finance can flow and will flow to these countries.
Speaker 1: But it feels like every year these two parties butt
Speaker 1: heads and they come up with bigger and bigger numbers
Speaker 1: and very little of that gets delivered. So as we
Speaker 1: go into COP twenty nine, the number right now being
Speaker 1: floated around is one trillion dollars should go annually from
Speaker 1: developed countries to developing countries. If eight budgets are two
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars and not growing, this new figure of
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars, which in COP jargon is being called
Speaker 1: the new Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance NCQG for short.
Speaker 1: First of all, what is this number and how realistic
Speaker 1: is a trillion dollars to be put under that number?
Speaker 3: I think the one trillion dollars, which is a big number,
Speaker 3: is actually the right number. It is the number we
Speaker 3: need of cross border financing, international financing. It's not the
Speaker 3: total number we need for everything, but for the cross
Speaker 3: boarder bit, which is the hard bit, right getting countries
Speaker 3: to contribute to something global and international, not just in
Speaker 3: their own country. So it's good that we are now
Speaker 3: focusing on a real number. One of the challenges of
Speaker 3: the one hundred billion dollars wasn't so much that it
Speaker 3: wasn't achieved for a long time. As it began getting achieved,
Speaker 3: it began becoming irrelevant, right.
Speaker 1: And this one hundred billion is the previous goal that
Speaker 1: was supposed to be reached by twenty twenty but eventually
Speaker 1: reached in twenty twenty two, and that was about developed
Speaker 1: countries putting money towards developing countries, although how you counted
Speaker 1: that hundred billion dollars was also interesting, right, true.
Speaker 3: But I want to segue a little bit about this
Speaker 3: number because when you talk about international agreements and unf
Speaker 3: Triple C and these things, people have a certain fatigue,
Speaker 3: a certain despair, belief that this can't work. We've been
Speaker 3: trying since nineteen ninety two, and I want to juxtapose
Speaker 3: that with things that have worked and do work behind
Speaker 3: the scenes, under the radar and with great irony, I think,
Speaker 3: is the Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. So this is based
Speaker 3: around a disaster, the Tory Canyon disaster when I was
Speaker 3: growing up, and I'm fifty eight, so it actually happened
Speaker 3: before I was born, or just about as I was born,
Speaker 3: but of course I'm not remembering it happening then as
Speaker 3: it happened, but it was such a major disaster in
Speaker 3: the United Kingdom where I was growing up. The people
Speaker 3: were talking about it for a decade later. Ol tanker
Speaker 3: breaks up in the channel, oil is washing ashore on
Speaker 3: the white beaches of Cornwall and Brittany. And bear in
Speaker 3: mind it took thirty years to get a loss and
Speaker 3: damage fund. Within three years Britain and France have managed
Speaker 3: to create an international scheme for which other people are
Speaker 3: going to pay for the cleanup. That is what is possible.
Speaker 3: So now whenever there's an oil spill anywhere in the world,
Speaker 3: every single tanker of oil leaving a port contributes to
Speaker 3: the Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, which makes sure that a
Speaker 3: big chunk of that cost, one hundreds of millions, is
Speaker 3: paid for by this mutualizing of the cost. And another
Speaker 3: mechanism that exists is that every single barrel of oil
Speaker 3: produced in the United States of America, a country that
Speaker 3: believes in low taxation and private enterprise and the state
Speaker 3: not being too medlisome, every single barrel of oil produced
Speaker 3: in America, every single barrel of oil imported into America,
Speaker 3: pays nine cents into the Oil Spill Fund, which currently
Speaker 3: has eight billion dollars. So when we talk about so
Speaker 3: if you want to get one hundred and ninety two
Speaker 3: countries together and ask them to take money and an
Speaker 3: ad hoc bases out of their budgets to other countries. Politically,
Speaker 3: that's very hard. Indeed, we're getting governments that are being
Speaker 3: elected that are being tougher, are being more nationalistic, that
Speaker 3: are talking about building walls, not breaking down walls, and
Speaker 3: providing funding and so that doesn't work. But juxtaposed to
Speaker 3: that are these mechanisms and systems that does raise money
Speaker 3: for pollution. And this is a different kind of pollution
Speaker 3: that we need money for, and we need money on
Speaker 3: the scale of the kinds of moneys that are being
Speaker 3: collected today.
Speaker 1: And do you think these funds that were created decades
Speaker 1: ago where everybody contributes a small sum work because everybody
Speaker 1: could benefit from having access to this fund. So if
Speaker 1: there is an oil spill in the US, the fund
Speaker 1: would trigger and you'd be able to use the money
Speaker 1: to be able to resolve issues back home. Of course,
Speaker 1: the same thing could be true because it could happen
Speaker 1: in Nigeria and you could perhaps use the oil compensation
Speaker 1: fund to try and fund compensation there. But it is
Speaker 1: in everybody's benefit, that's why it's working. Whereas these corp
Speaker 1: finance funds that we are talking about are very much
Speaker 1: a cash Transfer Fund, or as they would say, developing
Speaker 1: countries saying, we deserve this money because we didn't cause
Speaker 1: the problem. You did, and so you're supposed to help
Speaker 1: pay us to try and get clean energy, adapt to warming,
Speaker 1: to deal with the damages that are coming for a
Speaker 1: problem we didn't create it.
Speaker 3: I think that the oil spill funded America is got
Speaker 3: the huge benefit of it being within one country and
Speaker 3: with the force of domestic legislation government. But the Oil
Speaker 3: Pollution Compensation Fund, which actually pre existed the oil spilage Fund,
Speaker 3: is an international agreement, and yes it's about one country
Speaker 3: at a time, but it's about any country that could benefit,
Speaker 3: and it is a genuine no one really knows. Everyone's
Speaker 3: committed to putting money into this fund, even when they
Speaker 3: will not probably benefit from it directly, and so I
Speaker 3: think that shows it's possible. It's a sad fact of
Speaker 3: the day that rich countries observing pollution caused by something
Speaker 3: outside of their country becomes obvious to them that you
Speaker 3: need an international agreement, and they managed to get an
Speaker 3: agreement organized. Well, we need the same thing to support
Speaker 3: climate vulnerable people. And whilst the poorest or the most vulnerable,
Speaker 3: of course, we will all be impacted. And many people
Speaker 3: in rich countries are experiencing the climate today. They're experiencing
Speaker 3: the changing climate, they're experiencing extreme heat in America in Europe.
Speaker 1: After the break, I asked Cabinage where their insurance can
Speaker 1: play a role in helping climate finance, and he warns
Speaker 1: us against magical thinking. So let's look at the three buckets.
Speaker 1: The largest bucket is the bucket in which if you
Speaker 1: put money, you'll get more money out. Typically the bucket
Speaker 1: that is the energy transition where you build solo plants
Speaker 1: or wind turbines or whatnot. It's about four trillion dollars
Speaker 1: on an annual basis. Then there is the second bucket,
Speaker 1: which is money you could borrow from the future to
Speaker 1: try and pay for adapting to climate change now so
Speaker 1: that future people pay less. And that's sort of roughly
Speaker 1: three hundred to four hundred billion dollars on an annual basis.
Speaker 1: And then there's the last bucket, which is the compensation bucket,
Speaker 1: the damages bucket, which is one hundred and fifty billion dollars. Say, now,
Speaker 1: the smallest bucket is still pretty large given the size
Speaker 1: of eight budgets. So what do you think should happen
Speaker 1: at COP twenty nine to make the smallest bucket, the
Speaker 1: Loss and Damage Fund which now exists, actually start to
Speaker 1: become the sort of size that it will have real
Speaker 1: life impact in really protecting or helping people deal with
Speaker 1: the damages that come from a climate impact.
Speaker 3: So I think you've described these buckets really well. Actually,
Speaker 3: I say is shorthand to your better description. Break it
Speaker 3: down into revenue, savings, costs. You know, there's a bucket
Speaker 3: for revenues, there's a bucket for savings where the savings
Speaker 3: are even great than the investment required to generate the savings,
Speaker 3: and it's a bucket for costs. And you're quite right,
Speaker 3: loss and damage it's in that cost bucket. And the
Speaker 3: challenge for this is it can't really be funded any
Speaker 3: other way. There's no revenues, there's no savings. Your low
Speaker 3: income houses are being washed away. You've got to rebuild
Speaker 3: them again in a better place. So this is a
Speaker 3: lot of costs. We can rebuild them better to make
Speaker 3: sure they don't get washed away again. But this is
Speaker 3: a lot of costs. And I think that if the
Speaker 3: fund for Loss and Damage that the un established, the
Speaker 3: UNF triplecy established is an ad hoc fund that passes
Speaker 3: around the cap every three years. We're just never going
Speaker 3: to get to those kinds of numbers one hundred billion
Speaker 3: dollars to two hundred billion dollars. There was an initial
Speaker 3: cap raising that generated seven hundred million dollars, and let's
Speaker 3: not begrudge that's that was organized very quickly immediately, but
Speaker 3: with all the lights blazing on the topic, we raise
Speaker 3: seven hundred million dollars and that was a one off.
Speaker 3: That wasn't a commitment for seven hundred million dollars every year.
Speaker 3: That was one off for the fund. So that's not
Speaker 3: going to work for a fund that needs to respond
Speaker 3: to a loss and damage of a one hundred to
Speaker 3: two hundred billion dollars a year. We need a mechanism.
Speaker 3: Can the un F Triple C come up with that mechanism?
Speaker 3: I think that UNF Triple C plays a very important role,
Speaker 3: but it is not really able to come up with
Speaker 3: those financing mechanisms so easily, and so I think we
Speaker 3: need to explore all the different avenues, but we need
Speaker 3: a mechanism. We need a mechanism like a dollar and
Speaker 3: every barrel of oil, gas and coal equivalent like a
Speaker 3: dollar and every container that is carrying contents that have
Speaker 3: a high carbon content in their production or supply. These
Speaker 3: things will get us the numbers we need. One dollar
Speaker 3: on a barrel of oil, gas and coal equivalent will
Speaker 3: fund loss and damage every year. And what is a
Speaker 3: dollar for a thing that moves in price by more
Speaker 3: than a dollar every week?
Speaker 1: Until that happens. There have been a few ideas that
Speaker 1: have been floated to try and stretch the seven hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars that are there in the loss and damage
Speaker 1: fun today. Now, if rich countries is unable to fund
Speaker 1: one hundred million dollars, now, could they use the seven
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars to try and at least buy insurance
Speaker 1: for developing countries.
Speaker 3: It won't work for a few reasons, but I think
Speaker 3: it's important to dwell a little bit on this because
Speaker 3: the numbers are so big. The politics of sending money
Speaker 3: abroad to foreigner is so difficult that it has led
Speaker 3: to a fertile ground for magical creation of magical solutions.
Speaker 3: The belief that we can create a token a credit
Speaker 3: for carbon reduction or biodiversity support has been around for
Speaker 3: a very long time, and insurance is another one of
Speaker 3: these magical solutions. Let's break this down now, insurance is
Speaker 3: a way of spreading risk. It's not a way of
Speaker 3: removing the risk. At the end of the day, the
Speaker 3: premiums going in and the payments going out have to
Speaker 3: match each other. Now they don't need to match each other.
Speaker 3: On a daily basis, monthly, quarterly, annually. You can spread
Speaker 3: it across different people, spread it across time. But climate
Speaker 3: change is an uninsurable event because you can't spread it
Speaker 3: across time, and you can't spread it across different risks
Speaker 3: in the same way. Why can you not spread it
Speaker 3: across time. You can spread something across time which is infrequent,
Speaker 3: which occurs saying once every ten years, and I pay
Speaker 3: in my premium annually, so I can pay one tenth
Speaker 3: of the cost every year, and on average I've paid
Speaker 3: for the payout. It's much more affordable for me. I
Speaker 3: couldn't afford to write off my car and pay for
Speaker 3: the whole car, but I can though, because this only
Speaker 3: happens to me once every ten or twenty years, I
Speaker 3: could afford to pay in small amounts. So the key
Speaker 3: for insurance is the more time you have, the risk
Speaker 3: is spread over more time. But in climate change. The
Speaker 3: more time you have, the more disasters you have. The
Speaker 3: amount of disasters are increasing in frequency and loss, and
Speaker 3: that means that the more time I have, the bigger
Speaker 3: the premium needs to be to take into account these
Speaker 3: increasing costs. With the increasing frequency, the less not the
Speaker 3: smaller the premium. The other problem about insurance is it's
Speaker 3: annually renewable. So what the insurance companies will say is,
Speaker 3: we can do it this year, knowing that there'll come
Speaker 3: a time they won't do it, perhaps in five years time,
Speaker 3: perhaps in seven years time, where the costs will outstrip
Speaker 3: what people can afford in premiums, and they'll say, well,
Speaker 3: when that happens, I will simply not ensure it. But
Speaker 3: the problem is that leaves the countries, you know, Upper
Speaker 3: Creek without a paddle at the worst possible time. So
Speaker 3: they need to be investing today in resilience because investing
Speaker 3: in resilience takes time. So if in five years time
Speaker 3: you're going to lose the insurance, that's not the time
Speaker 3: to start investing in resilience. You need to use your
Speaker 3: premiums to be investing in resilience today so that in
Speaker 3: five years time you've got a resilience system. Now, could
Speaker 3: you not spread this risk across other risks? That's the
Speaker 3: other way insurance can work. It works especially when people
Speaker 3: don't know your risk and they say, yes, join my pool.
Speaker 3: You people often say, look, there's trillions of dollars of
Speaker 3: risk capital prepared to come in. Well, they're not prepared
Speaker 3: to come in to lose their risk capital. They come
Speaker 3: in to spread it and if they know your risk.
Speaker 3: This is like people who are climate vulnerable are now
Speaker 3: people carrying a pre existing medical condition, and try to
Speaker 3: get insurance with a difficult pre existing medical condition. You
Speaker 3: can't because people know it and they don't want you
Speaker 3: to join their risk pool because you're not averaging out
Speaker 3: the risks, you're raising the average risk. And so the
Speaker 3: fact that it's known as one problem. Here's the other
Speaker 3: problem is that we're getting correlations, mind boggling correlations as a
Speaker 3: result of climate change that we never had before. In
Speaker 3: the island of Barbadi's where I was born, the year
Speaker 3: of flooding used to be a year that you didn't
Speaker 3: have a drought. You had it was a wetter year
Speaker 3: than average, you had floods. Now we're getting the same
Speaker 3: year can be a year of floods and a year
Speaker 3: of drought, and a year of sargassum seaweed growing in
Speaker 3: the warming sea climates, and a year in which the
Speaker 3: fish stock went down because the coral reefs are being bleached.
Speaker 3: So the correlations are rising, so you can't spread it
Speaker 3: across risk or a cross time. And the danger is
Speaker 3: this belief, this belief in magic that somehow insurance as
Speaker 3: will come in and save us. It's a very dangerous
Speaker 3: belief because it means we're not doing the things we
Speaker 3: need to do, mitigating, adapting, building for resilience.
Speaker 1: So we've talked about what the COP system looks like,
Speaker 1: and we've talked about what private finance could start to
Speaker 1: do or is starting to do in some places. But
Speaker 1: COP is upon us, and if funding climate damages, funding
Speaker 1: climate solutions is what this COP twenty nine is going
Speaker 1: to be all about. From your point of view, what
Speaker 1: would make this COP a success.
Speaker 3: People have said that this is the finance COP. As
Speaker 3: someone who's come a little bit late to climate finance,
Speaker 3: I find that slightly odd because it seems every COP
Speaker 3: is the finance anyway, say this is the finance COP,
Speaker 3: because on paper, this is where the new Collective Quantifiable Goal,
Speaker 3: the NCQG. It took me about a year to work
Speaker 3: out what it meant and how to say it fast mugs,
Speaker 3: because everyone said it so fast it was like, what
Speaker 3: do you say, NCQG. This is supposed to be where
Speaker 3: the new NCUG is decided, and at the moment it
Speaker 3: looks bleak. Actually, it looks like we've gone from World
Speaker 3: War two to World War one. People have gone deep
Speaker 3: into the trenches, shooting at each other from very short
Speaker 3: distances and not going anywhere. Developing countries have said the
Speaker 3: number we need is a trillion. Developed countries have said,
Speaker 3: maybe maybe there's a trillion, but that's not coming from
Speaker 3: our budgets. There's no space there that could come from
Speaker 3: an onion of things. The outer layer might be private sector,
Speaker 3: the middle layer might be MDB's, and the inner layer
Speaker 3: maybe government budgets. And I actually think there there is
Speaker 3: a kernel not to stress this.
Speaker 1: Onion onion of success here.
Speaker 2: Yes, I I think that.
Speaker 3: There is a pathway of advance there. But what developing
Speaker 3: countries are saying rightly is okay, you're mentioning things that
Speaker 3: you have no ability to control. Are you not bobbing
Speaker 3: us off with the idea that a private sector will
Speaker 3: be there because a private sector has not come. You
Speaker 3: bobbing us off with the fact that development banks will
Speaker 3: lend because they talk about it, but we're not seeing
Speaker 3: that expansion of lending. So I think that the pathway
Speaker 3: to success would be that we do have an onion,
Speaker 3: but we have some real hard guarantees around it. So
Speaker 3: I think if developed countries were to say sixty seventy
Speaker 3: percent is coming from the private sector, and we are
Speaker 3: going to put up the guarantees that will back sixty
Speaker 3: to seventy percent, and we're going to provide the guarantees
Speaker 3: that will help the MDBs to fill the savings bit
Speaker 3: the two hundred to three hundred billion dollars per year
Speaker 3: that we need for investments and resilience adaptation that can
Speaker 3: be post paid from the savings, and then we're going
Speaker 3: to raise our budgets to do this cost But I
Speaker 3: think that that's the way to get there. I think
Speaker 3: we're converged around the right number. That is good. We've
Speaker 3: converged around the different instruments. What we've not converged on
Speaker 3: is how do we get real commitment from those avenues.
Speaker 1: Well, it is a niche reference, but an onion of
Speaker 1: success actually lands on me because I come from the
Speaker 1: town in India and Nassik, which is known for its onions.
Speaker 1: And if there's a bumper crop of onions that year,
Speaker 1: that makes all of the city very happy. So thank
Speaker 1: you so much. I mean I it's always enlightening to
Speaker 1: get your finance take, especially in this topic, which is
Speaker 1: so complicated but it's so crucial. Thank you so much, Akha,
Speaker 1: thank you for listening to Zero. And now for the
Speaker 1: sound of the week. A heads up. What you're going
Speaker 1: to hear is not a weapon, is the sound of
Speaker 1: the US Mint in Denver producing pennies, coins that today
Speaker 1: cost more to make than the one cent they are worth,
Speaker 1: all part of the strange math of global finance. If
Speaker 1: you like this episode, please take a moment to rate
Speaker 1: and review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. We
Speaker 1: are also on YouTube. Share this episode with a friend
Speaker 1: or with someone who's a penny pincher. You can get
Speaker 1: in touch at zero pod at bloomberg dot net. Zero's
Speaker 1: producer is Mighty le Rao. Bloomberg's head of podcast is
Speaker 1: Sage Bowman and head of Talk is Brendan nunim Pati.
Speaker 1: Music is composed by wonderly special thanks to Matthew Griffin,
Speaker 1: Monique Molima and Jessica Beg. Also a bittersweet final special
Speaker 1: thanks to Ki Bendram, who has been a tireless champion
Speaker 1: of the show from day one and has shaped it
Speaker 1: to be the.
Speaker 2: Show you love.
Speaker 1: She is leaving Bloomberg Green, but not going very far,
Speaker 1: to a new role on Bloomberg Weekend. We will miss
Speaker 1: her and we wish her all the best for her
Speaker 1: future role. I am Akshatrati Back Sir