Speaker 1: Hi, this is Dana Perkins and you're listening to Switched
Speaker 1: on the b n F podcast. Now, if you're like me,
Speaker 1: you have probably been bombarded with a number of different
Speaker 1: emails and news alerts in perhaps TV programs that addressed
Speaker 1: what did anne did not happen at this year's COP
Speaker 1: our COP twenty seven and Charmel Shake Well, B and
Speaker 1: e F headed into this event, we have a specific
Speaker 1: look at what's happening at the energy transition, and we
Speaker 1: outline the things that we are watching closely to see
Speaker 1: whether or not there has or has not been progress
Speaker 1: made in conversations on a number of key areas. Headed
Speaker 1: into that they get a score one to ten. In
Speaker 1: the middle of the event, they also get a score
Speaker 1: from one to ten, and then following the event, they
Speaker 1: get a score from one to ten. Now, my colleague
Speaker 1: Victoria coming, she's the global head of Policy at b
Speaker 1: n EF. She does this scorecard and she's been doing
Speaker 1: this for well over a dozen years now. Vicky is
Speaker 1: going to be joining us today and talking to us
Speaker 1: about where we got to in COP twenty seven, the
Speaker 1: things that really stood out for her in terms of
Speaker 1: progress and where she thinks that things have gone right,
Speaker 1: as well as where maybe conversations have stalled and she
Speaker 1: wants to see where things are going to go actually
Speaker 1: next year. As a reminder, B and EF does not
Speaker 1: provide investment strategy advice, and you can hear a complete
Speaker 1: disclaimer at the end of the show. Now let's hear
Speaker 1: a little bit more what Vicky thought about what happened
Speaker 1: at COP twenty seven and the things have stood out
Speaker 1: to her as someone who watches every single one of
Speaker 1: these and gives it a scorecard. Vicky, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for coming on the show today to talk to
Speaker 1: us about the most recent COP. Thank you very much
Speaker 1: for having me. So there have been a lot of newsletters,
Speaker 1: news updates, webinars. I've seen all kinds of updates regarding
Speaker 1: what has happened with COP, and we at B an
Speaker 1: F take a kind of specific look at it and
Speaker 1: that we go into it with an idea of what
Speaker 1: it is that we are watching and then at the
Speaker 1: end do a bit of a scorecard. So we'll get
Speaker 1: into the different You know, you have nine metrics son
Speaker 1: which you graded and gave a score to this particular cup,
Speaker 1: but just generally, what were some of your expectations this
Speaker 1: year COP we expected and indeed was very different kettle
Speaker 1: of fish to say, Copy COP twenty six was the
Speaker 1: fifth COP after the one where the Paris agreement was settled,
Speaker 1: and so there was a lot of fanfare. There was
Speaker 1: a lot of initiatives announced and new targets, and there
Speaker 1: was bolder ambition, and we didn't expect that to happen
Speaker 1: again in Shashaike. We expected more of a kind of
Speaker 1: detailed discussions of how they were actually going to achieve
Speaker 1: all of those commitments and initiatives that were announced in Glasgow.
Speaker 1: Hence why the host Egypt framed it as Implementation COP. Okay,
Speaker 1: it was meant to be the implementation Cup, and yet
Speaker 1: things in some areas made backslided. But let's start off
Speaker 1: with the sunny stuff. We're sitting here, we're looking for
Speaker 1: glimmers of hope. What was the thing that emerged that
Speaker 1: surprised you? Maybe there are more than one that you
Speaker 1: didn't expect to get discussed this couple. We maybe made
Speaker 1: some progress, So let's start with the optimistic things. In
Speaker 1: terms of what surprised me, I think that the number
Speaker 1: one thing is that parties agreed to set up some
Speaker 1: kind of loss and Damage Fund. So that's a specific
Speaker 1: kind of funding mechanism dedicated to support for developing countries
Speaker 1: to address loss and damage from unavoidable climate change. And
Speaker 1: this issue has been discussed for many years with no progress.
Speaker 1: So on the one side you had developing countries really
Speaker 1: arguing for such a facility, and then other side we
Speaker 1: had developed countries, especially the US and the EU, are
Speaker 1: really adamant that they didn't want to have any form
Speaker 1: of specific funding for loss and damage. And one of
Speaker 1: the main reasons whilst they didn't want to leave themselves
Speaker 1: open to claims of compensation, they didn't really want to
Speaker 1: open that Pandora's box. However, that you host African Shiating
Speaker 1: Group and developing countries in general really wanted this to
Speaker 1: be agreed in CHAML shake. With the kind of long
Speaker 1: campaigning with NGOs and civil society as well as governments,
Speaker 1: they were successful and they managed to reach an agreement
Speaker 1: on such a fund. There are kind of lots of
Speaker 1: questions to be answered, what exactly does loss and damage mean,
Speaker 1: and who is going to be contributing to this fund
Speaker 1: and who's going to benefit from this fund. So there
Speaker 1: was kind of nuance wording around this which we can
Speaker 1: get into about who was going to contribute and who's
Speaker 1: going to benefit, and I think the nuance there was
Speaker 1: concessions to the rich countries to get them to actually agree.
Speaker 1: Why do you think this was the year that last
Speaker 1: and damage came to the table and there was progress
Speaker 1: made on it, because as you noted, it was kicked
Speaker 1: around year after year, and this then became the year
Speaker 1: that that's the phrase that people are really talking about
Speaker 1: a lot right now this week. So I think there
Speaker 1: are several reasons. One of them is that we are
Speaker 1: increasingly seeing the impact in practice of climate change. So
Speaker 1: we had the floods in Pakistan, and we've had extreme
Speaker 1: weather events around the world, so it really is unavoidable
Speaker 1: to seeing these real life impacts, and I think that
Speaker 1: was fuel for these developing country governments to really argue
Speaker 1: for it. It does help if you have a house
Speaker 1: country that's also supporting it. So what happened in Glasgow
Speaker 1: was that the issue was raised and asked to be
Speaker 1: included in the official agenda of copy but it was
Speaker 1: blocked by various developed country parties, whereas this time it
Speaker 1: was actually included on the agenda. And when we saw that,
Speaker 1: we thought oh, actually, maybe they'll reach agreement this time.
Speaker 1: So where do we go from here? In that it's
Speaker 1: been established and there has been commitments made to create
Speaker 1: this fund, but presumably there's a lot of work that
Speaker 1: needs to be done between this year and this time
Speaker 1: next year. What are the different inflection points, if you will,
Speaker 1: and markers along the next year do you think will
Speaker 1: take place? What they agreed? Do you have two weeks
Speaker 1: of discussion the main kind of agreement decision text which
Speaker 1: is called the cover decision, and this year it's called
Speaker 1: the Charmashak Implementation Plan. You will actually only get to
Speaker 1: say twelve lines about each item. We don't know that
Speaker 1: much detail. We do know that they're going to set
Speaker 1: up what they call a transitional committee that's going to
Speaker 1: look at things like the scope. So there are lots
Speaker 1: of funding streams all around cop and they want to
Speaker 1: look at existing mechanisms and whether those could feed into
Speaker 1: this new fund. They need to look at who is
Speaker 1: going to contribute to this fund. I think one of
Speaker 1: the concessions that the EU and the US are goued
Speaker 1: for was to make it clear that it wasn't just
Speaker 1: going to be annexed one parties that developed country parties
Speaker 1: who would contribute to this fund, especially, they wanted to
Speaker 1: leave the door open to say China contributing. So really, historically,
Speaker 1: developed countries and X one parties have been the ones
Speaker 1: responsible for hiding climate finance to developing countries, with the
Speaker 1: argument being that developed country parties were responsible for the
Speaker 1: bulk of historical greenhouse gas emissions. However, some emerging economies,
Speaker 1: so there's those classified with the name non annexed one parties,
Speaker 1: actually account for a sizeable share of emissions, not just
Speaker 1: now increasingly, but also historically. So China accounted for something
Speaker 1: like fourteen percent of historical emissions since seventeen fifty, the
Speaker 1: EU accounted for sixteen percent, so only two percentage point more.
Speaker 1: And similarly there are Russia, for example, is not on
Speaker 1: the line for bribing climate finance historically, but it's accounted
Speaker 1: for seven percent for historical emissions. So that is one
Speaker 1: of the I think going to be controversial points. And
Speaker 1: then the other things that who benefits from this fund.
Speaker 1: There's wording in the text about developing countries that are
Speaker 1: vulnerable to climate change are the rich countries. Wanted to
Speaker 1: make it clear that it wasn't necessarily going to benefit China,
Speaker 1: that's the aim anyway, What about other countries that also
Speaker 1: sit on the G twenty which incidentally took place the
Speaker 1: kind of right in the middle of Cup twenty seven,
Speaker 1: so you had all of these negotiations happening and in
Speaker 1: some places actually converging a little bit. So I'm thinking
Speaker 1: of other countries that actually exist on that list, which
Speaker 1: includes the Lakes of India or Indonesia, and do they
Speaker 1: sit on the side of the list that actually funds
Speaker 1: or receives benefit from the lost and damage funding. So
Speaker 1: that is the big question. What the Transitional Committee will
Speaker 1: need to do is draw up probably what will end
Speaker 1: up being a very long report, which will then be
Speaker 1: up for discussion at COP twenty eight at the end
Speaker 1: of next year. So it's not yet clear. From a
Speaker 1: historical perspective of Indonesia, accounting of a very small share
Speaker 1: less than one percent of historical emissions, India is about
Speaker 1: the same as Japan, so we could see arguments that
Speaker 1: they would need to start contributing. I think that in
Speaker 1: the Indian government would argue strongly that would not be
Speaker 1: the case. It's funny in discussions of the climate negotiations,
Speaker 1: people often put China in India together as being the same.
Speaker 1: But actually if you look not just in the share
Speaker 1: of historical emissions, but if you look at st GDP
Speaker 1: per capita, that's very different. They will also need to
Speaker 1: take into account that funding ability of these countries as well,
Speaker 1: and has there been a lot of conversation around what
Speaker 1: funding towards loss and damage would mean in regard to
Speaker 1: funds that are maybe not available for mitigation and kind
Speaker 1: of plugging the whole as opposed to finding the source
Speaker 1: of the week. In the Chamel Shake implementation plant, one
Speaker 1: thing it does specify is that funds should be new
Speaker 1: and additional because developing countries are very keen that developed
Speaker 1: countries don't just take the funds that had previously been
Speaker 1: targeted at reducing emissions that what we call mitigation or
Speaker 1: adapting to the effects of climate change, so that they're
Speaker 1: due to be on top of these funds. So let's
Speaker 1: talk about how from one cop to the next. And actually, Vickie,
Speaker 1: how long have you been covering cops at bien EF
Speaker 1: BIENF since I started, So like the very beginning of
Speaker 1: twenty ten. It's just after we've had a Copenhagen. So
Speaker 1: since you have been covering COPS since Copenhagen. This actually
Speaker 1: provides a really great frame of reference in terms of
Speaker 1: time and actually activities. So if we rewind the clock,
Speaker 1: we can actually talk about the one hundred billion dollar
Speaker 1: climate finance target that was set. And actually that was
Speaker 1: one of the things that you had your eye on
Speaker 1: headed into copy for your report card when you were
Speaker 1: looking at where we may or may not be making progress.
Speaker 1: So it would be really interesting to hear where we
Speaker 1: actually got to on that, in particular in context around
Speaker 1: loss and damage and maybe what we might think about
Speaker 1: when we're trying to get this right, because it's one
Speaker 1: thing to be funding certain activities at a COP and
Speaker 1: one thing, I guess a little bit different to actually
Speaker 1: do it in the end. Yes, indeed, and that's the
Speaker 1: concerning because developed countries don't really have a great track
Speaker 1: record in terms of delivering on their climate finance commitments.
Speaker 1: So they made this commitment in Copenhagen to deliver on
Speaker 1: a hundred billion dollars a year of climate finance by
Speaker 1: and we now know that they did not meet that commitment.
Speaker 1: They delivered some eighty three billion dollars. We suspected as
Speaker 1: much in Glasgow last year, but unfortunately the climate packed
Speaker 1: there was fairly weak. So it urged developed countries to
Speaker 1: meet this target through five. And what was irksome about
Speaker 1: that was because the O et D had published scenarios
Speaker 1: as to when they thought developed countries could meet this
Speaker 1: target and they said three, so they gave two extra years.
Speaker 1: And then what's additionally ACM is that in the Charmelshak
Speaker 1: Implementation Plan there is no deadline, so it urges them
Speaker 1: again to meet this. But unfortunately, if we're going to
Speaker 1: take this as an evidence of whether or not they
Speaker 1: will deliver on the lost and damage funding, things don't
Speaker 1: look great now for a very short break stay with us. Okay.
Speaker 1: So another thing that when we've alluded to and then
Speaker 1: let's discuss it, so CUP twenty and the G twenty
Speaker 1: there's a little bit of overlap and there were discussions
Speaker 1: at the G twenty that aligned very well with a
Speaker 1: lot of the dialogue at C. That's the just Energy
Speaker 1: Transition Partnership. And are they referring to that is the
Speaker 1: g TEP or the g e t P, A jet P,
Speaker 1: the jet we were told by the US government. Okay,
Speaker 1: so the jet P, can you tell me, what is
Speaker 1: the jet P. So the jet P is an example
Speaker 1: of what they call a country platform. So this is
Speaker 1: this new kind of approach or framework where one developing
Speaker 1: country will reach an agreement with various developed countries who
Speaker 1: agree to provide a certain amount of funding but also
Speaker 1: to support the developed country to design a strategy to decarbonize.
Speaker 1: And generally they focused on the energy sector, but sometimes
Speaker 1: additional sectors like the transport and hydrogen say, and these
Speaker 1: seem to be growing in popularity so far. There was
Speaker 1: announcements relating to Egypt, there was the announcement last year
Speaker 1: related to South Africa and they've made some progress on
Speaker 1: that in the last year, and there was also the
Speaker 1: Indonesian one that was announced this year. The jet P exactly, okay,
Speaker 1: so you can expect these to happen every year. I
Speaker 1: would expect to see more of them happen. I think
Speaker 1: we would see more of them happen, especially if we
Speaker 1: actually see some of these strategies lead to funding being
Speaker 1: actually provided, handing it over, and more importantly, the projects
Speaker 1: actually being done in real life. So far, it's all
Speaker 1: on paper. There's kind of strategies being developed and strategies
Speaker 1: to develop strategies being developed, so hopefully soon we'll actually
Speaker 1: see in some actual climate action. Now, it was the
Speaker 1: volatility that we've seen with energy prices around the world.
Speaker 1: I assume that were was a great deal of talk
Speaker 1: regarding both energy priverty and energy security at this year's Cup.
Speaker 1: How did it feature. It's funny really, because there was
Speaker 1: discussions in various parties, say, statements of some of the
Speaker 1: various pressures that they have been facing, whether it's the
Speaker 1: energy crisis and or food security crisis, and the need
Speaker 1: to take account of these pressures in the same way
Speaker 1: as in previous years, especially in Glasgow, they talked about
Speaker 1: the COVID nineteen pandemic. So these were all noted in
Speaker 1: the Charmel Shake implementation plan. The cop doesn't tend to
Speaker 1: focus on ulstering energy security directly. Rather its focuses on decarbonizing.
Speaker 1: But these kind of pressures will always affect what kind
Speaker 1: of commitments parties are willing to make actually on the ground.
Speaker 1: So one of the things that came up last year
Speaker 1: in Glasgow was Article sex and this is the conversation
Speaker 1: around carbon markets. Given that this was meant to be
Speaker 1: the implementation Cup, what progress did or didn't we make
Speaker 1: on Article six and carbon specifically this year. So Articles
Speaker 1: six is articles of the Paris Agreement, and this part
Speaker 1: of the deal is meant to help devise mechanisms that
Speaker 1: will allow parties to cooperate in order to meet their
Speaker 1: climate targets. So Article six point two is where parties
Speaker 1: can agree by lateral deals to exchange what they call
Speaker 1: internationally transferred mitigation outcomes, which are generally like emission reduction credits,
Speaker 1: in order to help the other party the buy a
Speaker 1: party to actually achieve their targets. And then the other
Speaker 1: one is Article six point four, and that's for a
Speaker 1: new global offset trading program, a bit like you might
Speaker 1: have heard of the U N Clean Development Mechanism. So
Speaker 1: we did make good progress in Glasgow. There were some
Speaker 1: relic issues that had taken years of aciations that they
Speaker 1: actually reached agreement on, but there were some very kind
Speaker 1: of detailed mechanistic things that they needed to agree on
Speaker 1: and shall not shake. However they didn't. Unfortunately, parties were
Speaker 1: unable to reach a consensus on many of these issues.
Speaker 1: So about halfway through the kind of working group that
Speaker 1: was looking at this issue specifically issued draft texts which
Speaker 1: essentially said they couldn't agree, and these went forward and
Speaker 1: were ultimately adopted. So in essence, they agreed that they
Speaker 1: would discuss all these issues again, cocked and eight. So
Speaker 1: they keep the count down the road unfortunately, and the
Speaker 1: door is still open. Oh yes, absolutely, I think Article
Speaker 1: six point two deals are starting to happen more frequently,
Speaker 1: these bilateral deals. The real kind of issues when the
Speaker 1: Article six point for this new global offset market mechanism
Speaker 1: actually can begin. Given these further delays, and so perhaps
Speaker 1: the most important thing, at least in my mind as
Speaker 1: you head into a carp is how are we doing
Speaker 1: against the emissions reduction targets that so many countries have stated?
Speaker 1: How are we doing? Especially given that last year's mantra
Speaker 1: was keep one point five alive? And increasingly I am
Speaker 1: seeing headlines and I'm seeing industry insiders talking a little
Speaker 1: bit about Okay, I'm not really sure. I fully see
Speaker 1: the pathway and that door is closing. Where did we
Speaker 1: get to in Charmel Shaik in relation to whether or
Speaker 1: not that door is open A crack for one point five?
Speaker 1: I think it was well summarized by the COP twenty
Speaker 1: six president this year at the end of cope A
Speaker 1: look Chama, he said that one point five is now
Speaker 1: on life support, and I think that's very much shown
Speaker 1: by the commitments that have been made in terms of
Speaker 1: emission reduction targets for thirty by parties. So the UN
Speaker 1: produces each year synthesis report of the climate plans, and
Speaker 1: it looks like even if those were achieved, and even
Speaker 1: if the pledges that are conditional and financial or technical
Speaker 1: support to achieved, we're still nowhere near even a two
Speaker 1: degrees target. However, well, some people might say that what's
Speaker 1: the point in continuing to use the rhetoric around one
Speaker 1: point five degrees that's definitely not going to happen. I
Speaker 1: would say that even if we don't think it's going
Speaker 1: to happen, and certainly based on current commitments and current
Speaker 1: action on the ground, it's not going to happen, I
Speaker 1: would still say that we should still be aiming for
Speaker 1: that target and strive towards it, because the alternative is
Speaker 1: that we reduce our target and say, okay, we'll aim
Speaker 1: for two or three degrees, and then we miss that.
Speaker 1: So I think it's still is meaningful to start talk
Speaker 1: about this one point five degrees and what the laws
Speaker 1: in damage conversation I think really brings to the forefront
Speaker 1: here is that for every part of a degree that
Speaker 1: we don't end up hitting, there is going to be
Speaker 1: increasing pressure to fund that loss and damage side of
Speaker 1: the equation. More and more so that battle between mitigation
Speaker 1: and to some degrees adaptation or actually in the lost
Speaker 1: and damage category really just reacting to things that are happening,
Speaker 1: all of which cost money. Exactly, by agreeing to a
Speaker 1: loss and damage fund, developed countries have in essence put
Speaker 1: more pressure on themselves to propose more ambitious commitments and
Speaker 1: actually achieved them and therefore in theory reduced the loss
Speaker 1: and damage funding that would need to be produced. Now. Also,
Speaker 1: something that happened last year is this Global Methane Pledge
Speaker 1: or methane depending upon your accent and how British I'm
Speaker 1: feeling on the day, So methane methane, Where did we
Speaker 1: get to? So actually, out of all the kind of
Speaker 1: many initiatives that were announced in Glasgow along with the jetps,
Speaker 1: we can see more action happening. So various countries that
Speaker 1: signed up to the pledge have met between Copton six
Speaker 1: seven and they're starting to design pathways or strategies focus
Speaker 1: on individual sectors of how they could achieve this meeting pledge,
Speaker 1: which is to collectively reduce methane emissions by as well
Speaker 1: as the kind of initiatives and discussions between governments, we're
Speaker 1: also seeing actual individual governments take action and implement policies
Speaker 1: to even reduce the mission pen thean emissions specifically, so
Speaker 1: the US, Canada, the EU, they're all actually starting to
Speaker 1: implement domestic policy as well, you know, and equally on forestry,
Speaker 1: which is our our world's lungs as many people point out,
Speaker 1: but also this incredible source of carbon capture. What has
Speaker 1: happened this year on forestry in terms of kind of
Speaker 1: nature and biodiversity more broadly, One of the first that
Speaker 1: we did see in this COPE text was more recognition
Speaker 1: of the need to address by diversity loss and nature
Speaker 1: and the fact that it overlaps with the need to
Speaker 1: address climate change. In terms of forestry specifically, there was
Speaker 1: for the first time a dedicated section of the COP
Speaker 1: twenty seven text for forestry, and one of the initiatives
Speaker 1: that we actually saw last year that is also continuing
Speaker 1: this year is around this kind of declaration to halt
Speaker 1: forestry loss, and some of the countries signed up to
Speaker 1: the partnership last year are starting to embark on substantive
Speaker 1: discussions to achieve that pledge in order to meet the
Speaker 1: stated emissions production targets. In order to keep one point
Speaker 1: five or anything sub two degrees on life support. There
Speaker 1: is a commonly understood rhetoric around the need for us
Speaker 1: to really phase out coal and to think about also
Speaker 1: electrifying large parts of the energy system, and variably we
Speaker 1: at B and the F for looking at the energy transition.
Speaker 1: So that's really the focus of what we're looking at
Speaker 1: when we look at this CUP. But when we talk
Speaker 1: about coal, qualified power stations have actually kind of come
Speaker 1: back a little bit this year with a lot of
Speaker 1: the issues around energy security in pricing. What sort of
Speaker 1: impact did that ham do you think? And the conversations
Speaker 1: at CUP twenty seven around coal and the progress maybe
Speaker 1: we made or didn't make on phase out plans. The
Speaker 1: kind of short answer is the Charms Shake text reiterates
Speaker 1: what was in the Glasgow Climate Packed that this commitment
Speaker 1: to phase down unabated coal. Again this year, there was
Speaker 1: a long discussion about whether the phase down should be
Speaker 1: a phase out, which has deemed to be a kind
Speaker 1: of more ambitious option, and also whether we could extend
Speaker 1: that from unabated cult to unabated fossil fuels. So, for example, India,
Speaker 1: the e various other annexed one parties were really pushing
Speaker 1: for that. However, that got pushed back from developing countries
Speaker 1: who have recently discovered oil and gas reserves themselves and
Speaker 1: would like to explore them. And also, as often happens
Speaker 1: that the kind of oil and gas producers, so say
Speaker 1: Russia Saudi Arabia were adamant that it wasn't going to
Speaker 1: be extended to fossil fuels. We didn't see say some
Speaker 1: European countries that have had to restart cold power plants
Speaker 1: or have to differ their phase out plans temporarily because
Speaker 1: of they're trying to switch away from Russian gas. We
Speaker 1: didn't see them reduced their ambition. They were still pushing forward.
Speaker 1: But again it was really the relic issues again, discussions
Speaker 1: around fossil fuels, whether or not it can be mentioned
Speaker 1: in the text itself, and what kind of ambition are
Speaker 1: going to be agreed to. Now for a very short break,
Speaker 1: stay with us now switching tracks to adaptation how do
Speaker 1: you think the event did and adaptation and well the
Speaker 1: financing targets associated with it and also metrics. So I
Speaker 1: was somewhat surprised that adaptation didn't feature more in COP
Speaker 1: twenty seven because host country Egypt and developing countries had
Speaker 1: been pushing for it to be addressed. On a part
Speaker 1: we've met gation. So historically adaptation has been the ugly
Speaker 1: sister or something of the mitigation, and so it's generally
Speaker 1: harder to secure financing for these projects and it just
Speaker 1: hasn't got the same amount of attention. So there was
Speaker 1: discussion of various aspects about adaptation, but maybe I can
Speaker 1: focus one of the optimistic ones, which was on the financing.
Speaker 1: Actually in Glasgow, developed countries agreed that they would double
Speaker 1: adaptation financing between and based on the figures, which is
Speaker 1: the latest data that we have, it looks like they
Speaker 1: would be on track to actually meeting this target. But
Speaker 1: it depends on the multiplicity of factors and we will
Speaker 1: see how the kind of overlaps with the loss and
Speaker 1: damage financing discussions pan out. So you head into this
Speaker 1: with scores and a skill of what one to ten
Speaker 1: to try and have a sense of how we did
Speaker 1: in moving forward conversations in all of these different categories,
Speaker 1: and we haven't even gone through everything that we've looked
Speaker 1: at or that anybody really could look at regarding all
Speaker 1: the different things that were happening at COP. So even
Speaker 1: for example, this was the first year that there was
Speaker 1: I guess, an entire youth area at a COP But
Speaker 1: there's also been a lot of conversation, as you reference,
Speaker 1: regarding biodiversity, which actually incidentally has its own COP and
Speaker 1: is now starting to feature at the one on climate.
Speaker 1: But if you hadn't, if pressed, let's go through, maybe
Speaker 1: quick fire, your three biggest disappointments, but then also the
Speaker 1: three things that stood out to you as maybe positive
Speaker 1: surprises in terms of progress and conversations. Okay, so let's
Speaker 1: start with the good stuff. I think my top three
Speaker 1: would be that they achieved agreement on this loss and
Speaker 1: damage funds, that they have recognized the need tackle both
Speaker 1: climate change and biodiversity loss and they need to do
Speaker 1: in a coordinated way. And number three, I would say
Speaker 1: maybe the progress on methane emissions. So this kind of
Speaker 1: recently has gone up in terms of the people's attention
Speaker 1: and actually both countries and companies seem to be taking
Speaker 1: action on that. Often the less good side, I would
Speaker 1: say the things that I found disappointing was that the
Speaker 1: kind of reopening of old wounds. So there are various things,
Speaker 1: for example, that were agreed in the Glasgow Climate Pact,
Speaker 1: and you would have thought going into COP twenty seven
Speaker 1: we would seek to build on that. However, that wasn't
Speaker 1: necessarily the case. In the article six discussions, the discussions
Speaker 1: on cole the general kind of overall ambition discussions, the
Speaker 1: kind of rehashing of the same ground is alarming. I
Speaker 1: think the lack of progress on the hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: a year pledge. What's most concerning is the fact that
Speaker 1: there seems to be a lack of urgency on the
Speaker 1: part of developed countries to deliver on that. And what's
Speaker 1: worth bearing in mind is the important thing is not
Speaker 1: really how much a hundred billion dollars a year is,
Speaker 1: because it's actually maybe a tenth of what's needs to
Speaker 1: be I did in terms investment to reaching at zero
Speaker 1: by the middle of the century. But it's the kind
Speaker 1: of building of trust between developed countries and developing countries
Speaker 1: and by providing some of the climate finance. The idea
Speaker 1: is that in theory, emerging economies with growing emissions should
Speaker 1: be willing to take on our ambitious commitments themselves. So
Speaker 1: that's that's somewhat alarming. And then my last one has
Speaker 1: to be an Article six because agreeing to not agree
Speaker 1: and then delaying the discussion for another year, it's not
Speaker 1: very reassuring. Okay. So on the topic of delaying the
Speaker 1: discussion in another year, how much of an influence does
Speaker 1: the host country who said the agenda have on what
Speaker 1: you think the conversations are in the cup and cups
Speaker 1: are and then also how much progress they ultimately end
Speaker 1: up making. So I think we've seen only this year
Speaker 1: and last year that the host country it doesn't make
Speaker 1: the final decision on what's on the agenda, but it
Speaker 1: certainly constructive things, put focus on things so that certain
Speaker 1: items get more attention. I think the cop president plays
Speaker 1: in a particularly important part, and we saw very kind
Speaker 1: of distinctive approaches between last year's and this year. Is
Speaker 1: where last year we had Alokxhama there all the time,
Speaker 1: seemingly pushing things forward. This year there seemed to be
Speaker 1: more of a handsoff approach, which I think caused some
Speaker 1: confusion on the ground, and who knows, it may not
Speaker 1: have helped with achieving more ambitious outcome. So now we've
Speaker 1: got almost a full year for the next group in
Speaker 1: the u A and the next coup will be held
Speaker 1: in Dubai, so for them to think about the sort
Speaker 1: of things that they want to achieve and to maybe
Speaker 1: see what sort of progress there can be made on
Speaker 1: some of these things that have been pushed next year,
Speaker 1: and certainly because you will still be here, promise me,
Speaker 1: because we need another scorecard to find out how we've
Speaker 1: done on the variously stated targets and what will more
Speaker 1: than likely be another implementation cap well, it certainly needs
Speaker 1: to because it did not happen this year. I think
Speaker 1: that the whole process itself could see some being made
Speaker 1: more efficient and improved. One of the reasons why it's
Speaker 1: so difficult to get agreement. It has to be unanimous,
Speaker 1: and trying to get agreement when you have two hundred
Speaker 1: parties or so is really tough, and some people would
Speaker 1: argue that it's smart. Important is the specific things that
Speaker 1: are agreed at these cops, but more the overall direction
Speaker 1: that it gives to domestic policy makers and companies and investors.
Speaker 1: One of the other things that people mentioned when they're
Speaker 1: heading into this COP was that it might be the
Speaker 1: Africa COP as well, just given that it was being
Speaker 1: held in North Africa, and I know this is not
Speaker 1: the first normal it be probably be the last coup
Speaker 1: held on this continent. However, how much of the conversation
Speaker 1: I guess, with the inclusion of last endamage, how much
Speaker 1: of the conversation really did focus on things that specifically
Speaker 1: impacted Africa and where they are in One can say
Speaker 1: the energy transition, but actually is a story also of
Speaker 1: energy and infrastructure build out. I was surprised. I was
Speaker 1: expecting to see more of a the fact that it
Speaker 1: was framed as being an African COP and he thought
Speaker 1: it was executing to see that have more of an
Speaker 1: influence over what discussions focused on. But in actual reality,
Speaker 1: much of the discussions focused on the same things that
Speaker 1: are discussed at every COP really, so mitigation, adaptation, what
Speaker 1: do we do with coal, what do we do with
Speaker 1: fossil fuels in general? How much money needs to be
Speaker 1: provided and where is it going to come from? The
Speaker 1: only thing I guess I would point to is that
Speaker 1: as well as an energy crisis, Africa's facing a severe
Speaker 1: food crisis, and this implementation texture from Charles Shake included
Speaker 1: more coverage than has happened before in terms of agriculture
Speaker 1: and food, but otherwise it didn't really flavor much of
Speaker 1: CUT fifteen for bio diversity is coming up. Will you
Speaker 1: be watching that and also giving that a scorecard? Finally
Speaker 1: enough we will. So I'm working with a colleague called Alistair,
Speaker 1: and he and I are deciding at the moment what
Speaker 1: metrics we should highlight in terms of where we expect
Speaker 1: to see progress and how much progress we expect to
Speaker 1: see in Montreal, and how much do you think there'll
Speaker 1: be any kind of rehashing of any topics that came
Speaker 1: up at CAP twenty in CHERML, say perhaps on forestry
Speaker 1: or other aspects slant so when the kind of main
Speaker 1: overlap could be really because there really wasn't that much
Speaker 1: discussion at Climate Corp about nature and biodiversity, although it
Speaker 1: is mentioned in the text. I think therefore in bio
Speaker 1: cop as we call it, the focus won't be so
Speaker 1: much on emissions reduction and say kind of adaptation specifically
Speaker 1: to climate change. So VICKI final question, we're just going
Speaker 1: to wipe the slate, Queen, you've been covering perhaps for years.
Speaker 1: They go on a lot of different directions, and invariably
Speaker 1: that's not surprising. Climate change is a very complex issue.
Speaker 1: But let's say we were to approach this with no
Speaker 1: previous baggage. What would be the main things that you
Speaker 1: would focus on for next year? And how would you
Speaker 1: approach it if you were in charge? Oh, if I
Speaker 1: was in charge, I would reform the whole cop process itself.
Speaker 1: I think that trying to get these detailed agreements based
Speaker 1: on unanimity is not actually very efficient or deeming to
Speaker 1: be very effective at this point. So I think perhaps
Speaker 1: there would be room for that. But there could also
Speaker 1: be streams as well, where we could approach, say a
Speaker 1: kind of more qualified majority rule like they do in
Speaker 1: the EU, where a certain number of countries have to
Speaker 1: support a measure to for it to go through and
Speaker 1: a certain kind of share of the overall EU population.
Speaker 1: I would also, in this quite controversial move it either
Speaker 1: being held every other year, or one year it's in
Speaker 1: person and the next year it's virtual. Because I think hundreds,
Speaker 1: if not thousands of people traveled to Charmle Shake and
Speaker 1: one wonders what happens about all the emissions from those planes,
Speaker 1: and maybe that funding could actually paid for those plane
Speaker 1: tickets and hotels could actually be put more direct use
Speaker 1: in terms of tackling climate change. Thank you very much
Speaker 1: for joining today and for giving us just a little
Speaker 1: bit of a status update on a number of different
Speaker 1: things that were discussed over the course of CAP. Invariably
Speaker 1: we could dig in quite a bit of detail on
Speaker 1: any one of these, but thank you for giving your
Speaker 1: perspective and for giving your three thumbs up and three
Speaker 1: thumbs down. Thank you very much for having me always
Speaker 1: happy to talk about cops. Today's episode of Switched On
Speaker 1: was edited by Rex Warner of gray Stoke Media. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: any F as a service provided by Bloomberg Finance LP
Speaker 1: and its affiliates. This recording is not constitute, nor should
Speaker 1: it be construed as investment advice, investment recommendations, or recommendation
Speaker 1: as to an investment or other strategy. Bloomberg an e
Speaker 1: F should not be considered as information sufficient upon which
Speaker 1: to base an investment decision. Neither Bloomberg Finance LP nor
Speaker 1: any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty as
Speaker 1: to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in
Speaker 1: this recording, and any liability of this recording is expressly
Speaker 1: disclaimed