Speaker 1: Welcome to Zero. I'm Oscar BOYD. COP twenty eight has
Speaker 1: finally come to a close after frantic last minute negotiations
Speaker 1: that meant the giant climate summit ran well into overtime. Now,
Speaker 1: with the final text agreed upon, delegates are working their
Speaker 1: way back home, and the venue that hosted the conference
Speaker 1: will start its transformation into a winter wonderland for the
Speaker 1: residents of Dubai. There could hardly be a better image
Speaker 1: to sum up the clash of worlds that was COP
Speaker 1: twenty eight, hosted by an oil dependent economy a few
Speaker 1: miles from the world's largest gas fire power plant, attended
Speaker 1: by more than one hundred thousand delegates across two weeks
Speaker 1: at a site built for huge trade shows. So what
Speaker 1: was all this frenetic activity for and did COP twenty
Speaker 1: eight President Sultan Algebra make good on his promise for
Speaker 1: this to be the most ambitious climate summit to date.
Speaker 1: For this episode, I talked with Zero's regular host Akshatrati
Speaker 1: about what was achieved and whether the one point five
Speaker 1: degree celsius target is still alive. Actually, I appreciate it's
Speaker 1: been a hectic few days at COP twenty eight and
Speaker 1: we're getting you right at the end of your RSL
Speaker 1: Bunny charge. Thank you so much for taking the time.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot to discuss with today's agreement, But
Speaker 1: before we get into the weeds, let's just quickly understand
Speaker 1: why the agreements that are made at cop actually matter.
Speaker 2: It's a good question. You know, two hundred countries come together,
Speaker 2: in this case, one hundred thousand people fly in from
Speaker 2: different places to meet to talk, and really, what do
Speaker 2: they produce. It's a piece of text. But sometimes that
Speaker 2: piece of text can have real world consequences. We know
Speaker 2: that from the Paris Agreement in twenty fifteen, when the
Speaker 2: world signed off on a goal to keep warming below
Speaker 2: two degrees celsius and try efforts for one point five
Speaker 2: degrees celsius. It became a rallying cry. By twenty eighteen,
Speaker 2: we had the formula net zero. By twenty fifty, that
Speaker 2: is now a target, in many cases, illegally binding target
Speaker 2: from major economies, and it is a corporate target for
Speaker 2: many of the biggest companies in the world. So when
Speaker 2: the text is signed off by two hundred countries, it
Speaker 2: has a weight that is hard to get in any
Speaker 2: other form of diplomacy. Globally. Sometimes the wording is wooly.
Speaker 2: There are loopholes, but if the direction of travel is set,
Speaker 2: it makes a difference.
Speaker 1: And the text has just been signed off by two
Speaker 1: hundred countries and for the first time contains clear language
Speaker 1: about moving away from fossil fuels. How did that come about?
Speaker 2: That's correct. This is the first time in thirty years
Speaker 2: of having cop meetings there is language that says transitioning
Speaker 2: away from fossil fuels in the energy system. And it
Speaker 2: might seem silly because of course we know the problem
Speaker 2: that is climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels,
Speaker 2: and we've known that for decades. But because when countries
Speaker 2: sign off on it, all countries have to sign off
Speaker 2: on it, that means fossil fuel producers have to sign
Speaker 2: off on it, and they have in blocking even the
Speaker 2: mention of fossil fuels for the longest time. We sort
Speaker 2: of had a breach in the dam in Cup twenty
Speaker 2: six in Glasgow where we got a phase down of
Speaker 2: coal power, and this time we have all fossil fuelds covered.
Speaker 1: So if there's been a breach in the dam, is
Speaker 1: this now turning into a flood? You know Simon Steele,
Speaker 1: who's the head of the UNFC. He said that this
Speaker 1: is the beginning of the end for fossil fuels. That's
Speaker 1: a big claim because the language is suggestive, i would say,
Speaker 1: of cutting fossil fuels, but doesn't explicitly call for a
Speaker 1: phase out, which was what a lot of people were
Speaker 1: hoping for coming into this cup. So how effective do
Speaker 1: you think this language really is to keep warming below
Speaker 1: one point five degree ce.
Speaker 2: Well, this is where we get into the weeds, because
Speaker 2: this is where the science comes to play. Now. The
Speaker 2: science is very clear. It says to be able to
Speaker 2: keep warming below one point five degrees celsius, you have
Speaker 2: to start reducing emissions now pretty quickly and then reach
Speaker 2: net zero carbon dioxide emission by twenty to fifty. How
Speaker 2: does any single country get there? They can decide there
Speaker 2: are many pathways available, and do you always have to
Speaker 2: phase out fossil fuels in all of those pathways? Not really.
Speaker 2: In fact, in almost every scenario to get to net
Speaker 2: zero by twenty fifty, there is still plenty of oil
Speaker 2: and gas being consumed in twenty fifty on a day
Speaker 2: to day basis. So yes, eventually we have to phase
Speaker 2: out fossil fuels, but maybe some countries have to do
Speaker 2: it sooner, some countries have to do it later. And
Speaker 2: it's very easy to get into a fight about what
Speaker 2: date which country does it, and because cop agreements have
Speaker 2: to be by consensus, falling into that kind of debate
Speaker 2: gets really messy. So the way out in this text
Speaker 2: is that countries are being called upon to transition away
Speaker 2: from fossil fuels in line with the science, to keep
Speaker 2: warming below one point five degrees celsius and reach net
Speaker 2: zero by twenty fifty. That is a much more precise
Speaker 2: line which and yes it does mean a rapid decrease
Speaker 2: in the consumption of fossil fuels, because there's no other
Speaker 2: scenario to be able to get you to that point.
Speaker 1: So I guess the flip side of the fossil fuel
Speaker 1: equation is that we need new sources of energy to
Speaker 1: replace all the energy we currently get from fossil fuels.
Speaker 1: Just last week, we talked with Jenny Chase in an
Speaker 1: episode of Zero about the goal to triple renewables by
Speaker 1: twenty thirty. Did this goal of tripling renewables actually make
Speaker 1: it into the final text?
Speaker 2: It did, alongside many others such as doubling energy efficiency,
Speaker 2: accelerating the move towards zero and low emissions vehicles, and
Speaker 2: there's a whole litany of technologies mentioned in the text, hydrogen,
Speaker 2: carbon capture, and storage, nuclear Those are all things that
Speaker 2: you're right, we're going to have to build if we
Speaker 2: are to replace fossil fuels because the world's consumption of
Speaker 2: energy is not going to decline anytime soon, and especially
Speaker 2: for developing countries, they want to be able to use
Speaker 2: more energy. And so the biggest takeaway from having these
Speaker 2: specific goals in some places, or at least mentions of technology,
Speaker 2: is that that's a market signal for businesses. We understand
Speaker 2: that investing in these technologies listed in this document, agreed
Speaker 2: by two hundred countries, is likely to be the profitable
Speaker 2: thing in the long term. That's what Jennifer Morgan, Germany's
Speaker 2: Climate Onward told us that it's now clear investing in
Speaker 2: fossil fuels will likely end up in a stranded asset,
Speaker 2: but investing in clean energy is likely to be the
Speaker 2: profitable route.
Speaker 1: One of the technologies you mentioned there was carbon capture,
Speaker 1: and we could get into a hole debate about that
Speaker 1: because I know people are concerned that the technology has
Speaker 1: not been proven at a scale that we need. But
Speaker 1: one concrete thing that was mentioned and that we know
Speaker 1: can cut emissions very quickly and has a near time
Speaker 1: date on it in the text was methane. So the
Speaker 1: text says countries are called on to substantially reduce non
Speaker 1: carbon dioxide missions globally, including in particular methane emissions, by
Speaker 1: twenty thirty. So we made a past episode of Zero
Speaker 1: together about how quickly cutting methane emissions will have an
Speaker 1: impact on the speed of warming. So having this language
Speaker 1: that's got to be really significant, right, Yes, it really is,
Speaker 1: And there's a little bit of background that might help
Speaker 1: you understand how sometimes these COP meetings can work and
Speaker 1: actually produce good solutions. So the first time methane was
Speaker 1: mentioned at COP meetings was in COP twenty six in Glasgow.
Speaker 1: A group of countries, some eighty countries came together and
Speaker 1: said we will reduce methane emissions by thirty percent by
Speaker 1: twenty thirty. It's completely voluntary, and there was some momentum
Speaker 1: given to it by the US and the EU coming
Speaker 1: together on that goal. Since then, the number of countries
Speaker 1: joining that pledge that global methane pledge has grown. The
Speaker 1: ability to hold those countries to account has improved because
Speaker 1: now we have satellites in the sky that can look
Speaker 1: at those methane emissions, and there is now a UN body,
Speaker 1: the Emissions Observatory, that can check whether countries are living
Speaker 1: up to those goals. So momentum was building, and so
Speaker 1: it's kind of amazing that now all two hundred countries
Speaker 1: are supposed to target matthane emissions. Of course, not all
Speaker 1: two hundred countries have to reduce it by thirty percent
Speaker 1: by twenty thirty, but maybe that's the next thing that'll
Speaker 1: come at a future crop. There are obviously so many
Speaker 1: parts of this agreement we could talk about. We had
Speaker 1: that loss and Damage fund agreed upon two weeks ago.
Speaker 1: Climate adaptation was a huge topic being discussed, but I
Speaker 1: really want to talk about implementation. So in his closing
Speaker 1: speech COP twenty eight, President Sultan Algebra said, let me
Speaker 1: sound a word of caution. An agreement is only as
Speaker 1: good as its implementation. We are what we do, not
Speaker 1: what we say, which I think is kind of is true.
Speaker 1: It's a very honest moment from him. Having words agreed
Speaker 1: to in text is nice, but Obviously, it's the implementation
Speaker 1: that matters. What exactly is needed to implement the COP
Speaker 1: twenty eight deal.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, one of the things that that COPS are not
Speaker 2: created for us, Christiana Figueries told us is that they
Speaker 2: are not created to implement the policies that they are
Speaker 2: signing off on, because those policies, after all, will be
Speaker 2: set up in the national context, in domestic settings within
Speaker 2: countries but also regions, and that is what really moves
Speaker 2: the ball. It's implementing those policies. Doing it requires many things. First,
Speaker 2: it requires capacity. Not all countries have the skills to
Speaker 2: be able to understand the energy transition, to have the
Speaker 2: skilled workforce that will go out and build these solutions,
Speaker 2: to have the institutions that would back up a transformation
Speaker 2: of energy systems and eventually agricultural systems, transport systems and whatnot. Second,
Speaker 2: you need finance. Developed countries have big central banks, lots
Speaker 2: of cash. Yes, they're going through their own crises, but
Speaker 2: they do have the ability to turn around to their
Speaker 2: financial institutions and use the money to get work done.
Speaker 2: You can't say the same thing of developing countries, and
Speaker 2: so a lot of COP meetings become fights about finance,
Speaker 2: about getting developed countries to give money to developing countries.
Speaker 2: We didn't see very much of that in this COP.
Speaker 2: We saw some side deals around climate finance. The UE,
Speaker 2: for example, announced a five billion dollar fund that they
Speaker 2: want to invest in developing countries and ideally bring in
Speaker 2: more private capital. From that five billion dollars, it will
Speaker 2: likely add up to twenty thirty billion dollars, but you know,
Speaker 2: we need hundreds of billions of dollars. So that question
Speaker 2: is now going to be the question over the next
Speaker 2: two years. In fact, COP thirty two years from now
Speaker 2: is going to be in Brazil, and Brazil is the
Speaker 2: G twenty president next year. So Brazil has committed that
Speaker 2: it's going to make the reform of the international financial
Speaker 2: system its core push, where it will work on it
Speaker 2: in the G twenty presidency and then eventually at COP
Speaker 2: and then finally, all of this happens when there is
Speaker 2: technologies available to deploy in developing countries, and so there
Speaker 2: is a mention in the text around technology transfer. Now
Speaker 2: it's very simple and vague, and technology transfer gets countries
Speaker 2: up against the wall, but at least it's there. This
Speaker 2: is the first time there is an acknowledgment that you
Speaker 2: need finance, you need people with the capacity to do
Speaker 2: the work, and you need the technologies.
Speaker 1: And one thing that really made this COPS stand out
Speaker 1: was its size and scale. There's some one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: delegates there. There were apparently four hundred thousand people who
Speaker 1: attended the green zone, which is not where the negotiations happened,
Speaker 1: but the appendage to the main COP area. I just
Speaker 1: wonder what you think about the size and scale of
Speaker 1: these things we were there together. It was a vast
Speaker 1: venue set up for the EXPOT twenty twenty, all these
Speaker 1: amazing architectural buildings and people from all countries, all different professions,
Speaker 1: all there in one place. What do you think about
Speaker 1: COP having grown to this size.
Speaker 2: People have mixed about it. People who've attended COPS for
Speaker 2: years say that it's becoming bigger, and perhaps it's becoming
Speaker 2: more annoying because you have more fossil fuel lobbyists and
Speaker 2: you have more corporate lobbyists, and sometimes these side deeals
Speaker 2: become distractions and you're not really focused on the core
Speaker 2: part of the negotiation. But then on the other hand,
Speaker 2: the people who come there are people who are perhaps
Speaker 2: new to the idea of doing something about climate or
Speaker 2: are people who think there are opportunities they could grab
Speaker 2: and make money or go to new countries and open
Speaker 2: new markets. We are in a messy transition. You know,
Speaker 2: there is a phrase that was used in the text
Speaker 2: orderly transition. Well, it's going to be messy even if
Speaker 2: it is slightly orderly. And people of all professions come here, bankers, financiers,
Speaker 2: oil and gas companies, renewable energy companies, tech bros. They
Speaker 2: want to find out what it is that they can
Speaker 2: do with their skills to try and deploy some of
Speaker 2: these solutions. Now do they all with a clean heart?
Speaker 2: Maybe not. But if they're coming towards meeting the goals
Speaker 2: of the Paris Agreement, the more the merrier.
Speaker 1: After the break, is this the most significant coop agreement
Speaker 1: since Paris? Coming back to the deal, we've talked about
Speaker 1: some of the stuff that was in it. Were there
Speaker 1: any major things that were left out from the deal? Oh,
Speaker 1: that would be a long list.
Speaker 2: And if I give you some country negotiators, I think
Speaker 2: we're going to have a overnight podcast. I'll bec on
Speaker 2: one thing that came up quite often. Now, a lot
Speaker 2: of the conversation we've had so far has been focused
Speaker 2: on reducing emissions, absolutely important, but equally important is being
Speaker 2: able to adapt to warming. This is something that developing
Speaker 2: countries desperately need help on and in fact, as we learned,
Speaker 2: investing a dollar in adaptation can bring you seven dollars
Speaker 2: in economic benefits, and so the economic case for it
Speaker 2: exists too. And this COP was going to be the
Speaker 2: COP that agreed on a global goal on adaptation. It
Speaker 2: was something that COP twenty six signed off on. It
Speaker 2: took two years to come up with a goal, and
Speaker 2: it did leave many participants unhappy they have signed off
Speaker 2: on it. It is a framework that addresses many of
Speaker 2: the key points. You can listen more about those key
Speaker 2: points in our previous episode with Patrick Fergen, but it
Speaker 2: left out specifics. It did not actually give measurable targets
Speaker 2: on how to reach those goals, and it left out
Speaker 2: a lot on finance. So that's now the work over
Speaker 2: the next two years where they will come up with
Speaker 2: more quantified goals and they will figure out how to
Speaker 2: finance many of these solutions.
Speaker 1: So you said there that some parties at the conference
Speaker 1: were left disappointed. It's two hundred odd countries coming to
Speaker 1: COP twenty eight. On one side, it's the most climate
Speaker 1: vulnerable country, small island developing states for example. On the
Speaker 1: other hand, you have big fossil fuel producers the US,
Speaker 1: but also all the OPEC countries. Not everyone's going to
Speaker 1: be happy about this deal. So I wonder what are
Speaker 1: some of the reactions that you heard from people on
Speaker 1: the ground as this deal came out today.
Speaker 2: Diplomacy is the art of compromise, and it was kind
Speaker 2: of stunning this morning when all of us sat down
Speaker 2: to attend the final meeting, and we expected there to
Speaker 2: be a fight. We expected countries to rise up and
Speaker 2: make passionate argument for why certain things that they wanted
Speaker 2: weren't in there. But within the first minute, the Global Starctic,
Speaker 2: the document we are talking about, signed off and there
Speaker 2: was standing ovations and then silence because people were confused.
Speaker 1: Just shocked. It was so quick.
Speaker 2: Yes, it shocked everybody. That is not to say oppositions
Speaker 2: and grievances weren't there. They were there, They just came
Speaker 2: after they allowed the decision to go through, and those
Speaker 2: grievances came from small island developing states. Samoa's spokespersons spoke
Speaker 2: passionately about how having loopholes in the text allowing transitional
Speaker 2: fuels which is typically code for natural gas, or targeting
Speaker 2: fossil fuels only in the energy systems but not in
Speaker 2: sa agriculture to make fertilizers or to make plastics leaves
Speaker 2: out much of oil and gas consumption still on the table.
Speaker 2: Or the text uses phrases like calls on which in
Speaker 2: UN speak is not very strong. It's not urges, it's
Speaker 2: not should and so yes, there are compromises, and island
Speaker 2: states are not very happy, but they were also not
Speaker 2: so unhappy to actually block the deal. The fossil fuel
Speaker 2: producers who also had to make compromises because Saudi Arabia
Speaker 2: we know, was adamant on not having phasing out language,
Speaker 2: well they got their way, but that got replaced by
Speaker 2: transitioning away. It will affect their business model, investments will
Speaker 2: go more towards clean energy as a result of this agreement,
Speaker 2: and so not everyone was happy, but there was progress.
Speaker 1: And presiding over this meeting was Sultan Algebra, the president
Speaker 1: of COP twenty eight. You previously chased him all around
Speaker 1: the world for a profile. We spoke about him at
Speaker 1: length in an episode just before Cop twenty eight, and
Speaker 1: there were scandal around him. At multiple points during this presidency.
Speaker 1: Videos of him getting irates with former President of Ireland
Speaker 1: Mary Robinson emerged. Documents that seemed to show he was
Speaker 1: using cop meetings to discuss adnock business came out, though
Speaker 1: he strongly denied this afterwards, and yet he got this
Speaker 1: agreement signed. Do you think he was an effective cop president?
Speaker 2: There were a lot of people who attended many cops
Speaker 2: and this was perhaps one of the best organized cops.
Speaker 2: There was also a lot of praise for how the
Speaker 2: cop was run. The presidency made themselves available, They heard
Speaker 2: lots of people and they tried to take as many
Speaker 2: views on board. Of course, the test of whether Cop
Speaker 2: twenty eight would be a success or not were done
Speaker 2: to perhaps two things. Would there be a loss in
Speaker 2: damage fund with money in it tick? You got that
Speaker 2: on day one and two. Will there be enough in
Speaker 2: the global stock take response to reduce the gap between
Speaker 2: where we are and where we need to be on
Speaker 2: the net zero trajectory partial check, that's where things are difficult.
Speaker 2: At least fossil fuels got mentioned, But as we saw,
Speaker 2: there are loopholes, so of course fossil fuel producers have
Speaker 2: a business model they would like to protect, and they
Speaker 2: found some ways to protect it. But it is also
Speaker 2: important to recognize it's the first time all countries have
Speaker 2: signed off on transitioning away from fossil fuels. So I
Speaker 2: think the presidency would consider this a pretty good success.
Speaker 2: But let's remember the success of a cop who really
Speaker 2: can only be measured in hindsight. Will we in two
Speaker 2: to three years, five years look back at the UAE
Speaker 2: consensus as the dealer is known now and see it
Speaker 2: as a consent that was effective that remains to be seen.
Speaker 1: So the word historic is already being thrown around a lot.
Speaker 1: Some people are calling it the most significant COP since
Speaker 1: the Powis Agreement. But the goal of this, obviously is
Speaker 1: to keep the one point five degree CEE target alive.
Speaker 1: Is it still alive? Again?
Speaker 2: This is one of those things where people will have
Speaker 2: very differing views. Some people believe right now that we
Speaker 2: are already off the path and we're definitely crossing one
Speaker 2: point five degrees celsius. Others think we may do that,
Speaker 2: but then we may come back down if we use
Speaker 2: things like carbon removal technologies, And of course then you
Speaker 2: ask any COP president, regardless of whether they come from
Speaker 2: a fossil fuel country or a vulnerable country, they'll all say,
Speaker 2: we're going to do our best to try and keep
Speaker 2: one point five c alive. The thing to note, though,
Speaker 2: is that if you read the Paris Agreement, it says
Speaker 2: holding the increase in the global average temperature to well
Speaker 2: below two degrees celsius above pre industrial levels, and pursuing
Speaker 2: efforts to limit the temperature increase to one point five
Speaker 2: degrees celsius. It means that even if you cross one
Speaker 2: point five degrees celsius, you are committed, as countries having
Speaker 2: signed off on the Paris Agreement, that you will pursue
Speaker 2: efforts to reach one point five. That means the goal
Speaker 2: remains regardless of whether you breach it, you cross it,
Speaker 2: you have to come back down to one point five
Speaker 2: degrees celsius put in the effort to do it, because
Speaker 2: one point five degrees celsius is a death sentence for
Speaker 2: many vulnerable countries.
Speaker 1: ATCHA, thank you very much, Thank you, thank.
Speaker 2: You for listening to zero. For all the latest coverage
Speaker 2: about COP twenty eight and reactions to the agreement, head
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg dot com slash green If you like this episode,
Speaker 2: please take a moment to rate or review Zero on
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Share this episode with a friend
Speaker 2: or with a future climate negotiator. You can get in
Speaker 2: touch at zero pod at Bloomberg dot net. Are Pretty
Speaker 2: ducer is Oscarboid and senior producer is Christine Riskel. Our
Speaker 2: theme music is composed by wonderly Special Thanks as always
Speaker 2: to Kira Bindram i'm Akshatrati back soon.