Everything You Need to Know about COP 31

Pushkin.

Hello and welcome back to The Spill. I'm Amy Westervelt. This is Drilled's weekly newscast. We run it every Friday in between narrative seasons. And today we're going to talk about what else the thing everybody's excited about. No, not Brazil. No, not the U.S.

Elections.

Not Serbia. Cop 31, baby. All right. Introduce yourself, guys.

Hello, I'm Nina Lakhani. I'm the Global Climate Justice Reporter for Drilled.

Hello, I'm Royce Kamla. I'm an Australian journalist and author.

All right.

So, Nina, you interviewed Harjeet Singh, who we're going to hear from a little bit later. Tell us just a little bit about who he is in the context of like the pantheon of cop history.

Mm-hmm.

Hajit Singh is the best dressed man in the climate world, number one, always shows up at 10. Hajit is like a veteran climate activist who's got many, many, many cops under the belt.

He's from New Delhi in India.

We had like a sort of, you know, a global political advisory role with CAN, which is this massive collection of.

Like climate activists.

And environmental groups globally, like thousands of them. He is also part of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty set up team, and he's been part of that for a long time. You know, my interview with him is really about what the climate justice movement is sort of, has their eyes on what are the big ticket items in Turkey this year.

We dug into what role the civil society has in this COP process? Because they're mostly not in the negotiating rooms. So what role do they have and why is it so important that they're there?

So fun fact, journalists also banned from the negotiation rooms. For people who don't know, These annual meetups are, you know, they're bizarre little convenings of the ministers from lots of different countries. They get into various rooms to negotiate different parts of these climate agreements. The rooms each have different topics and themes and events. different people in them. Some civil society groups are, you know, have observer status and like can go in there, but journalists cannot. So we have to like lurk in the hallways and pester people to tell us things.

Okay.

So Royce and I were in Brazil last year. One of the things that has been happening in the last, like over the last few cops, I would say is this like kind of ridiculous back and forth about whether we can save fossil fuels in the global climate agreement. The first time that we officially talked about phasing out fossil fuels was the COP26 in Dubai, which you were also at, right, Royce?

Yep. I was.

You were too?

Okay.

So you guys were both there at this historic moment where we finally talked about fossil fuels in a climate agreement. And Brazil was supposed to be like the implementation cop where we went from like saying that that was a thing that was going to happen to figuring out how to do it. But there was a huge amount of pushback.

So yeah, maybe both of you can talk a little bit about what's happened in in the interim. Yeah, Nina, you want to start?

Yeah, sure. So yeah, despite a big effort by Brazil, they couldn't get a consensus on including anything around fossil fuels in their final agreement. At the end of that, basically, Brazil said, you know what, okay, but we are going to work unilaterally on this fossil fuel phase-out roadmap. And we will present it. We will do this year of work. And, you know, they've put a lot of work into it.

They've been around everywhere, talking to lots of people. And actually, the person that was leading that, I remember speaking to her a few months ago, and she was saying, you know what, the election is going to be really important. You If Lula loses, I think it will be a sort of, well, we've got nothing to lose.

Let's just say everything, right?

And if Lula wins, you know, we've got like the mandate to push forward with this. So they are handing over this roadmap any day now, right? That will be handed over to Turkey and Australia any day now. So how that then gets sort of woven in to the COP31 process, we're yet to see. But the other thing that came out of that was, there was so much sort of frustration at this consensus-led process that has absolutely been a way for people big polluting countries to block climate action for like 30 plus years, right? So what you had was this coalition of the willing, which Colombia was leading to say that, you know what, we are not going to wait for you anymore. We're going to just go ahead and start talking about how. And so

that led in April of this year to the first transitioning away from fossil fuels conference, which was in Santa Marta, Colombia, which I attended. There's a second one that's now planned for the Pacific Islands next year. which will be co-hosted by Ireland and Tuvalu. But I think really what this tells us is that actually, for years, we've been thinking COP is going to deliver something which it never was going to be able to deliver. It's a consensus-based process.

It is nothing but.

A cog in the wheel of much larger, a much bigger picture of that's climate litigation, it's advocacy. It's climate science, all of these other processes and important parts that are going on. And really, I think if we understand the COP process like that, it's perhaps less soul-destroying than it.

Would otherwise be, right? It's just one part of this bigger process.

And when Nina says consensus-based, what she's referring to there is that. Somehow, and then, well, we know how mostly it was like fossil fuel lobbyists that got this, you know, embedded in the system. The powers that be decided that we needed to have unanimous consensus on how to deal with this problem, which is never going to happen when you have Saudi Arabia and the US in the room. Nina mentioned something there, Royce, that I want you to explain to people, which is Turkey and Australia.

Yeah.

Why are both of those the host this year? That's an unusual thing for a cop.

Yeah, well, it's also we're taking a step back and looking at the geopolitics. And as we found out last year, the U.S. was not in the room, but it was still in the room.

The U.S.

Negotiating team were there under different badges.

Yeah, they were floating around.

People were like, oh, that's so-and-so and that's so-and-so.

And like, yeah. They were still there.

And I think it's also worth pointing out as well. There's a lot of discussion about a frustration at COP, but also like the fossil fuel companies keep turning up, you know, the major petro states keep turning up. There is a reason why these people are involved in this process and are working so hard to understand the rules and, you know, act in this way is because it allows them to get what they want out of their various geopolitics.

When it comes to Turkey and Australia, it's a fascinating story. Every year, who hosts COP rotates between various different groups. Australia happens to be in the same group as Turkey in a lot of European countries. And there was some contestation around who gets to host. So it was either going to be Turkey or Australia. Turkey had a deal with the UK previously, where Turkey would not stand in the way of the UK's previous nomination to host. If the UK supported Turkey, the next time it came around... Basically, the UK seemed to walk back on that to back the Australian bid because Australia decided that it really wanted to host this. And Australia is being pushed to host this as well by its relationship to the Pacific. You

have these countries that have been very much leading the way for fossil fuel phase out and various other mechanisms and treaties. And Australia has started to freak out in recent years over the role of China being in Pacific. And it realizes it needs to do something about this. And the chief security issue for the Pacific is climate change, which means that Australia has to care about climate change.

And we can talk a bit about that later. So you had this kind of contest between Turkey and Australia. Erdogan, who is the president of Turkey, his wife is really committed to recycling.

Big wife guy.

Who knew?

Yep.

Erdogan. Very practical environmentalism. and was pushing hard for this. It came down to the 11th hour. Australia was insisting negotiations were ongoing up until the very 11th hour, even if you can hear the Turkish delegation celebrating from their office in the COP building in Belém, Brazil. So the result, the compromise was that there was this weird hybrid model.

Turkey would host and hold the party. Australia would run the negotiations. And what this does in effect is create a very precarious situation for Australia whereby Australia kind of takes the blame if it all goes wrong and gets none of the glory if it goes right.

Yeah.

You guys definitely drew the short straw.

It's not great.

That's what we're going to get.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, to be fair, Australia, like, the US hadn't wanted part why because all eyes are on the country there and then Australia's in the top five villains of obviously causing climate change and you know continuing to roll out fossil fuels etc but I mean I do think it's important to say like you know it is regional as you're saying was that you know it goes from region to region but actually it's one of the big issues in recent years it's been that no one wants to do it because it's really freaking expensive it's.

Like the Olympics right yeah Yeah.

It's expensive.

It's hard to host. I mean, you know, you get a lot of attention on what's happening in your own backyard.

Whether it be the human.

Rights situation, like in Sharm el-Sheikh or Dubai also. So there's a lot of that. So it's not that countries are like fighting at the bit to do it either, right?

Yeah.

And also just to say about the consensus thing, Amy, just like just to remind our listeners that All UN processes are contested space. It's like the beauty of it is that everyone has a seat at the table. The beast of it is the big boys get to bully you in a lot of the decisions.

Yeah. And also the developing world keeps showing up. And I think this is often what is lost in this is that for all the frustration of this, it's developing countries, it's countries that are very exposed to climate harms. They're the ones who consistently try to turn up year after year, even though it's incredibly expensive and time and money to send someone from the Pacific or from the Caribbean to these processes. But they are still there. They're still insisting upon them. They're still demanding that they work. That has to count for something, I think.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

It depends on like which room you're looking at. But some of the ways that obstruction shows up in these negotiations is like not so obvious. You know, it's not like, oh, well, we want to get rid of any mention of fossil fuels or whatever. Like that stuff does happen. But a lot of times it's just delay. You know, it's like if we can just... hold out for long enough, then some like subset of countries will go home because they can't afford to keep their negotiators here for too long.

People will get tired. People will bend. Like this is the Saudi strategy over and over again. It's like rarely super confrontational. And then the other thing, like I found this fascinating last year in Brazil, like the way that weird cultural stuff will make its way into these negotiations too. So like in one of the rooms, Paraguay was trying to insist on like a biological definition of gender being part of the freaking climate agreement. It runs the gamut of like ridiculous to mind numbingly boring. Anyway, so what are things that you guys are kind of keeping an eye out for with this year's COP?

I did go to pre-COP for my sins. It was an interesting experience. So for those who don't know, pre-COP is a meeting that is held before the main conference. It basically is one of the precursor meetings that allows countries to kind of set the agenda or set the board for what will happen at COP. This pre-COP was different in a sense because part of the deal with Turkey for this hybrid model is that Turkey gets to host the COP, Australia will get to host the pre-COP in the Pacific. And this was partly because the Pacific, again, have been wanting the COP process to come out to the Pacific. And for countries, particularly in the global north, like Europe, who normally don't have to travel very far.

To see firsthand what climate change is doing to them.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, to have to travel and see for themselves what's going on and actually come to a place that's directly affected by this. The pre-cop was held in Nandi, a kind of a resort, a touristy island of Fiji. This is the second time it was held in Fiji. The first was in 2017. Normally, these meetings are very boring. Normally, these are just a minister sitting at a table talking about what will be on the agenda. This one had a cop feel, and it was designed to have a cop feel. And through it all, you had people from across the Pacific who would not normally get to travel.

turning up to host side events and talk and network. You had civil society groups from across the region and Australia feeling obligated and like they had to send someone and show up for this because this was in their region. And it was interesting in that sense. There was also a kind of weird sense of unreality about it because this is not a COP, right? There are not announceables.

The point is not to generate headlines, but there had to be a little bit of that. And within this, there is all the kind of interesting both national, regional and global politics that were playing out, which you can read about in my story for Drilled about three cops, which I talk about some of this sneaky little plug right there. As Nina, you mentioned, Australia is one of the world's biggest fossil fuel exporters. It's, I think, devised the top three of liquid natural gas exports. It's a major coal exporter. At the same time, its emissions per capita are some of the highest in the world, even if its overall emissions are small relative to countries like China or the U.S., Australia keeps talking about how it's

leading on climate change, keeps wanting to focus on the holy trinity of batteries, EVs and solar panels. But if Australia wants to do right by the Pacific, if it wants to live up to its rhetoric, it needs to actually do good on climate change. And as we know, it has a seesaw policy, as you said, Nina. The right-wing in Australian politics right now has lined up uniformly behind climate denial. In fact, the main conservative party pledged yesterday to absolutely gut climate policy in this country if ever returned to power in order to save $ 30 billion for the budget. We have a demagogic right-wing party, One Nation, that absolutely denies climate change is happening and wants to basically tear down any support for renewable energy and build

coal-fired power plants. So if the current government ever loses power, that's what we're looking at. And that's completely kind of in contradiction to the stuff that the Australian government is representing on international stage and goes to questions about authority, weight and credibility when the country engages with the Pacific and the rest of the world.

Nina, what are you going to be looking out for at this year's COP?

It's always all about the money. You talked about these subtle ways of delaying stuff at COP, Amy. One that happens all of the time is that when you have the just transition pathway, the developed countries are We'll literally ban anyone using the word adaptation in that work scheme.

And in the adaptation room, you're not allowed to say loss and damage or finance at all.

Exactly. I will use Australia as an example. It could be any country.

Australia's failure to actually transition away from fossil fuels is making the cost of adaptation lower. In the Pacific Islands, but also in Australia, surge. And the more that we don't spend on adaptation, the more irreversible loss and damage that we have. So there's a Venn diagram and most of it's overlap.

Yeah.

So that's what I'm interested in. I mean, loss and damage is not going to be a main agenda item. It's already been relegated to the peripheries. And I think a lot of the Climate justice movement will be there in pressuring and talking about that. But I think a lot of the effort and I think a lot of the focus is going to be looking at the climate adaptation and the just transition pathways to really pushing.

Hard on those. And in the end, you know, we now know.

That actually we need two to three trillion dollars a year to cover all the different things that we need.

Mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage.

Right.

And we are like, you know, a percent of that is. Yeah, exactly.

You know, and I'm just really interested in like to see. how Turkey responds, you know, another country not known for its openness or like pro-democracy stance on anything. So, but, you know, the climate movement will be there doing the pressure on the streets, the protests and rallies, you know, the calling out of fossil fuel lobbyists. Big ad lobbyists, all of that, you know. So, yeah, so I think their role is super important. But, yeah, it's all about the money.

I mean, and so there's always the element that's of interest. I'm curious this year about how hard the AI hyperscalers are going to turn up in order to try.

And sell their wares.

I mean, that's an interesting list on an old genre, right? The other thing is that I continue to be interested in this question about the crisis legitimacy facing the cop process, right? This is the venue by which the world has to talk about this for better or worse. But if we can't solve things, eventually that's going to become to a head.

It's going to cause a crisis and then we'll see what happens then. And so, I mean, I don't necessarily think it's going to come to a head this year because I think everyone wants to kind of keep things fairly stage managed and keep the process going and no one really wants a big bust up. But it's always possible that it might. And given this weird hybrid model, given the pressures going on, given what happened at the end of COP last year, where in the absence of the US, you had this weird vacuum between the different countries that descended into a yelling match almost in the closing plenary about procedure. Anything can happen.

It's funny, I think if you'd asked me two years ago, Royce, I would have been like, cops days are numbered. And actually, I don't think that now. I feel like with this sort of transitioning away from fossil fuels work that's going on, I think there's been a sort of, you know, this real realisation that we're there, we're going to hold you accountable.

We're actually going to go ahead and do the work and feed into that, right?

Yeah, because I feel like people, I think, very mistakenly saw initially the Santa Marta track as being, you know, somehow like an attempt to hijack a cop or repress a cop or whatever. And it's like, no, actually, it's a really nice compliment to it. And it kind of has acted as like a little bit of a release valve on some of those tensions, because... All these countries that are like, we want to be able to do this thing that we haven't been able to do have just kind of been like, well, fuck it. We're going to do it. And we can do it in parallel with this other process. And they don't actually have to take anything away from each other. I don't know. It's kind of a subculture. nice development.

It's a really interesting political maneuver, right?

Yeah.

It's like, okay, well, we can't talk about this in the process. We're going to have a sidebar and talk about the practicalities in this particular meetup. And then that will then feed back into the process. Because what you're doing is creating, like you're creating the foundations for another political block to emerge.

Yeah. Yeah.

And the cop process means you run that out long enough. The cop process will either have to accommodate and adopt and take over those ideas and incorporate those ideas or it won't. And then if it doesn't, then that crisis of legitimacy deepens. And also there is a potential that with like the US attacks on Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and they're kind of blocked off one-fifth of global oil shipping, that these issues actually, because of the security framing around them, actually get more uptake this time around.

Yeah, that's going to be interesting actually to see.

Yeah, I think both of those things... Yeah, I think that's right. And don't forget, there is history on this. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came about in exactly the same way.

There wasn't a consensus and so.

You had this break-off group to gather political momentum together. you know like to you know again a coalition willing and and it's not a perfect process I mean at Santa Marta a lot of the sort of power structures were repeated right and why wouldn't they be if you put the same people in a room you're going to have that but I think this idea that you know we've got to try something else because you know what we can't just every year do the same thing and expect the results to be different right we've got to try and create a pressure back pump from somewhere else.

And yeah, I totally agree with you, Royce, I think in terms of like the Strait of Hormuz and like the illegal war in Iran. And also just I think I see compared to when I first started reporting on military emissions and the huge emissions gap that is completely unaccounted for, like because thanks to the US during the Clinton administration, the Pentagon like pressured enough to keep it out of the accounting, right? I see more movement around, pressure around that, that big hole. Like I see much more movement and momentum gathering around ecocide to be recognised as an international crime, right? And you're seeing this, I think this is a convergence of these, you know, authoritarian leaders, these illegal wars, a genocide in Palestine, do you know

what I mean? Like in just an utter, utter climate breakdown happening. And I think, so you are, you know, there's these pressure points. And so you have to have some sort of like political mechanism that works along with you know, grassroots movements, the streets. I mean, I think the fact that Lula won last night by 4 million votes.

Is going to be a huge boost going into COP, right?

It really is because I think the roadmap, I think it's going to have a lot more oomph behind it. I think it's going to have a lot more legitimacy behind it. Also, you know, in Serbia, a small European country, but they rejected an autocrat.

Also, can we just pause for a moment and celebrate Hungary's Getting rid of Orban too. Like that wasn't that long ago. Let's throw that in the mix as well.

Exactly.

The cockroaches on the streets of India, like beautiful, you know, the protest in France, in Spain, Italy. I was like, do you know me? Like, you know, and these things are all connected and that's something, you know. Stay tuned to listen to Harjit because he talks a lot about that.

Just how, you know, this is all connected, right?

And like not having money for climate mitigation or adaptation, but having money for illegal wars or not having money for health, but having money for legal wars. The people and especially the young people are completely done with it, right?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Totally.

Awesome.

All right.

What about you, Amy?

Oh, me. Okay.

I was going to say that's a good place to end it.

No, what about you?

Well, you know, I'm always looking at like, I do, I actually am, I, I am totally obsessed with all the little like side events happening at COP because, well, A, you know, we continue to see fossil fuel companies like brokering deals on the sidelines of COP. That's like become a new thing, new old thing. Probably was always happening.

It's just more brazen now. But then also like the side events content-wise too are really interesting because you'll end up with these– You know, industry group events, like we went to an IPICA event in Brazil. This is this weird little industry group that basically like organizes the fossil fuel industry's approach to international climate negotiations. And they're just so honest at these events because no one's showing up to them, you know? So they really say the quiet part out loud. Well, like, and the thing I'm actually really watching is... I'm very freaked out at the moment by how quickly geoengineering has just like leapfrogged into like just right past carbon capture until the thing that we're

embracing as a solution, especially amidst the AI boom. And I think nuclear too, like I'm hearing... So many right wing guys in particular and the energy secretary in the US, Chris Wright, is a big nuclear guy. They've already been kind of like boosters for nuclear, but now they're like, oh, this is how we solve this energy problem. It's like just throw nuclear at it. So, yeah.

Isn't Bill Gates and all over that in the US, right? He's like big data center guy.

Yeah.

So tech guys in.

General, there's something very appealing about it, I think, for the tech bros. So, yeah.

But you're saying countries all... I mean, you know, obviously France.

For a long time.

It gets a B-minus always on its sort of fossil fuel, you know, usage because it's mostly nuclear, right? But I mean, I grew up as a young teenager going to campaign against nuclear disarmament marches, right?

And we thought we'd won that battle, but I don't know.

It's back. weirdly I was talking to this guy this morning who like worked at Exxon in the 70s so he's like pretty old and at the end he was like I have a question for you and I was like okay he's like do you know any journalists that are working on radioactive waste because I feel like all of a sudden I'm seeing this huge increase in interest about nuclear again and he's like and you know like He's a scientist and like a technologist, right? So he's like, we have actually solved quite a few of the technological limitations on nuclear, but the thing that we still have not solved is the waste problem, which I know.

Which will kill us. Yeah, which is a pretty big problem, you know.

I could talk for ages about nuclear. We'll be here for another 30 minutes. It drives me mad, this stuff.

It used to get me, honestly, I mean, I remember it was really, you know, the campaign against nuclear disarmament was like when I was really a kid. And I just remember being like in elementary, primary school, I would have nightmares about being like a nuclear sort of disaster because, you know, the Chernobyl happened and like.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

You and I are old enough to have done, like, nuclear drills in school. Royce is a little bit, like, a little bit behind us on that. Oh, my God. I know.

My favorite necklace I wore for years was a CND.

Yeah. Like, literally.

Do you know what I mean?

Like, my whole teenage life, growing up as a teenager, I'm just like, why?

Why are we going back to this?

But.

When I was like, I think I was like nine or something. My town, for some reason, like hosted a bunch of like Russian exchange students. And we did a play together called Peace Child. It was all about like... And on that note, a good night. anyway so yeah I'm looking out for that and I love actually all of like the cop tea like I think the like weird little things that come up in the negotiation rooms I find delightful so the like piece of gossip I'll be looking out for is like further examples of Erdogan being a wife guy I think it's hilarious yeah.

Yeah Yeah, which pavilion has the best coffee? All this stuff is very important. It's Australian pavilion.

Oh, yeah.

Known for its cuisine.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Australia. Yeah. So we'll hear from you again in a couple of.

Weeks, right?

Yes.

Yes, we will. We're going to get your recap on COP at the end. We're going to contrast it with this cheery preview of I'm just kidding. Come back after the break to listen to Nina's talk with Harjeet.

Harjeet Singh, welcome to The Spill. How are you?

I'm fine, Nina. Thank you very much for having me.

You're very welcome. So you're in New Delhi in India. I'm in Mexico City. And we're speaking the morning after the. Seismic result in both Brazil and in Serbia. You know, we're going to talk about COP 31, which starts in a couple of weeks in Turkey. But I wanted to start asking you to ask you about Brazil, which was the host of COP 30. A lot of our listeners will be obviously, you know, very aware of the UN climate talks every year. But what happens in between the big sort of events So what happened or what were the agreements or pledges made in Brazil a year ago?

What's happened to those in the run up to COP 31? So the Berlin.

COP, last year was fairly complex. And clearly we could see tensions as US had pulled out and we could see that there was so much pressure on Brazil to pull it off. And on one hand, there was a pressure to have a deal on fossil fuel phase out or what we call just transitioning away from fossil fuels in the UN language. and also make sure that money is available for developing countries. But given the kind of pressure and the influence of the fossil fuel industry, we could not have a deal agreed on transitioning away from fossil fuels despite having an agreement in Dubai just three years ago. So imagine the pressure that Brazil was under And then on one hand, when vulnerable countries were pushing

Brazil to have a process to work on the transitioning away from fossil fuels, the presidency announced a roadmap that he would develop on his own than being completely part of the process. So, and coming back to elections and now with what happened in Brazil, we're all elated. Because that's like really giving us a lot more positive outlook of things. Not perfect. We know that the pressure continues to remain within the country and the political forces are going to play their divisive role. Yet it is such a good news to start the day and see how people came together, especially young people standing on the right side of those two.

Yeah. And so this roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels, like you said, you know, couldn't get an official agreement at COP30. But the Brazilian presidency had been working on that really for the last year since then. Will that be delivered in Turkey next year? So how is that going to play out and how will that run in conjunction with like the official UN negotiations?

Yeah, Turkey this year, in the next couple of days, we are going to see the presidency of Brazil, which will hand over to Turkey, is going to present this roadmap. But before I go there, Nina, it's very important to talk about what happened between Belen and now. It's important to talk about the Santa Marta Conference and where we met and saw that breakthrough. Again, not perfect, but sending such a powerful message that we are not going to wait for the so-called consensus process at the UN to hold this process hostage. That's what we have seen for decades and especially in the last couple of years. So Santa Marta Conference... In April this year, it was a breath of fresh air. It was co-hosted by Colombia and

the Netherlands and 57 countries attended. And they said, let's talk about the how part of just transitioning away from fossil fuels than putting the question whether we need to or not. So it's very clear that now you have a coalition of the doers to continue marching forward and developing a plan to transition away from fossil fuels. And why it is important to have a global process to do it, because countries, and when we say developing countries who are stuck with the fossil fuel economy, they can't do it on their own. We need international cooperation. We need flow of finance and technology transfer without which these countries will never be able to do it. Yeah.

So going into COP31, you know, you've been going to the COP conferences for many, many years. What are the big ticket items that the climate justice movement, the social movement will have their eyes on this year in Turkey?

Well, definitely a fossil fuel phase out or what we call transitioning away is an important agenda. And alongside, there's a just transition mechanism being developed, which was agreed in Belem. That was a breakthrough, but not the details of it. We call it BAM. So, Belem action mechanism, that's what we called it last year and now we are saying.

of how these transitions not limited to fossil fuels but also across different sectors how that transition is going to happen The other big agenda is finance, something that has not been sorted for a very, very long time. See, ultimately, when we say we have to deliver climate justice to those who are not responsible, what do we actually need?

It means that developed countries who are historically responsible have to move away from fossil fuels first and fastest and provide money to developing countries for such a transition, but also money for adaptation and dealing with loss and damage. So finance happens to be an extremely important issue that should advance this year. And of course, there are issues of adaptation, which is again linked to finance, and then loss and damage. We saw what happened in Nepal, those horrific pictures, and we are going to actually put pressure on the system to make sure that countries like Nepal get support when they are hit by such devastating disasters.

Yeah, I mean, let's talk about finance in a bit more detail, because I think in the end, it's all about the money, right? The cooperation is obviously very important, but even that's about the money, right? This could be a real criticism or a real weakness of the system as a whole, that there's been this division between what is mitigation, which is really what the developed polluting.

Countries want to think about. They want to.

Pressure the developing countries that have historically contributed least to mitigate, to transition away from fossil fuels. Then we've talked about adaptation. And then we talk about loss and damage. But obviously, these three things are completely related, right? It's been a perverse sort of way that we've ended up working on these separately. But how will these things be divided up?

And how will the social movement, the climate justice movement, the indigenous peoples, the peasants, how will then, how can they pressure negotiators in each of these sort of areas?

So first of all, thank you, Neena, for mentioning that continuum of climate action, as I call it. But, you know, unfortunately, we have landed at a place where countries are already facing loss and damage. So whatever little resource they have is now going in humanitarian response. and recovering from these impacts.

And if they're left with some money, then they will put into adaptation, which means mitigation, which should have been the first priority, you know, when we were not facing these disasters, is now the third priority. And countries do not have finance to actually do mitigation, which means moving away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy, deploying more solar and wind energy systems, and of course, prepare for climate disasters.

In that situation, finance becomes even more important. And that's what we have been fighting for 30 years. Develop countries who have more capability because they burn fossil fuels through their industrialization process. They've got more money per capita. They are responsible and they have to provide money to countries whose respective capacities are lesser, right? How much money we need?

We need trillions now, trillions annually. And that's the data. And it's not me who is saying it's the UN data. If you look at the climate action plans coming from developing countries, all put together, they are now going to cost close to $ 2. 5 to $ 3 trillion annually. And I can tell you, these plans do not represent the entire scale of work. For example, they don't talk about just transition, which means... reskilling of workers and looking at the losses that are going to happen if you stop producing and exporting fossil fuels. So it is still not the full picture.

And if you look at adaptation, the data is very clear from the UN system, you need more than $ 300 billion annually.

A year.

A year in developing countries alone. And similarly for addressing loss and damages, close to $ 400 billion annually in developing countries alone. So if you everything together, you need $ 4 to $ 5 trillion annually. And how much is available? And how much developed countries are claiming that they have provided?

$ 100 billion. And that too, an important issue that we should talk about, majority of it is loan, which means we are actually exacerbating the debt crisis that developing countries are already facing. So this is a real challenge that we are facing at this moment.

Yeah, and I mean, you raise a few really important points there. First, you know, it drives me mad when I hear people in, whether it's negotiators or like, you know, diplomats in developed countries talking about, well, we're all in this together.

It's like, no, we're not, you know, we're not, you know, we.

Didn't all contribute to the climate crisis in the same way. And we are not all responsible. Accountability and responsibility is different. And I think, you know, when we talk about climate finance, We're not talking about aid. We're not talking about developed countries helping or like, you know, being kind enough to give money. They are legally responsible under international law, under the treaties that they've signed.

Right.

And, you know, as the ICJ ruled last year, whether the U.S. is a signatory of the Paris Agreement or not. it doesn't take away its accountability.

It's about compensation and reparations that's what the national court of justice has very clearly outlined and and they can't just you know uh ignore that fact that you are not doing a favor and but the reality uh nina is they're using this aid that's what they call it to actually advance their trade yeah you know the reality is in this i'm not making it up if you look at most of the aid departments have moved under trade so they're not even hiding this fact it's so blatant it's so blatant.

Yeah So we were in Shamal Sheikh together. That was COP27, I think, right? So that's four years ago. And that took place just weeks after the devastating floods in Pakistan, right? And it was like this sort of coalescence of bad luck, good luck. I don't know. At that summit, Pakistan had the presidency of the G77 and plus China. And that was when after decades of campaigning by small island nations and by developing countries and the social movement, climate justice movement, there was an agreement to create the loss and damage fund.

Right.

So that was a huge victory. That's sort of, you know, that's been in process. So that's been four years now that we've had an agreement to create this loss and damage fund. Can you tell us a bit about or give us an update on where.

We are with that fund and how that, you.

Around loss and damage will be present or absent from COP31 agenda?

So you're right, Neena. It took 30 years to get an agreement to establish the fund and we all celebrated. And I have been advocating for it for years. about 17 years, and demanding that it should be seen as a measure to repair harm. And again, as a matter of compensation and reparations. Of course, we don't find that language because of the way UN system works. However, this fund is all about supporting communities and countries who are already facing climate impacts. And after that decision in Sharm el-Sheikh, The following year in Dubai, it was operationalized and pledges were made. And if you look, and since then, several board meetings have happened. The ninth one was in July this year. And we have managed to get pledges of

around $ 822 million. And close to half of the amount has been received in the bank. Now, there are several challenges. I want to remind your listeners the figure that we mentioned earlier. We need $ 400 billion annually, and the fund doesn't even have a billion dollars. Nepal tragedy. The cost of recovery is going to be close to $ 5 billion.

Just a few days ago, the board has now set aside $ 21. 6 million for Nepal as part of the urgent request. That is less than half a percent of what Nepal needs for recovery and rehabilitation. So look at the scale of gap that exists at this moment. Yes, we have got a fund. It's a victory. It's the right thing to do to have a fund which supports countries and communities to recover and to rebuild. But it's not enough.

And that's why as Fill the Fund campaign, we are putting a lot of pressure on the fund to recover. work on the scale and the speed. It took several months to even consider Nepal's request because there is no rapid response window. And of course, access, communities can't access this fund right now.

Yeah, I mean, so four years ago in Shamushik, I remember writing a story, stories about the, you know, the creation of a loss and damage fund.

And at COP27, I think by the end of.

You know, that 10-day summit, about $ 600, $ 650 million had been pledged. How is it possible that the fund has only reached $ 800 million in four years? And who hasn't paid up? I mean, who's paid up? Let's name and shame. I mean, the idea that we're still at $ 800 million, I mean, it feels like a bit of a joke, like a really sick joke, you know, that that's where we're at.

Yeah, so first of all, the biggest joke is the U.S. And by the time this was agreed, I'm talking about the Dubai COP and the operationalization was happening, it was clear that the Trump administration is going to take over next year. And then the Biden administration said, okay, they're going to make a contribution. And imagine how much they contributed or committed at that moment, $ 17. 5 million. You know, like, And compared to UAE, which committed $ 100 million, France committed 100 million euros, and European Union said 100 million euros.

And against that, you find U.S. saying $ 17. 5 million. I don't know how that calculation came about of 17.5 million. So imagine all these big countries have not really put their fair share. And many of the countries, you know, for example, Luxembourg has not paid in yet. Italy has not paid in yet. We've got European Union, which has provided some money, but it's now going to be staggered over the next few years, which is not fair at all.

And France, again, they're not, whatever they pledged, they're not paying it in full in one disbursement. They're going to stagger it. Basically, what they want to do, and to respond to your question, how the pledges have not grown, because They don't want this fund to grow to a point where it actually meets the needs of communities and countries.

They created or they agreed to create this fund because of the pressure from vulnerable countries and civil society. They're playing the same game of aid and trade so that they can continue to control the money that goes and always use it as a leverage. Now, that's the intention. And imagine, four years have passed, we have not transferred a single penny yet. That's the reality.

I mean, it's the same old tactics, right? Deny, block, delay, right? You're a lot less cynical than I am, you know, but I'm just like, what's even.

I mean, not that.

Obviously, it's hugely important and the pressure has to keep being there.

But like you said, four years. I mean, you know, we could.

Probably both name 25 major climate disasters have happened since then and not a single penny, a single cent has been transferred to a community.

I mean, it's absolutely criminal.

It's like really shocking, really shocking.

Absolutely. And I'll tell you the politics of it. The politics is if this fund starts dispersing money quickly, then it's going to be empty and developed countries will face pressure to fill it again. And they don't want to fill the fund. That's exactly the point. That's why they want to delay, as you rightly said, so that they can tell the world, yes, there is a fund, but the reality is it's not responding to the needs of people.

No, yeah, the cynical part of me is that it's a way to say, look, we did it. We did what you wanted without actually doing anything. And so I'm not sure which is worse, empty Could you explain a little bit about how the role of the social movement, the climate justice movement in the UN climate talks in Egypt, in Dubai, in Baku, you know, in Azerbaijan, these are countries that have repressive authoritarian governments, right? And actually, Glasgow, even before that, which when we were coming out of the worst part of the pandemic, you know, access to for frontline communities, you know, for activists, for advocates, for indigenous communities has really been limited. You know, I remember in Egypt, we weren't allowed to talk about human rights.

And so how, tell me, first of all, tell me the importance of of civil society groups, of frontline communities in this process, how can they, how do they impact what's going on in the corridors of power, you know, which we know anyone that's been followed COP at all, we know that there is a huge amount of access to fossil fuel companies, big ad, big tech, the banks, all of the enablers of the climate crisis, the ones that are very invested in delaying action. How important is the presence of the social movement in the COP environment when the negotiations are mostly going on behind closed doors?

Yeah, very important question. And I'm sure your listeners would like to know because when they see, oh, so many civil society organizations fly every year to these international conferences, what the heck do they do? Do they go for a junket? It's like a pleasure trip. Absolutely not. Because whatever we see in these climate talks today, I would say it's largely because of the climate and social justice movements.

I would call them a moral conscience of the climate talks. And if you remove climate and social justice groups from these climate talks, you would see them turning into pure trade talks. And that's why we have not seen much progress because large countries are trying to make money off this crisis, whereas climate justice groups actually show them the mirror, call them out, call their bluff that, you know, they say, oh, they are really concerned about climate and environment. They're actually not.

So civil society, climate justice movements play a huge role in this process. And let me explain. One, as a pressure group. telling the world what's going on, how much the gap is, what these governments are doing and not doing and calling them out. That's one big part of the work that we do. And we do it in different ways. You know, speaking to media friends like you, but also doing a lot of campaigning, you know, digital, on ground, mobilization in our own countries. We do rallies and marches in countries and at the sub-national level. And of course, during COP, to bring visibility to the issues.

The other part that we play a very important role, which is the whole technical piece. You know, we go there with a lot of preparedness in terms of bringing out documents, doing research on telling, for example, the role of fossil fuel industry, how much money they are making, how many fossil fuel lobbies are moving around these conference halls, and what kind of impact people are facing, where the money is going. All those things are brought by civil society, by climate movements, in collaboration with the various think tanks.

So we have a very important role to play. And another aspect, developing countries have very little capacity when it comes to negotiations. They come with very small delegations normally. That's where we provide a backup. We support them with information, with strategies so that they can negotiate.

You know, as we go into Turkey... Obviously, a lot of the work and a lot of the discussions about what's going to be on the agenda have already happened, right, in these preceding months. Have there been victories and have there been losses already for the climate justice movement before we even get there, you know, in terms of what's going to be on the agenda and what's not going to be on the agenda?

Yeah, so I want to take you back to the Santa Marta process. And also, we should not look at COP as the only place to deliver. COP is like cog in the wheel of now the evolving global climate governance. We have relied too much on the COP process. And that's why if you look at our press releases over the last few years, we are essentially saying the same thing.

I think we need to really change our strategy to see what exactly this COP process, a particular COP can advance. And how do we look at that in that trajectory of development? And that's where... Santa Marta process was important. That's where we were able to get about 60 countries who were representing more than 20% of GDP and brought that kind of power to the negotiations. And that's why, as the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, we look at COP where some progress is going to happen, but not enough.

So COP is part of that journey when it comes to the fossil fuel phase-out and the just transition process. But then there are elements that are going to happen at the COP. I talked about finance. which is going to be an extremely important While there was a decision to provide $ 1. 3 trillion and at least $ 300 billion as part of public finance, we need to now look at the delivery plan of that. Let's also talk about the number of reports that have come up. Whether we talk about overshoot, whether we talk about emission gap report. Using all that to put pressure for more ambition. I talked about adaptation. This is on the agenda for this COP, but more importantly for the next COP in India. Ethiopia.

So how do we make sure that the adaptation finance gap that exists can also be bridged? And then there is also a body of work around the adaptation part. We need to look at the full picture. And again, Nepal is a case in point that we are failing on fossil fuel phase out. That's why glaciers melted. We're failing on adaptation. We knew those risks exist. We could never mitigate or reduce those risks. And of course, which we call adaptation. That's right. And now to respond to those disasters which happened because of lack of adaptation. So we are going to push Nepal case. And then I should also mention just transition for the BAM. There's going to be a lot of pressure from Climate Action Network

and our allies to make sure that there is a mechanism that helps countries transition away from fossil fuels and even other sectors like agriculture and.

You know, there's so much going on in the world, right? We're seeing multiple crises like affecting people at all different levels across Europe, across Asia. We're seeing these mass protests that are focused on the cost of living, on corruption. Spain, Italy, France, Indonesia and India, right? I think it'd be really good just to end on talking about, you know, the cockroach movement for our listeners that don't know. is an incredible, huge social movement happening in India named Cockroach after the delightful chief a Supreme Court justice referred to young people who didn't have work as cockroaches. And there's been this huge uprising and, you know, protests happening for months now.

Can you help us understand the connection between these social uprisings, these social movements, which a lot of them are focused on corruption, on violence, you know, the sort of erosion of democracies on the cost of living and what's going to happen at COP on climate justice and the failure to take climate action.

How are these things connected?

Well, absolutely. You know, when we look at the uprising, especially led by Gen Z, which is linked to some of these issues of cost of living, corruption, climate disasters, let's also talk about artificial intelligence taking away their jobs, right?

Data centers, yeah.

Yeah. So, these are the real issues, real same old development issues of right to food, right to education, right to health, right to jobs. When they see their rights being eroded, then that's when they realize that the system has to be fixed. And I would say that's why we as climate and social movement call for system change, because we see the inequality that has been only increasing.

We used to say 1% versus 99%. Now it is 99.99% versus 0.1%. That's the kind of concentration of wealth that has happened. And that's why we see young people rising. And that's exactly what we saw, the Gen Z movement in India. which has energized many other movements and challenging the powers that are there who have only been exacerbating this inequality. And that's why it is important. You know, even the wins that we had in Brazil and Serbia were led by Gen Z, led by Yankee. And it's so important that they are turning their frustrations into a political force to bring about that change. That's exactly what is required. Because unless we talk about system change, we will not be able to deal with the old problems

of corruption and money concentration. But now more, you know, dealing with artificial intelligence and many of those technologies and concentration of wealth, which is going to affect them even more in future.

Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, what young people are calling out and what, you know, the social movements and climate justice movements have been calling out is that, you know, governments tell us there's no money for climate action. There's no money for mitigation. There's no money for adaptation.

There's no money for loss and damage. Yet there is a huge amount of money that's being stolen, right, through corruption. There's a huge amount of money for subsidies, for big tech, for big ag, for, you.

Know, fossil fuel companies.

There's unlimited amounts of money to fight illegal wars against Palestine and Ukraine. So, you know, the idea that there's no money is clearly bullshit, right? And young people are seeing it and they're seeing it every day in their lives. There's no money for health. There's no money for education, right?

But there is, like you're saying, this concentration of wealth and power and people have had enough, right? And I think it's really important for us in the climate justice space to be connecting those dots, right? The lack of funding for health and education in France is absolutely related to the funding of wars and the subsidies of fossil fuels and big tech and the lack of climate action.

And all of us are fighting against the same system. So the Gen Z fight is the same fight. We share that fight and sentiment because that's what we are fighting against. So all these are manifestations of the same systemic crisis that we have been facing for decades now. And it's important to come together and see them as one common enemy or one common source of the problem.

And that's why we need to change that system.

Well, that seems like a good point to end it. Harjeet Singh, thank you very much. Thank you for listening to The Spill. For those who have been listening, I urge you to turn on the videocast. Harjeet Singh, best dressed man in the climate world, has been well known for his wonderful tasting clothes. So please tune in on the video to see Harjeet in person. Harjeet, thank you so much. And, you know, we'll speak to you again soon.

Thanks a lot.

Thank you so much, Dina, for having me.

The Spill is a regularly recurring segment of the Drilled podcast. It comes out every Friday when we're not in the middle of a narrative season. If you have ideas for folks you'd like to see us interview on here, let us know. We're at Drilled Media on all social media platforms, or you can email me at amy at drilled.media. Links to all the stories we mentioned and to pre-order my book are in the show notes. The Spill is produced by Peter Duff and edited by Aline Brown. Our theme song is Bird in the Hand by Fournone. Artwork by Matthew Fleming. Our First Amendment attorney is James Wheaton. of the First Amendment Project. You can find transcripts of The Spill online at drilled.media. Like the rest of Drilled, The

Spill is distributed by Pushkin Industries. The team there is Eric Sandler, Grace Ross, Morgan Ratner, Owen Miller, Kira Posey, Jordan McMillan, Brian Shreberneck, and Jake Flanagan.

Thank you.

Everything You Need to Know about COP 31 | The Spill

Kapitelklicken springt direkt hin

Shownotes

Transkriptvom Podcast bereitgestellt · Zeitmarken springen hin