Speaker 1: Welcome to Zero.
Speaker 2: I am Ukshatarti and I'm Michaelerel. This week COP twenty nine,
Speaker 2: Big Messy Deal.
Speaker 3: Chat.
Speaker 2: COP twenty nine is over and we have a deal.
Speaker 2: I was only there for the first week, so I've
Speaker 2: had a week to recover. But you've come straight to
Speaker 2: the studio directly from the airport.
Speaker 1: How the heck are you exhausted? But we know this
Speaker 1: is how it ends. This is my fourth COP, so
Speaker 1: I was a little bit prepared that we're going to
Speaker 1: have an all nighter and we're going to be waiting
Speaker 1: for a bit, and we're going to be chasing for
Speaker 1: quite a bit, and we don't know how it ends.
Speaker 1: We are going to have to pick the pieces once
Speaker 1: everything is done. Seems there was at least a big deal,
Speaker 1: but not as much progress as people had hoped.
Speaker 2: We're going to get into the specifics of what's in
Speaker 2: that deal and whether it's a good deal. But first
Speaker 2: I think it's worth returning to the question we laid
Speaker 2: out on the very first day of the conference about
Speaker 2: whether Iserbaijan was going to be up to the task
Speaker 2: of leading this summer in the first place. This was
Speaker 2: my first COP and there was a lot that impressed
Speaker 2: me about how things were run in Baku. Things went
Speaker 2: smoothly at the venue. The shuttle buses to and from
Speaker 2: the Baku Olympic Stadium were very punctual. Things seemed organized,
Speaker 2: pretty reliable. The city seemed ready for this influx of visitors.
Speaker 2: The tourist district of Old City Baku is very charming,
Speaker 2: ready for people. Overall, how would you rate Iserbaijan's performance
Speaker 2: this cop, You're.
Speaker 1: Right, the logistics were better than most cops. It is
Speaker 1: not easy to suddenly have an influx of fifty thousand
Speaker 1: people who are all waying to the same place and
Speaker 1: are there for official business, and so they have very
Speaker 1: little time and just need to get on with things.
Speaker 1: And Azerbaijan was able to pull that off. But we
Speaker 1: also found out that because it's an authoritarian government, they
Speaker 1: could do a lot to make this happen. Baku's traffic
Speaker 1: is pretty infamous, and we didn't really experience much of
Speaker 1: it because they'd shut down schools and universities, asked most
Speaker 1: of their government employees to work from home. They had
Speaker 1: cleared up street vendors. They'd shut down these so called
Speaker 1: slave markets where mostly men show up for informal work,
Speaker 1: and there were no beggars to be seen, which are
Speaker 1: supposed to be a regular part of being in Baku.
Speaker 1: So you have to note that for the visitors it
Speaker 1: wasn't what Baku usually is. But yes, it did make
Speaker 1: the COP work better.
Speaker 2: So that was the experience for people In terms of
Speaker 2: interacting with the city, it was very seamless. But what
Speaker 2: about actually when it came time to negotiate and get
Speaker 2: things past.
Speaker 1: There were a lot of complaints about the presidency, Mukhtar Babayev,
Speaker 1: who had never been much of a presence at COP
Speaker 1: meetings before and had never taken on a job of
Speaker 1: this level. And of course he had, you know, ten
Speaker 1: months to prepare, and he got plenty of advice. As
Speaker 1: we've learned, companies like Deloitte were involved in providing advice,
Speaker 1: but also past COP presidents and their teams were involved.
Speaker 1: And yet during these sophisticated, delicate negotiations between two hundred parties,
Speaker 1: there is a level of forthrightness. There's a level of
Speaker 1: preparedness that a presidency needs to come in with and
Speaker 1: that was lacking and it really showed up towards the
Speaker 1: second week when the deal had to be done, and
Speaker 1: the documents had to come in time, but they were late,
Speaker 1: and the ingredients in those documents over things that people
Speaker 1: would agree or disagree were all over the place. And
Speaker 1: it did seem like on Saturday, which was twenty four
Speaker 1: hours later than the official deadline of hop that things
Speaker 1: might just not fall in place and there might be
Speaker 1: no deal, and some of that blame would have been
Speaker 1: put on the presidency itself.
Speaker 2: All the more difficult because we knew this was the
Speaker 2: finance cop Matt alone was going to make it hard
Speaker 2: because it's one thing to agree on some ideas on
Speaker 2: the abstract. It's another thing to agree to pay to
Speaker 2: cough up the bill. And there were two big things
Speaker 2: on the table. One of them was the NCQG, the
Speaker 2: new Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance, the big sum
Speaker 2: that rich countries would have to commit to. Let's start
Speaker 2: with that.
Speaker 1: That's right. Coming in. We had a lot of different
Speaker 1: analyzes looking at just how much money this is going
Speaker 1: to be, how much can developing countries get from developed countries.
Speaker 1: And when we were on the ground, we got a
Speaker 1: chance to speak to developed countries and developing countries. So
Speaker 1: take a listen to one person we spoke to who
Speaker 1: is moment Khlored, Minister of Energy and Oil for Mauritania,
Speaker 1: one of the world's porest countries.
Speaker 3: I think the main issue for Africa is financing to
Speaker 3: mitigate the impact of the climate change we get to
Speaker 3: hit because of the climate change. If look even at Mauritania,
Speaker 3: we have inundation now, we have a lot of rain, desertification,
Speaker 3: a lot of issues is causing a lot of problem.
Speaker 3: So I think we need to find a financial model
Speaker 3: where Africa can be financed to electrify, to improve the
Speaker 3: skills of its workforce, to cope with the migration of
Speaker 3: people from the desert to the cities. So this is
Speaker 3: really what's needed to be looked at right now.
Speaker 2: So he was really clear that the financing number was
Speaker 2: going to make a big difference for him in terms
Speaker 2: of what his country could do to elevate its standard
Speaker 2: of living and move towards a green future, and.
Speaker 1: That money had to come from develop countries. And we
Speaker 1: got a chance to interview the Prime Minister of then
Speaker 1: Mark Meta Frederickson. Denmark has been historically a country that
Speaker 1: has been quite climbed forward, but when it comes to
Speaker 1: hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars. Even they will
Speaker 1: have to figure out how exactly they will deliver that.
Speaker 4: Some goals and targets are one thing, but delivering is
Speaker 4: the next. Of course, a country like Denmark should deliver.
Speaker 4: We are pushing for ambitious target, but we also have
Speaker 4: to discuss who are going to contribute to this because
Speaker 4: it for me, I am totally convinced that a country
Speaker 4: like Denmark should participate and support this, but I think
Speaker 4: some of the new strong economies to participate, for example China,
Speaker 4: but also the Golf States.
Speaker 2: So those are the stakes of why this money was
Speaker 2: so important and why even countries who want to support
Speaker 2: these ideas would have some concerns about the final price tag.
Speaker 2: What was the final price tag?
Speaker 1: Three hundred billion dollars annually. It will be delivered by
Speaker 1: twenty thirty five and will be ramped up from current
Speaker 1: levels of one hundred billion dollars annually. Now, if you
Speaker 1: just took inflation between now and twenty thirty five, that
Speaker 1: will already cause the two hundred billion dollars to be
Speaker 1: just worth one hundred billion dollars today. So three hundred
Speaker 1: billion by that time is in upgrade. But it's not
Speaker 1: that huge a leap, and so there were lots of
Speaker 1: complaints from developing countries that this sum is too low,
Speaker 1: that how exactly this sum will be counted, and where
Speaker 1: will this money flow is still not clear and that's
Speaker 1: not good enough. But on the flip side, you had
Speaker 1: developed countries, many of which, as we've seen in this
Speaker 1: year of elections, have taken a right word turn, are
Speaker 1: looking inward rather than outward, who have budgets that are constrained,
Speaker 1: that are not willing to put anymore. So it was
Speaker 1: kind of a mine that even a larger sum was
Speaker 1: agreed upon and as we saw it really could have
Speaker 1: all fallen apart.
Speaker 2: So there was a deal, but it was hard fought
Speaker 2: with a lot of trauma. Again, it was back in
Speaker 2: London by the time all this was going down, but
Speaker 2: my WhatsApp was exploding with hundreds of messages from the
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Climate team through every twist and turn on the plenary.
Speaker 1: Yes, it was quite something. This is my fourth cop
Speaker 1: and we typically expect some fireworks to happen at the plenary,
Speaker 1: just like last minute tweeks in Glasgow. We had a
Speaker 1: phase down versus phase out fight in India and China
Speaker 1: were against the US and Europe and we expected nothing
Speaker 1: less here. Given this has been labeled the hardest COPS
Speaker 1: since Paris. What happened is that typically at the end
Speaker 1: of the COP it's a consensus, which means you, as
Speaker 1: the president, say to the parties, we are going to
Speaker 1: be adopting this. Does anybody have any objections and if not,
Speaker 1: then the president can gabble it down and it's done.
Speaker 1: But consensus is not unanimity. The president has powers to
Speaker 1: overcome objections because Saudi Arabia has blocked voting rules at
Speaker 1: COP meetings and that gives the president powers to overrule objections.
Speaker 1: And in this case it's not clear, but as soon
Speaker 1: as the finance deal was put forward for adoption and
Speaker 1: question about objections was asked. Very soon after that, the
Speaker 1: gavel went down and India immediately started waving their hands
Speaker 1: calling for a time out. They rushed onto the stage
Speaker 1: or talked to the president. They came back and afterwards
Speaker 1: they got a chance to speak and they said, we
Speaker 1: are unhappy with this process. This has been a stage
Speaker 1: managed process.
Speaker 4: This has been stage managed and we are extremely, extremely
Speaker 4: disappointed with this incident.
Speaker 1: It was perhaps one of the strongest pushbacks I've heard
Speaker 1: from a country at a COP meeting. Now, just so
Speaker 1: that we are clear, there's a technical reason why India
Speaker 1: was opposing the deal. In the current hundred billion dollars,
Speaker 1: there is a contribution from multilateral development banks such as
Speaker 1: World Bank or IMF that is counted towards climate finance.
Speaker 1: Because these institutions put about fifty percent of their lending
Speaker 1: into climate projects, about fifty percent of their shareholding is
Speaker 1: rich countries, so that shareholding's contribution is counted towards the
Speaker 1: climate finance goal. Going into this three hundred billion dollar figure,
Speaker 1: Developed countries wanted to count all of the shareholders in
Speaker 1: that goal, which would mean countries like China and India
Speaker 1: that do have shareholding in World Bank and IMF will
Speaker 1: also have their number counted towards the three hundred billion.
Speaker 1: From an Indian perspective, that would make rich countries less
Speaker 1: responsible towards the three hundred billion, because India's contributions are
Speaker 1: being hunted and they did not want that. But the
Speaker 1: deal has been done and India will have to live
Speaker 1: with it, and we'll see how this fight shakes out
Speaker 1: and whether the trust in the process that is so
Speaker 1: crucial to keep two hundred countries together remains as we
Speaker 1: go into Bellham in Brazil.
Speaker 2: Okay, so that was the NCQG. The other thing that
Speaker 2: we knew to keep an eye on was Article six,
Speaker 2: which talks about carbon markets, and some serious details needed
Speaker 2: to be ironed out on that. Where did things land there.
Speaker 1: I was in the plenary hall when the Article six
Speaker 1: got gabled through by the President and there were quite
Speaker 1: a lot of cheers. One observer said, probably because they
Speaker 1: are happy they're never going to have to hear about
Speaker 1: Article six again.
Speaker 2: And clearly people throughout the week kept saying, we've been
Speaker 2: talking about this for nine years, but you were saying
Speaker 2: it's even more than nine years.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the idea of carbon markets have been
Speaker 1: around for a long time. In the nineties, we had
Speaker 1: the CUTA Protocol, as we've discussed on the part before
Speaker 1: and then, and Article six were supposed to be an
Speaker 1: upgrade to that, and yes, it got done, but there
Speaker 1: are still plenty of issues that remain. There are questions
Speaker 1: around the integrity of the credits that will be traded.
Speaker 1: There are questions about these new types of markets that
Speaker 1: would be operating between two countries. So Switzerland can make
Speaker 1: a deal with Ghana and maybe no third party verifies
Speaker 1: what that deal is. So we'll see how things shake out.
Speaker 1: You know, people have been talking and talking about Article
Speaker 1: six for more than a decade. Now these rules have
Speaker 1: been agreed on. They will have to be modified and
Speaker 1: tweaked if they're not working, if countries are not trading
Speaker 1: as you want, if the emissions reductions are not real.
Speaker 1: And those who were cheering that we will hear less
Speaker 1: about Article six, I'm afraid we are going to hear
Speaker 1: a lot more about it.
Speaker 2: So we talked about what was in the deal, but
Speaker 2: what was not in the deal, what was conspicuously missing.
Speaker 1: Well, there was another piece of text that was called
Speaker 1: the Global Stock Take, which is basically the exercise that
Speaker 1: happened Dubai looking at what was the progress countries had
Speaker 1: made between the Paris Agreement in twenty fifteen and Dubai.
Speaker 1: And obviously we know that progress wasn't enough, but it
Speaker 1: was actually a numerical activity to find out just how
Speaker 1: far behind countries are and then take actions to try
Speaker 1: and improve on those numbers. That's where we got the
Speaker 1: phrase transitioning away from fossil fuels, and there was supposed
Speaker 1: to be a document that said we are going to
Speaker 1: reaffirm what we agreed on at COP twenty eight, and
Speaker 1: we will go further and transition away from fossil fuels
Speaker 1: and put those into the national climate plans that are
Speaker 1: supposed to be submitted over the next few months. That document,
Speaker 1: in the end did not get the support of all countries,
Speaker 1: and it has now been postponed for discussion at the
Speaker 1: next COP.
Speaker 2: It seems like a bit of a step backwards because
Speaker 2: last COP, as I understand it, one big breakthrough, one
Speaker 2: big headline, was this consensus around the need to transition
Speaker 2: away from fossil fuels right correct.
Speaker 1: What we've seen is that one actor among a few,
Speaker 1: has been really pushing heart names well, Saudi Arabia because
Speaker 1: we reported that in our stories, has been pushing hard
Speaker 1: to erase any mention of fossil fuels in not just
Speaker 1: COP meetings but many international forums like the G twenty
Speaker 1: and it has had a lot of success because it
Speaker 1: just doesn't want people to be talking about transitioning away
Speaker 1: from fossil fuels, and the science is very clear. If
Speaker 1: you've signed on to the Paras Agreement goals of keeping
Speaker 1: temperature targets to one point five or two degree celsius.
Speaker 1: You are going to have to reduce your use of
Speaker 1: fossil fuels. But saying it out loud is clearly irking
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia and they don't want people to be saying it.
Speaker 1: And we are going to see that fight play out
Speaker 1: again at the next come.
Speaker 2: After the break, we turned to the question of one
Speaker 2: point five celsius and some other unfinished business left for
Speaker 2: Cop thirty. And if you've been enjoying this episode, please
Speaker 2: take a moment to rate and review the show on
Speaker 2: Spotify or Apple. It helps other listeners find the show.
Speaker 2: There's another thing that I heard a lot of discussion
Speaker 2: of in that first week, and I know carried on
Speaker 2: through the second week, which is the question of one
Speaker 2: point five c That's the level of warming the world
Speaker 2: has been trying to keep under. That's been sort of
Speaker 2: the target, the point we don't want to surpass. The
Speaker 2: feasibility of that figure has been in question for some time.
Speaker 2: There's one quote that caught my eye from Panama Special
Speaker 2: Representative for Climate Change one, Carlos Monterrey Gomez, and he
Speaker 2: said we needed to leave Baku with an agreement to
Speaker 2: keep the multilateral system alive. We kept the system alive,
Speaker 2: But I think one point five is dead after this
Speaker 2: COP is one point five C a number we should
Speaker 2: still be talking about.
Speaker 1: So this year is likely to be the first year
Speaker 1: where temperatures are going to be, on average more than
Speaker 1: one point five degrees celsius relative to pre industrial levels.
Speaker 1: Now that is not the parish target. The parish target
Speaker 1: is a long term average of staying above one point
Speaker 1: five degrees celsius. But scientists are clear that we are
Speaker 1: likely to surpass that too. Now within the Paris Agreement,
Speaker 1: there is a chance that you could go about one
Speaker 1: point five degree celsius and then come back down by
Speaker 1: drawing down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere technically feasible but
Speaker 1: very expensive. So yes, as a target that we should
Speaker 1: not breach, one point five C is likely dead because
Speaker 1: we will breach it. But the long term target of
Speaker 1: actually bringing it back down to one point five C
Speaker 1: isn't dead. And that's the thing that we heard again
Speaker 1: and again from island states at COP twenty nine. For them,
Speaker 1: one point five CE they call it a death sentence
Speaker 1: because sea levels will rise, their homes will be inundated.
Speaker 1: They won't have places to go to. They're going to
Speaker 1: end up without homes, and so they are not willing
Speaker 1: to move away from this target. This is the thing
Speaker 1: they will keep pushing on, and from the rest of
Speaker 1: the world's perspective, it still makes sense to try and
Speaker 1: avoid every point one degree celsius of warming that you can.
Speaker 1: So one point five CREE is likely to remain as
Speaker 1: a rallying cry, and the world will need to try
Speaker 1: to do as much as possible to avoid the worst impacts.
Speaker 2: COP kicked off just a couple of days after the
Speaker 2: US election, as we've talked about in a couple of
Speaker 2: past episodes, and in the first days we were in Baku,
Speaker 2: we had a chance to catch up with Indonesia's Special
Speaker 2: Presidential Envoy, Hashim Joyohadi Kusumo, and he had something interesting
Speaker 2: to say.
Speaker 5: I'm a bit wary, frankly, because of the change of
Speaker 5: government in the United States. I was in Marrakesh, you know,
Speaker 5: in twenty sixteen. I remember what happened. I mean, I
Speaker 5: detect the same sort of atmosphere for voting. I hope
Speaker 5: we can work things out between the parties, but we
Speaker 5: have to be wary, and I think everybody in this
Speaker 5: conference is weary, I think.
Speaker 1: And I think he was onto something, because we did
Speaker 1: see flickers of chaos. At one point Argentina pulled negotiators
Speaker 1: out of COP twenty nine, and there was a risk
Speaker 1: that Argentina might also quit the Paris Agreement, as Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has said the US will do so. But towards
Speaker 1: the second week things come down a little bit. Argentina
Speaker 1: said they are not going to quit the Paris Agreement.
Speaker 1: We had Russia come out and say that actually, the
Speaker 1: US shouldn't leave the Paris Agreement, a twist I did
Speaker 1: not see coming. And we did get a deal done.
Speaker 1: And that deal happened despite many veterans of COP like
Speaker 1: John Kerry in the United States, Shia Genoa in China
Speaker 1: not being present, to not have those experienced hands guiding
Speaker 1: the negotiations toward the end, the fact that we got
Speaker 1: a deal done is a big deal, and it shows
Speaker 1: that the US, as much as it's a big power
Speaker 1: in the world, it's only twelve percent of global emissions,
Speaker 1: and the rest of the world still cares about haak
Speaker 1: climate change and they do want to get on with
Speaker 1: the job.
Speaker 2: So Trump's election had somewhat of a limited impact but
Speaker 2: I did feel the geopolitics of this conference was very heavy,
Speaker 2: pretty unescapable. Even in the run up to things, when
Speaker 2: we were reaching out to heads of state trying to
Speaker 2: figure out who we might talk to in Baku, we
Speaker 2: heard from many countries like, oh, sorry, our plans are
Speaker 2: in flux because there's an election on the horizon. We
Speaker 2: heard that from Ireland, we heard that from Japan. This
Speaker 2: was a big election year around the world, a lot
Speaker 2: of turmoil, and we saw a lot of incumbents doing poorly,
Speaker 2: a populist message resonating, a right word shift in a
Speaker 2: lot of major governments. How did all of that show
Speaker 2: up in your mind in those two weeks in Baku.
Speaker 1: Given climate is a decadal challenge, political swings are power
Speaker 1: for the course. We know that right word shifts have
Speaker 1: happened in the past and climate action has continued despite it,
Speaker 1: but you're right, this moment feels more strenuous than it
Speaker 1: has in recent years. We got a chance to speak
Speaker 1: to Sophie Hermann's who is the Climate Minister of the Netherlands,
Speaker 1: and it gave us a sense of what a place
Speaker 1: that has seen a right word shift can do on climate.
Speaker 1: Because Sophie now represents a four party coalition. Two of
Speaker 1: those parties do not want to do anything on climate
Speaker 1: and to want to and they have to come to
Speaker 1: this grand compromise to try and figure out how they'll
Speaker 1: meet their legally mandated climate goals, sit within the European Union,
Speaker 1: which has very ambitious climate targets, and make them all
Speaker 1: work despite the political shift. Here's what Sophie had to say.
Speaker 6: Well, in this coalition, we agreed that what we stated
Speaker 6: in our law at the twenty thirty target but also
Speaker 6: the twenty fifty targets, it's non negotiable. That's what we
Speaker 6: are going to do and what we have to achieve.
Speaker 6: So there's no discussion about it, and now we have
Speaker 6: the discussion of how to achieve it.
Speaker 2: So the theme seems to be it's very messy, but
Speaker 2: on we go, and that messiness wasn't just about politics
Speaker 2: and elections, but also about several wars that continue even
Speaker 2: as these talks played out. It was striking to go
Speaker 2: visit the Russia Pavilion with its life size Motroit cadals,
Speaker 2: and then right around the corner was the Ukraine Pavilion,
Speaker 2: which also had a very elaborate showing with these biodegradable
Speaker 2: walls covered with seeds. Both countries quite engaged in the process,
Speaker 2: even as they are also engaged in a war.
Speaker 1: And it's not just Russia and Ukraine. We caught up
Speaker 1: with the climaton way of Israel. Gideon Behar and I
Speaker 1: asked him, how do you think about climate change when
Speaker 1: there is a war happening? And how do you compare
Speaker 1: the timelines on which these two crises have to be
Speaker 1: How are you going to agree with people you are
Speaker 1: at war with.
Speaker 7: Well, you know, the climate crisis is impacting all of
Speaker 7: us and it's a danger for humanity at all. So
Speaker 7: we really have to come to a consensus. And Israel
Speaker 7: is here because Israel is part of the international community.
Speaker 7: Israel is a dedicated member trying to make its contribution
Speaker 7: to solve the climate crisis. And we are here, so
Speaker 7: we will be part of a consensus.
Speaker 1: And we did get ideal, and we shouldn't take that
Speaker 1: for granted. The multilateral process is a delicate one and
Speaker 1: it is currently being put under a lot of pressure.
Speaker 1: But that's what makes it interesting to come to a
Speaker 1: cop where all these countries do show up and jostle
Speaker 1: over the fate of the planet over the next century.
Speaker 2: There was a line in the piece that you filed
Speaker 2: with reporters John Ainger and Jender Louis and Alfred Song
Speaker 2: kind of stayed with me on this point, and it
Speaker 2: was this idea that even though there was a deal,
Speaker 2: and here's the line, the process of global climate cooperation
Speaker 2: will lurch forward from here under the weight of heavier
Speaker 2: existential questions. This was already a pretty heavy cup. How
Speaker 2: much heavier can I get?
Speaker 1: Look covering climate change day in and day out, there's
Speaker 1: just no way to escape heavier existential questions. You know,
Speaker 1: humanity is likely to survive this period, but perhaps in
Speaker 1: a very poor state if it doesn't do much, and
Speaker 1: perhaps in a very good state if it does a lot.
Speaker 1: But the heavier questions here are quite real. We've talked
Speaker 1: about so many of them. The right would turn to politics,
Speaker 1: wars happening, the creaking of the multilateral system, the rise
Speaker 1: of competition instead of cooperation, the inward turn of countries
Speaker 1: in a time when global crises that required global responses
Speaker 1: are growing. That's what makes this beat so dynamic, That's
Speaker 1: what makes the progress so interesting, because the forces against
Speaker 1: it are so strong and to me The question at
Speaker 1: the heart of this equation is whether we can all
Speaker 1: work together toward progress.
Speaker 2: We've already been looking ahead to COP thirty. In our
Speaker 2: last episode, you spoke to Brazil's Andre Corrier di Lago,
Speaker 2: the Secretary for Climate, Energy and the Environment. Brazil's the
Speaker 2: next host. They are planning to hold the conference in Belem,
Speaker 2: the gateway to the Amazon, a place that, again like Baku,
Speaker 2: isn't necessarily used to big influx of visitors. He was
Speaker 2: very cheerful and candid about all of this. He said
Speaker 2: Brazil wasn't going to try to hide its problems. Brazil
Speaker 2: was committed to leading by example and embracing some of
Speaker 2: those contradictions. Given how things ended in Baku, what can
Speaker 2: we expect in Vilm.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of expectations being put on on
Speaker 1: COP thirty in Belem. One is that, given we are
Speaker 1: behind these new national climate plans that countries have to submit,
Speaker 1: have to be much more ambitious. With a deal on
Speaker 1: finance at Baku, that becomes a little easier because countries
Speaker 1: will have so called conditional climate plans where they say,
Speaker 1: if this money does come through as was promised, we'll
Speaker 1: be able to do so much more to cut emissions.
Speaker 1: But the other thing about this finance deal is that
Speaker 1: although three hundred billion dollars were agreed to, the needs
Speaker 1: for foreign investments into developing countries is about one point
Speaker 1: three trillion dollars per year that was acknowledged in the
Speaker 1: final deal. And there's going to be a road to
Speaker 1: BELLM program that is going to work on figuring out
Speaker 1: how to increase the sum of climate finance from three
Speaker 1: hundred billion to one point three trillion. What exactly are
Speaker 1: these innovative financial instruments that could be used us to
Speaker 1: make that happen. So Brazil already had a lot to
Speaker 1: do and now it's got more on its table. But
Speaker 1: it seems Brazil is really committed on making this BELLM
Speaker 1: COP a real success and they've already begun that job
Speaker 1: as part of this troika that was created between COP
Speaker 1: twenty eight, COP twenty nine and COP thirty and a
Speaker 1: lot of people are very excited about what's to come. Actually,
Speaker 1: thank you, thank you, And just to add, all of
Speaker 1: this work is not work that we do alone. We
Speaker 1: had a big team from Bloombergreen on the ground in Baku,
Speaker 1: and all of our coverage from those two weeks is
Speaker 1: free to read. Please do go check out bloomberg dot com, Forward.
Speaker 2: Slash Green everything you need to know about COP twenty
Speaker 2: nine and COP thirty.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Zero and now for the
Speaker 1: sound of the week. In the one free afternoon I
Speaker 1: had in Baku, I went to visit mud volcanoes, which
Speaker 1: leaves methane. But the most memorable thing was the ride
Speaker 1: to the volcanoes, which happened in a nineteen eighty seven
Speaker 1: Russian Lada four by four, a vehicle as old as
Speaker 1: I am and one that felt like went at rocket
Speaker 1: speed on unpaved roads while I sat behind, holding on
Speaker 1: for dear life. If you like this episode, please take
Speaker 1: a moment to rate and review the show on Apple
Speaker 1: Podcasts and Spotify. Share this episode with a friend or
Speaker 1: with someone who still believes in a United Nations. You
Speaker 1: can get in touch at zero pot at Bloomberg dot Net.
Speaker 1: Zero's producer is might Lee Raw, Bloomberg's head a podcast
Speaker 1: is Sage Bowman, and head of Talk is Brendan Nuna.
Speaker 1: Our theme music is composed by Wondering Special thanks to
Speaker 1: Shawan Wagner, Sharon Chan, Jender, Louis, Alfred San, John Ainger,
Speaker 1: Natasha White, Will Kennedy, Rock Kadocky, and Aaron Rutko. I
Speaker 1: am actual rati back so