WEBVTT - COP27 Scorecard Comes Up Short After Overtime 0:00:00.200 --> 0:00:03.199 Hi, this is Dana Perkins and you're listening to Switched 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:06.240 on the b n F podcast. Now, if you're like me, 0:00:06.720 --> 0:00:09.920 you have probably been bombarded with a number of different 0:00:10.000 --> 0:00:13.160 emails and news alerts in perhaps TV programs that addressed 0:00:13.440 --> 0:00:16.560 what did anne did not happen at this year's COP 0:00:16.720 --> 0:00:19.480 our COP twenty seven and Charmel Shake Well, B and 0:00:19.520 --> 0:00:22.320 e F headed into this event, we have a specific 0:00:22.320 --> 0:00:24.680 look at what's happening at the energy transition, and we 0:00:24.720 --> 0:00:27.520 outline the things that we are watching closely to see 0:00:27.520 --> 0:00:29.960 whether or not there has or has not been progress 0:00:30.000 --> 0:00:34.600 made in conversations on a number of key areas. Headed 0:00:34.600 --> 0:00:36.720 into that they get a score one to ten. In 0:00:36.760 --> 0:00:38.840 the middle of the event, they also get a score 0:00:38.880 --> 0:00:41.040 from one to ten, and then following the event, they 0:00:41.040 --> 0:00:43.720 get a score from one to ten. Now, my colleague 0:00:43.840 --> 0:00:46.479 Victoria coming, she's the global head of Policy at b 0:00:46.600 --> 0:00:49.840 n EF. She does this scorecard and she's been doing 0:00:49.880 --> 0:00:53.800 this for well over a dozen years now. Vicky is 0:00:53.840 --> 0:00:56.040 going to be joining us today and talking to us 0:00:56.080 --> 0:00:58.640 about where we got to in COP twenty seven, the 0:00:58.720 --> 0:01:00.640 things that really stood out for her in terms of 0:01:00.680 --> 0:01:03.600 progress and where she thinks that things have gone right, 0:01:04.160 --> 0:01:08.240 as well as where maybe conversations have stalled and she 0:01:08.280 --> 0:01:10.520 wants to see where things are going to go actually 0:01:10.840 --> 0:01:13.440 next year. As a reminder, B and EF does not 0:01:13.520 --> 0:01:16.360 provide investment strategy advice, and you can hear a complete 0:01:16.360 --> 0:01:19.280 disclaimer at the end of the show. Now let's hear 0:01:19.319 --> 0:01:21.520 a little bit more what Vicky thought about what happened 0:01:21.520 --> 0:01:23.479 at COP twenty seven and the things have stood out 0:01:23.520 --> 0:01:26.760 to her as someone who watches every single one of 0:01:26.760 --> 0:01:35.480 these and gives it a scorecard. Vicky, thank you so 0:01:35.560 --> 0:01:37.040 much for coming on the show today to talk to 0:01:37.160 --> 0:01:39.840 us about the most recent COP. Thank you very much 0:01:39.840 --> 0:01:43.959 for having me. So there have been a lot of newsletters, 0:01:44.200 --> 0:01:47.800 news updates, webinars. I've seen all kinds of updates regarding 0:01:47.920 --> 0:01:49.840 what has happened with COP, and we at B an 0:01:50.000 --> 0:01:52.160 F take a kind of specific look at it and 0:01:52.160 --> 0:01:55.840 that we go into it with an idea of what 0:01:55.920 --> 0:01:57.800 it is that we are watching and then at the 0:01:57.880 --> 0:02:00.440 end do a bit of a scorecard. So we'll get 0:02:00.440 --> 0:02:02.680 into the different You know, you have nine metrics son 0:02:02.880 --> 0:02:05.920 which you graded and gave a score to this particular cup, 0:02:06.840 --> 0:02:10.720 but just generally, what were some of your expectations this 0:02:10.800 --> 0:02:15.760 year COP we expected and indeed was very different kettle 0:02:15.800 --> 0:02:20.040 of fish to say, Copy COP twenty six was the 0:02:20.080 --> 0:02:24.040 fifth COP after the one where the Paris agreement was settled, 0:02:24.360 --> 0:02:26.120 and so there was a lot of fanfare. There was 0:02:26.160 --> 0:02:29.160 a lot of initiatives announced and new targets, and there 0:02:29.200 --> 0:02:32.640 was bolder ambition, and we didn't expect that to happen 0:02:32.720 --> 0:02:36.919 again in Shashaike. We expected more of a kind of 0:02:37.040 --> 0:02:40.840 detailed discussions of how they were actually going to achieve 0:02:40.919 --> 0:02:44.320 all of those commitments and initiatives that were announced in Glasgow. 0:02:44.760 --> 0:02:50.080 Hence why the host Egypt framed it as Implementation COP. Okay, 0:02:50.200 --> 0:02:53.040 it was meant to be the implementation Cup, and yet 0:02:53.639 --> 0:02:56.799 things in some areas made backslided. But let's start off 0:02:56.840 --> 0:02:58.720 with the sunny stuff. We're sitting here, we're looking for 0:02:58.760 --> 0:03:01.320 glimmers of hope. What was the thing that emerged that 0:03:01.560 --> 0:03:04.280 surprised you? Maybe there are more than one that you 0:03:04.320 --> 0:03:06.760 didn't expect to get discussed this couple. We maybe made 0:03:06.800 --> 0:03:10.160 some progress, So let's start with the optimistic things. In 0:03:10.280 --> 0:03:12.680 terms of what surprised me, I think that the number 0:03:12.720 --> 0:03:16.240 one thing is that parties agreed to set up some 0:03:16.360 --> 0:03:19.680 kind of loss and Damage Fund. So that's a specific 0:03:19.760 --> 0:03:23.800 kind of funding mechanism dedicated to support for developing countries 0:03:23.880 --> 0:03:28.040 to address loss and damage from unavoidable climate change. And 0:03:28.200 --> 0:03:32.240 this issue has been discussed for many years with no progress. 0:03:32.240 --> 0:03:34.960 So on the one side you had developing countries really 0:03:35.080 --> 0:03:38.720 arguing for such a facility, and then other side we 0:03:38.800 --> 0:03:42.720 had developed countries, especially the US and the EU, are 0:03:42.760 --> 0:03:45.160 really adamant that they didn't want to have any form 0:03:45.200 --> 0:03:48.040 of specific funding for loss and damage. And one of 0:03:48.040 --> 0:03:50.360 the main reasons whilst they didn't want to leave themselves 0:03:50.400 --> 0:03:54.120 open to claims of compensation, they didn't really want to 0:03:54.320 --> 0:04:00.400 open that Pandora's box. However, that you host African Shiating 0:04:00.480 --> 0:04:04.880 Group and developing countries in general really wanted this to 0:04:04.920 --> 0:04:07.880 be agreed in CHAML shake. With the kind of long 0:04:07.960 --> 0:04:12.760 campaigning with NGOs and civil society as well as governments, 0:04:12.800 --> 0:04:15.920 they were successful and they managed to reach an agreement 0:04:15.960 --> 0:04:18.839 on such a fund. There are kind of lots of 0:04:18.920 --> 0:04:22.400 questions to be answered, what exactly does loss and damage mean, 0:04:22.839 --> 0:04:25.040 and who is going to be contributing to this fund 0:04:25.240 --> 0:04:28.240 and who's going to benefit from this fund. So there 0:04:28.279 --> 0:04:30.320 was kind of nuance wording around this which we can 0:04:30.360 --> 0:04:33.680 get into about who was going to contribute and who's 0:04:33.680 --> 0:04:37.400 going to benefit, and I think the nuance there was 0:04:37.760 --> 0:04:41.720 concessions to the rich countries to get them to actually agree. 0:04:42.320 --> 0:04:43.920 Why do you think this was the year that last 0:04:43.920 --> 0:04:46.960 and damage came to the table and there was progress 0:04:47.000 --> 0:04:48.960 made on it, because as you noted, it was kicked 0:04:48.960 --> 0:04:52.599 around year after year, and this then became the year 0:04:52.680 --> 0:04:55.520 that that's the phrase that people are really talking about 0:04:55.560 --> 0:04:58.800 a lot right now this week. So I think there 0:04:58.839 --> 0:05:01.000 are several reasons. One of them is that we are 0:05:01.080 --> 0:05:06.320 increasingly seeing the impact in practice of climate change. So 0:05:06.360 --> 0:05:09.560 we had the floods in Pakistan, and we've had extreme 0:05:09.560 --> 0:05:13.719 weather events around the world, so it really is unavoidable 0:05:13.800 --> 0:05:17.159 to seeing these real life impacts, and I think that 0:05:17.520 --> 0:05:21.360 was fuel for these developing country governments to really argue 0:05:21.440 --> 0:05:24.200 for it. It does help if you have a house 0:05:24.279 --> 0:05:28.960 country that's also supporting it. So what happened in Glasgow 0:05:29.120 --> 0:05:31.320 was that the issue was raised and asked to be 0:05:31.360 --> 0:05:34.400 included in the official agenda of copy but it was 0:05:34.440 --> 0:05:38.400 blocked by various developed country parties, whereas this time it 0:05:38.560 --> 0:05:41.280 was actually included on the agenda. And when we saw that, 0:05:42.080 --> 0:05:45.280 we thought oh, actually, maybe they'll reach agreement this time. 0:05:45.680 --> 0:05:47.800 So where do we go from here? In that it's 0:05:47.839 --> 0:05:51.240 been established and there has been commitments made to create 0:05:51.320 --> 0:05:54.039 this fund, but presumably there's a lot of work that 0:05:54.080 --> 0:05:57.040 needs to be done between this year and this time 0:05:57.080 --> 0:06:00.280 next year. What are the different inflection points, if you will, 0:06:00.360 --> 0:06:02.400 and markers along the next year do you think will 0:06:02.440 --> 0:06:06.039 take place? What they agreed? Do you have two weeks 0:06:06.040 --> 0:06:09.480 of discussion the main kind of agreement decision text which 0:06:09.520 --> 0:06:11.440 is called the cover decision, and this year it's called 0:06:11.440 --> 0:06:14.880 the Charmashak Implementation Plan. You will actually only get to 0:06:14.880 --> 0:06:18.279 say twelve lines about each item. We don't know that 0:06:18.400 --> 0:06:20.120 much detail. We do know that they're going to set 0:06:20.160 --> 0:06:22.680 up what they call a transitional committee that's going to 0:06:22.800 --> 0:06:25.919 look at things like the scope. So there are lots 0:06:25.960 --> 0:06:29.240 of funding streams all around cop and they want to 0:06:29.240 --> 0:06:32.080 look at existing mechanisms and whether those could feed into 0:06:32.080 --> 0:06:35.359 this new fund. They need to look at who is 0:06:35.360 --> 0:06:37.479 going to contribute to this fund. I think one of 0:06:37.560 --> 0:06:40.960 the concessions that the EU and the US are goued 0:06:41.080 --> 0:06:44.120 for was to make it clear that it wasn't just 0:06:44.320 --> 0:06:47.719 going to be annexed one parties that developed country parties 0:06:47.760 --> 0:06:50.919 who would contribute to this fund, especially, they wanted to 0:06:51.440 --> 0:06:55.720 leave the door open to say China contributing. So really, historically, 0:06:55.920 --> 0:06:59.000 developed countries and X one parties have been the ones 0:06:59.040 --> 0:07:02.919 responsible for hiding climate finance to developing countries, with the 0:07:03.000 --> 0:07:06.800 argument being that developed country parties were responsible for the 0:07:06.800 --> 0:07:13.280 bulk of historical greenhouse gas emissions. However, some emerging economies, 0:07:13.320 --> 0:07:17.400 so there's those classified with the name non annexed one parties, 0:07:17.840 --> 0:07:20.840 actually account for a sizeable share of emissions, not just 0:07:21.200 --> 0:07:25.560 now increasingly, but also historically. So China accounted for something 0:07:25.640 --> 0:07:29.880 like fourteen percent of historical emissions since seventeen fifty, the 0:07:29.960 --> 0:07:33.920 EU accounted for sixteen percent, so only two percentage point more. 0:07:34.600 --> 0:07:37.800 And similarly there are Russia, for example, is not on 0:07:37.840 --> 0:07:41.360 the line for bribing climate finance historically, but it's accounted 0:07:41.400 --> 0:07:46.080 for seven percent for historical emissions. So that is one 0:07:46.120 --> 0:07:49.120 of the I think going to be controversial points. And 0:07:49.160 --> 0:07:52.440 then the other things that who benefits from this fund. 0:07:52.840 --> 0:07:55.560 There's wording in the text about developing countries that are 0:07:55.600 --> 0:07:58.760 vulnerable to climate change are the rich countries. Wanted to 0:07:58.760 --> 0:08:02.400 make it clear that it wasn't necessarily going to benefit China, 0:08:02.640 --> 0:08:05.679 that's the aim anyway, What about other countries that also 0:08:05.840 --> 0:08:08.840 sit on the G twenty which incidentally took place the 0:08:08.920 --> 0:08:11.720 kind of right in the middle of Cup twenty seven, 0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:14.640 so you had all of these negotiations happening and in 0:08:14.720 --> 0:08:17.200 some places actually converging a little bit. So I'm thinking 0:08:17.200 --> 0:08:19.760 of other countries that actually exist on that list, which 0:08:19.800 --> 0:08:24.200 includes the Lakes of India or Indonesia, and do they 0:08:24.280 --> 0:08:26.800 sit on the side of the list that actually funds 0:08:27.400 --> 0:08:31.560 or receives benefit from the lost and damage funding. So 0:08:31.680 --> 0:08:35.480 that is the big question. What the Transitional Committee will 0:08:35.520 --> 0:08:37.840 need to do is draw up probably what will end 0:08:37.920 --> 0:08:40.520 up being a very long report, which will then be 0:08:40.679 --> 0:08:42.760 up for discussion at COP twenty eight at the end 0:08:42.760 --> 0:08:45.679 of next year. So it's not yet clear. From a 0:08:45.760 --> 0:08:49.000 historical perspective of Indonesia, accounting of a very small share 0:08:49.080 --> 0:08:52.840 less than one percent of historical emissions, India is about 0:08:52.960 --> 0:08:57.320 the same as Japan, so we could see arguments that 0:08:57.360 --> 0:09:00.200 they would need to start contributing. I think that in 0:09:00.280 --> 0:09:03.280 the Indian government would argue strongly that would not be 0:09:03.320 --> 0:09:06.520 the case. It's funny in discussions of the climate negotiations, 0:09:06.559 --> 0:09:09.840 people often put China in India together as being the same. 0:09:10.240 --> 0:09:12.839 But actually if you look not just in the share 0:09:12.880 --> 0:09:15.240 of historical emissions, but if you look at st GDP 0:09:15.360 --> 0:09:18.520 per capita, that's very different. They will also need to 0:09:18.559 --> 0:09:22.120 take into account that funding ability of these countries as well, 0:09:22.559 --> 0:09:25.480 and has there been a lot of conversation around what 0:09:25.679 --> 0:09:29.840 funding towards loss and damage would mean in regard to 0:09:29.920 --> 0:09:32.719 funds that are maybe not available for mitigation and kind 0:09:32.720 --> 0:09:35.160 of plugging the whole as opposed to finding the source 0:09:35.200 --> 0:09:38.800 of the week. In the Chamel Shake implementation plant, one 0:09:38.800 --> 0:09:41.760 thing it does specify is that funds should be new 0:09:41.760 --> 0:09:46.600 and additional because developing countries are very keen that developed 0:09:46.600 --> 0:09:49.199 countries don't just take the funds that had previously been 0:09:49.200 --> 0:09:53.280 targeted at reducing emissions that what we call mitigation or 0:09:53.360 --> 0:09:56.000 adapting to the effects of climate change, so that they're 0:09:56.040 --> 0:09:58.920 due to be on top of these funds. So let's 0:09:58.960 --> 0:10:02.640 talk about how from one cop to the next. And actually, Vickie, 0:10:02.640 --> 0:10:05.400 how long have you been covering cops at bien EF 0:10:05.880 --> 0:10:09.000 BIENF since I started, So like the very beginning of 0:10:09.120 --> 0:10:13.040 twenty ten. It's just after we've had a Copenhagen. So 0:10:13.120 --> 0:10:16.959 since you have been covering COPS since Copenhagen. This actually 0:10:17.040 --> 0:10:20.240 provides a really great frame of reference in terms of 0:10:20.280 --> 0:10:23.120 time and actually activities. So if we rewind the clock, 0:10:23.160 --> 0:10:26.600 we can actually talk about the one hundred billion dollar 0:10:26.760 --> 0:10:30.000 climate finance target that was set. And actually that was 0:10:30.040 --> 0:10:31.600 one of the things that you had your eye on 0:10:31.720 --> 0:10:34.600 headed into copy for your report card when you were 0:10:34.600 --> 0:10:37.520 looking at where we may or may not be making progress. 0:10:38.160 --> 0:10:40.040 So it would be really interesting to hear where we 0:10:40.080 --> 0:10:43.560 actually got to on that, in particular in context around 0:10:43.920 --> 0:10:47.280 loss and damage and maybe what we might think about 0:10:47.600 --> 0:10:49.800 when we're trying to get this right, because it's one 0:10:49.880 --> 0:10:53.520 thing to be funding certain activities at a COP and 0:10:53.600 --> 0:10:55.800 one thing, I guess a little bit different to actually 0:10:56.200 --> 0:10:59.319 do it in the end. Yes, indeed, and that's the 0:10:59.360 --> 0:11:03.200 concerning because developed countries don't really have a great track 0:11:03.280 --> 0:11:06.400 record in terms of delivering on their climate finance commitments. 0:11:07.120 --> 0:11:11.560 So they made this commitment in Copenhagen to deliver on 0:11:11.600 --> 0:11:16.120 a hundred billion dollars a year of climate finance by 0:11:16.520 --> 0:11:19.559 and we now know that they did not meet that commitment. 0:11:19.880 --> 0:11:24.360 They delivered some eighty three billion dollars. We suspected as 0:11:24.440 --> 0:11:27.640 much in Glasgow last year, but unfortunately the climate packed 0:11:27.920 --> 0:11:31.560 there was fairly weak. So it urged developed countries to 0:11:31.640 --> 0:11:37.360 meet this target through five. And what was irksome about 0:11:37.400 --> 0:11:40.720 that was because the O et D had published scenarios 0:11:40.800 --> 0:11:43.480 as to when they thought developed countries could meet this 0:11:43.559 --> 0:11:47.760 target and they said three, so they gave two extra years. 0:11:48.440 --> 0:11:52.319 And then what's additionally ACM is that in the Charmelshak 0:11:52.400 --> 0:11:57.160 Implementation Plan there is no deadline, so it urges them 0:11:57.160 --> 0:12:00.080 again to meet this. But unfortunately, if we're going to 0:12:00.080 --> 0:12:02.360 take this as an evidence of whether or not they 0:12:02.400 --> 0:12:05.400 will deliver on the lost and damage funding, things don't 0:12:05.440 --> 0:12:13.320 look great now for a very short break stay with us. Okay. 0:12:13.360 --> 0:12:15.559 So another thing that when we've alluded to and then 0:12:15.679 --> 0:12:18.400 let's discuss it, so CUP twenty and the G twenty 0:12:18.480 --> 0:12:21.239 there's a little bit of overlap and there were discussions 0:12:21.320 --> 0:12:24.520 at the G twenty that aligned very well with a 0:12:24.520 --> 0:12:27.600 lot of the dialogue at C. That's the just Energy 0:12:27.600 --> 0:12:30.600 Transition Partnership. And are they referring to that is the 0:12:30.720 --> 0:12:33.800 g TEP or the g e t P, A jet P, 0:12:34.280 --> 0:12:37.240 the jet we were told by the US government. Okay, 0:12:37.280 --> 0:12:40.040 so the jet P, can you tell me, what is 0:12:40.160 --> 0:12:42.800 the jet P. So the jet P is an example 0:12:42.840 --> 0:12:45.360 of what they call a country platform. So this is 0:12:45.440 --> 0:12:50.640 this new kind of approach or framework where one developing 0:12:50.679 --> 0:12:54.800 country will reach an agreement with various developed countries who 0:12:54.840 --> 0:12:58.520 agree to provide a certain amount of funding but also 0:12:58.720 --> 0:13:03.319 to support the developed country to design a strategy to decarbonize. 0:13:03.440 --> 0:13:06.400 And generally they focused on the energy sector, but sometimes 0:13:06.480 --> 0:13:10.880 additional sectors like the transport and hydrogen say, and these 0:13:10.920 --> 0:13:13.439 seem to be growing in popularity so far. There was 0:13:13.440 --> 0:13:18.280 announcements relating to Egypt, there was the announcement last year 0:13:18.320 --> 0:13:21.720 related to South Africa and they've made some progress on 0:13:21.760 --> 0:13:24.520 that in the last year, and there was also the 0:13:24.600 --> 0:13:29.120 Indonesian one that was announced this year. The jet P exactly, okay, 0:13:29.200 --> 0:13:31.800 so you can expect these to happen every year. I 0:13:31.800 --> 0:13:34.720 would expect to see more of them happen. I think 0:13:34.760 --> 0:13:38.320 we would see more of them happen, especially if we 0:13:38.360 --> 0:13:42.320 actually see some of these strategies lead to funding being 0:13:42.320 --> 0:13:46.520 actually provided, handing it over, and more importantly, the projects 0:13:46.640 --> 0:13:50.080 actually being done in real life. So far, it's all 0:13:50.400 --> 0:13:53.920 on paper. There's kind of strategies being developed and strategies 0:13:54.000 --> 0:13:57.199 to develop strategies being developed, so hopefully soon we'll actually 0:13:57.200 --> 0:14:00.040 see in some actual climate action. Now, it was the 0:14:00.120 --> 0:14:03.400 volatility that we've seen with energy prices around the world. 0:14:03.640 --> 0:14:05.880 I assume that were was a great deal of talk 0:14:06.040 --> 0:14:10.120 regarding both energy priverty and energy security at this year's Cup. 0:14:10.440 --> 0:14:13.640 How did it feature. It's funny really, because there was 0:14:14.040 --> 0:14:19.920 discussions in various parties, say, statements of some of the 0:14:20.000 --> 0:14:22.360 various pressures that they have been facing, whether it's the 0:14:22.440 --> 0:14:26.280 energy crisis and or food security crisis, and the need 0:14:26.320 --> 0:14:29.200 to take account of these pressures in the same way 0:14:29.200 --> 0:14:32.280 as in previous years, especially in Glasgow, they talked about 0:14:32.320 --> 0:14:35.440 the COVID nineteen pandemic. So these were all noted in 0:14:35.480 --> 0:14:39.960 the Charmel Shake implementation plan. The cop doesn't tend to 0:14:40.000 --> 0:14:46.200 focus on ulstering energy security directly. Rather its focuses on decarbonizing. 0:14:46.840 --> 0:14:50.360 But these kind of pressures will always affect what kind 0:14:50.360 --> 0:14:53.280 of commitments parties are willing to make actually on the ground. 0:14:53.680 --> 0:14:55.960 So one of the things that came up last year 0:14:56.080 --> 0:14:59.320 in Glasgow was Article sex and this is the conversation 0:14:59.480 --> 0:15:03.000 around carbon markets. Given that this was meant to be 0:15:03.040 --> 0:15:05.760 the implementation Cup, what progress did or didn't we make 0:15:06.120 --> 0:15:10.560 on Article six and carbon specifically this year. So Articles 0:15:10.640 --> 0:15:15.240 six is articles of the Paris Agreement, and this part 0:15:15.320 --> 0:15:19.120 of the deal is meant to help devise mechanisms that 0:15:19.160 --> 0:15:22.480 will allow parties to cooperate in order to meet their 0:15:22.640 --> 0:15:27.560 climate targets. So Article six point two is where parties 0:15:27.640 --> 0:15:30.920 can agree by lateral deals to exchange what they call 0:15:31.440 --> 0:15:39.000 internationally transferred mitigation outcomes, which are generally like emission reduction credits, 0:15:39.280 --> 0:15:41.800 in order to help the other party the buy a 0:15:41.920 --> 0:15:44.960 party to actually achieve their targets. And then the other 0:15:45.000 --> 0:15:47.360 one is Article six point four, and that's for a 0:15:47.360 --> 0:15:50.640 new global offset trading program, a bit like you might 0:15:50.680 --> 0:15:53.880 have heard of the U N Clean Development Mechanism. So 0:15:54.040 --> 0:15:57.120 we did make good progress in Glasgow. There were some 0:15:57.440 --> 0:16:01.200 relic issues that had taken years of aciations that they 0:16:01.240 --> 0:16:04.920 actually reached agreement on, but there were some very kind 0:16:04.920 --> 0:16:08.320 of detailed mechanistic things that they needed to agree on 0:16:08.360 --> 0:16:12.720 and shall not shake. However they didn't. Unfortunately, parties were 0:16:12.800 --> 0:16:16.440 unable to reach a consensus on many of these issues. 0:16:16.600 --> 0:16:19.760 So about halfway through the kind of working group that 0:16:19.880 --> 0:16:23.800 was looking at this issue specifically issued draft texts which 0:16:23.880 --> 0:16:27.360 essentially said they couldn't agree, and these went forward and 0:16:27.400 --> 0:16:31.520 were ultimately adopted. So in essence, they agreed that they 0:16:31.520 --> 0:16:34.800 would discuss all these issues again, cocked and eight. So 0:16:34.920 --> 0:16:37.320 they keep the count down the road unfortunately, and the 0:16:37.360 --> 0:16:40.600 door is still open. Oh yes, absolutely, I think Article 0:16:40.680 --> 0:16:44.080 six point two deals are starting to happen more frequently, 0:16:44.440 --> 0:16:47.720 these bilateral deals. The real kind of issues when the 0:16:48.080 --> 0:16:51.200 Article six point for this new global offset market mechanism 0:16:51.240 --> 0:16:55.120 actually can begin. Given these further delays, and so perhaps 0:16:55.120 --> 0:16:57.280 the most important thing, at least in my mind as 0:16:57.320 --> 0:16:58.880 you head into a carp is how are we doing 0:16:58.920 --> 0:17:03.680 against the emissions reduction targets that so many countries have stated? 0:17:04.000 --> 0:17:06.639 How are we doing? Especially given that last year's mantra 0:17:06.960 --> 0:17:11.200 was keep one point five alive? And increasingly I am 0:17:11.240 --> 0:17:15.960 seeing headlines and I'm seeing industry insiders talking a little 0:17:15.960 --> 0:17:19.120 bit about Okay, I'm not really sure. I fully see 0:17:19.160 --> 0:17:23.159 the pathway and that door is closing. Where did we 0:17:23.240 --> 0:17:26.639 get to in Charmel Shaik in relation to whether or 0:17:26.680 --> 0:17:29.280 not that door is open A crack for one point five? 0:17:29.760 --> 0:17:32.320 I think it was well summarized by the COP twenty 0:17:32.400 --> 0:17:36.200 six president this year at the end of cope A 0:17:36.320 --> 0:17:39.080 look Chama, he said that one point five is now 0:17:39.119 --> 0:17:43.280 on life support, and I think that's very much shown 0:17:43.359 --> 0:17:45.960 by the commitments that have been made in terms of 0:17:46.000 --> 0:17:50.920 emission reduction targets for thirty by parties. So the UN 0:17:51.000 --> 0:17:55.840 produces each year synthesis report of the climate plans, and 0:17:55.880 --> 0:17:58.480 it looks like even if those were achieved, and even 0:17:58.560 --> 0:18:01.960 if the pledges that are conditional and financial or technical 0:18:02.000 --> 0:18:05.960 support to achieved, we're still nowhere near even a two 0:18:05.960 --> 0:18:11.760 degrees target. However, well, some people might say that what's 0:18:11.760 --> 0:18:14.840 the point in continuing to use the rhetoric around one 0:18:14.880 --> 0:18:18.639 point five degrees that's definitely not going to happen. I 0:18:18.680 --> 0:18:21.639 would say that even if we don't think it's going 0:18:21.680 --> 0:18:24.600 to happen, and certainly based on current commitments and current 0:18:24.600 --> 0:18:27.199 action on the ground, it's not going to happen, I 0:18:27.240 --> 0:18:29.880 would still say that we should still be aiming for 0:18:29.920 --> 0:18:34.960 that target and strive towards it, because the alternative is 0:18:35.000 --> 0:18:37.880 that we reduce our target and say, okay, we'll aim 0:18:38.000 --> 0:18:41.239 for two or three degrees, and then we miss that. 0:18:41.760 --> 0:18:45.920 So I think it's still is meaningful to start talk 0:18:45.960 --> 0:18:48.720 about this one point five degrees and what the laws 0:18:48.720 --> 0:18:51.639 in damage conversation I think really brings to the forefront 0:18:51.680 --> 0:18:55.440 here is that for every part of a degree that 0:18:55.480 --> 0:18:57.359 we don't end up hitting, there is going to be 0:18:57.400 --> 0:19:01.760 increasing pressure to fund that loss and damage side of 0:19:01.760 --> 0:19:05.359 the equation. More and more so that battle between mitigation 0:19:05.640 --> 0:19:08.520 and to some degrees adaptation or actually in the lost 0:19:08.520 --> 0:19:12.840 and damage category really just reacting to things that are happening, 0:19:13.000 --> 0:19:16.479 all of which cost money. Exactly, by agreeing to a 0:19:16.480 --> 0:19:20.240 loss and damage fund, developed countries have in essence put 0:19:20.400 --> 0:19:25.199 more pressure on themselves to propose more ambitious commitments and 0:19:25.240 --> 0:19:28.280 actually achieved them and therefore in theory reduced the loss 0:19:28.280 --> 0:19:31.280 and damage funding that would need to be produced. Now. Also, 0:19:31.359 --> 0:19:34.080 something that happened last year is this Global Methane Pledge 0:19:34.119 --> 0:19:37.640 or methane depending upon your accent and how British I'm 0:19:37.640 --> 0:19:40.600 feeling on the day, So methane methane, Where did we 0:19:40.600 --> 0:19:43.440 get to? So actually, out of all the kind of 0:19:43.480 --> 0:19:47.480 many initiatives that were announced in Glasgow along with the jetps, 0:19:47.840 --> 0:19:51.440 we can see more action happening. So various countries that 0:19:51.520 --> 0:19:55.000 signed up to the pledge have met between Copton six 0:19:55.600 --> 0:19:59.919 seven and they're starting to design pathways or strategies focus 0:20:00.160 --> 0:20:04.320 on individual sectors of how they could achieve this meeting pledge, 0:20:04.359 --> 0:20:09.920 which is to collectively reduce methane emissions by as well 0:20:09.960 --> 0:20:14.320 as the kind of initiatives and discussions between governments, we're 0:20:14.359 --> 0:20:18.920 also seeing actual individual governments take action and implement policies 0:20:19.080 --> 0:20:22.240 to even reduce the mission pen thean emissions specifically, so 0:20:22.840 --> 0:20:26.280 the US, Canada, the EU, they're all actually starting to 0:20:26.280 --> 0:20:29.520 implement domestic policy as well, you know, and equally on forestry, 0:20:29.600 --> 0:20:32.760 which is our our world's lungs as many people point out, 0:20:32.800 --> 0:20:36.400 but also this incredible source of carbon capture. What has 0:20:36.440 --> 0:20:38.560 happened this year on forestry in terms of kind of 0:20:38.680 --> 0:20:42.800 nature and biodiversity more broadly, One of the first that 0:20:42.880 --> 0:20:46.560 we did see in this COPE text was more recognition 0:20:46.760 --> 0:20:50.119 of the need to address by diversity loss and nature 0:20:50.359 --> 0:20:52.920 and the fact that it overlaps with the need to 0:20:52.960 --> 0:20:56.480 address climate change. In terms of forestry specifically, there was 0:20:56.600 --> 0:20:59.359 for the first time a dedicated section of the COP 0:20:59.359 --> 0:21:04.000 twenty seven text for forestry, and one of the initiatives 0:21:04.000 --> 0:21:07.160 that we actually saw last year that is also continuing 0:21:07.240 --> 0:21:10.280 this year is around this kind of declaration to halt 0:21:10.600 --> 0:21:14.280 forestry loss, and some of the countries signed up to 0:21:14.280 --> 0:21:18.400 the partnership last year are starting to embark on substantive 0:21:18.440 --> 0:21:22.000 discussions to achieve that pledge in order to meet the 0:21:22.080 --> 0:21:25.040 stated emissions production targets. In order to keep one point 0:21:25.080 --> 0:21:29.200 five or anything sub two degrees on life support. There 0:21:29.320 --> 0:21:34.360 is a commonly understood rhetoric around the need for us 0:21:34.440 --> 0:21:38.240 to really phase out coal and to think about also 0:21:38.280 --> 0:21:42.679 electrifying large parts of the energy system, and variably we 0:21:42.840 --> 0:21:44.880 at B and the F for looking at the energy transition. 0:21:44.960 --> 0:21:46.920 So that's really the focus of what we're looking at 0:21:46.920 --> 0:21:48.560 when we look at this CUP. But when we talk 0:21:48.640 --> 0:21:52.159 about coal, qualified power stations have actually kind of come 0:21:52.200 --> 0:21:53.639 back a little bit this year with a lot of 0:21:53.680 --> 0:21:57.600 the issues around energy security in pricing. What sort of 0:21:57.640 --> 0:22:01.280 impact did that ham do you think? And the conversations 0:22:01.400 --> 0:22:05.520 at CUP twenty seven around coal and the progress maybe 0:22:05.600 --> 0:22:08.840 we made or didn't make on phase out plans. The 0:22:09.040 --> 0:22:13.200 kind of short answer is the Charms Shake text reiterates 0:22:13.200 --> 0:22:15.880 what was in the Glasgow Climate Packed that this commitment 0:22:15.880 --> 0:22:20.159 to phase down unabated coal. Again this year, there was 0:22:20.200 --> 0:22:22.880 a long discussion about whether the phase down should be 0:22:23.040 --> 0:22:24.880 a phase out, which has deemed to be a kind 0:22:24.880 --> 0:22:30.160 of more ambitious option, and also whether we could extend 0:22:30.160 --> 0:22:34.560 that from unabated cult to unabated fossil fuels. So, for example, India, 0:22:34.640 --> 0:22:37.640 the e various other annexed one parties were really pushing 0:22:37.680 --> 0:22:43.359 for that. However, that got pushed back from developing countries 0:22:43.520 --> 0:22:47.119 who have recently discovered oil and gas reserves themselves and 0:22:47.160 --> 0:22:51.280 would like to explore them. And also, as often happens 0:22:51.280 --> 0:22:54.040 that the kind of oil and gas producers, so say 0:22:54.200 --> 0:22:57.840 Russia Saudi Arabia were adamant that it wasn't going to 0:22:57.880 --> 0:23:01.520 be extended to fossil fuels. We didn't see say some 0:23:01.640 --> 0:23:05.000 European countries that have had to restart cold power plants 0:23:05.119 --> 0:23:08.840 or have to differ their phase out plans temporarily because 0:23:09.000 --> 0:23:12.159