Auto Scroll
Select text to annotate, Click play in YouTube to begin
thank you for joining us at the sixth and most important climate crisis advisory group public meeting to date 12 days ago nearly 200 countries agreed
to the glasgow climate pact at cop26 to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees c whilst also finalizing outstanding elements of the paris agreement but what happens next the direction of
travel has been set but today we're going to discuss the obstacles that continue to undermine the process the progress made at cop26 ccag's latest report titled aftermath
reflecting on cop26 written by members during the past couple of weeks sets out why question marks remain on whether we'll meet the speed of progress required to ensure a manageable future
for humanity in particular the group believes there is fracturing trust within the international system from failure to meet promises to the major differences
required of countries to agree to address climate change fairly it argues that without maintaining a high level of scrutiny that holds nations to account
change at the scale and pace required is nigh on impossible now if you'd like to read the full report and its recommendations the link to download is available on
ccag's twitter which is at climate crisis ag and the ccag website which is ccag dot earth i highly recommend that you read um this month's report it's
another excellent piece of of work by our members i found it was honest powerful and challenging uh now i'm going to pass you over to sir
david king dr terrell mustanan uh dr aaron kosh to talk us through the findings in the new report so firstly sir david over to you thank you for that introduction addy
and before i hand over to tara and aaron but let me just briefly share my reflections on on cop26 of course i've had many people asking me was glasgow a success
and there's no simple answer to that question somewhere in the middle is the truth there were some good things that happened in the negotiating process and in particular tidying up all the
agreements made in paris which was important but at the same time many many disappointments which we have written about in our report so the the despite the real successes uh
the direction of travel and the failures the direction of travel has never been clearer the world is finally in agreement at least the world at cop 26 that we are
in a crisis i never heard anyone question that word crisis which is completely new at a cop meeting we're heading for a disaster unless significant action is taken
and the language used within the agreement of course was not insignificant and should be commended my own feeling is the the cop recognized the crisis but
didn't really recognize the efforts that are required to meet the nature of the challenge it is fair to do that in none of the conclusions
did cop26 go far enough uh this must act as the starting line for us now and we all know cop focused on the next meeting uh cop 26 in egypt
is going to be critically important and so we have to now prepare ourselves for cop 27. this has got to be the starting line and there's now a hard race to run
to ensure that we give ourselves a fighting chance not only of avoiding rises over 1.5 degrees and the inevitable catastrophe that will bring
but even at 1.25 degrees where we are today we already know that we have melting ice in the arctic circle region melting permafrost
terror will tell us about this and all of this leads me back to the three hours that is the focus of our campaigning we need deep and rapid emissions reduction but
we also need to reduce the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and we will have to to create time in the shorter term see if we can re-freeze the
arctic ocean during the polar summer there is hope climate activism private sector pressure elections and these are perhaps groups like ours
all have critical roles to play in ensuring that we give humanity the future it deserves and with that in mind i'd like to hand straight over to tarot who as ever will remind us of exactly why we've got to
continue in this fight sir dave and dear friends and colleagues best of greetings from the north from the boreal and i have just recently uh last week returned from the arctic here
in finland my name is terra mustom and i work for an organization called snow change and we work all across the arctic and boreal and i also service in the ipcc as a lead
author well as sir david was putting up a lot of the context and framing the post classical issues today i'll be very brief on some of the points that
i have been gathering from my colleagues and and we are thinking about here in the north before i go any further let me just recognize the loss of life and um condolences in
part of siberia where 11 people have lost their life today in a in an accident in a mining site so that that's of course a sad day for that part of siberia
but if we try to come then to to the topic at hand what are the things that concern people and research and indigenous communities in the north are
uh very well reflected on the very first comments made by general secretary guterres in in twitter on the morning sunday after classical
those of you who saw the message heard very clearly when he said indigenous peoples and local communities don't give up the fight despite what happened today
that's that's essentially capturing a lot of the the uh feelings after classical what makes the north very complex and important in perhaps not so well-known
matrix is the fact that one-third of world's soil-based carbon is still here in the peatlands in the forests and in in the arctic tundra let me try to make it as clear as i can
these are levels and numbers of carbon that are still contributing to that left carbon budget as we just saw in the nature journal piece last week and and
therefore they are on equal value as the rainforests and some of the other high priority biodiversity sorry ecosystems and by biodiversity the hotspots elsewhere on the planet
uh yet the kind of things which are right now underway are really affecting these soil based and other carbon stores fast the second big driver that
alters our landscapes and life is the fact on what's going on with the arctic species and biodiversity so many of world's attention announcements and and messages have been
focusing on iconic species like polar bear and and the like but we are very much concerned over for example arctic char the fish species that's already
all across the arctic region living at its temperature level about 24 degrees celsius in freshwater ecosystems one fraction of a decree further and we
will enter into a cycle of fish death events that will cascade in food security loss of culture and many other things of this keystone species on the aquatic ecosystems for
communities and nature alike here in finland we have partially lost the fight already because arctic fox is now gone it's no longer nesting in in
finnish army and arctic areas and uh its habitats are overtaken by red fox more southern and boreal species so the species on the move is one of the factors that's really altering the kind
of life that we know here i have two points in this very quick introduction left the other one has to do with something of a
big driver i have been exchanging all days every day since glasgow on what can we do on the boreal fires that um raged across siberia
and the little that or none of the support that we got from glasgow on this magnificent uh change underway for example in the eastern uh region of
yakutia sahayakutya over 10 million hectares burned last year and we are looking at 300 firefighters that are tackling with these amount amounts of fire territories
so one of the things we have to do is to support these firefighting crews early detection early put out and then of course making sure that these fires don't become what they have
become in 2019 and 2020 with immense releases of methane worsening the case of the permafrost melt events and let alone loss of life for animals and indigenous communities
alike in the boreal we have seen in the summer 49.6 degrees in litton british columbia and last week massive flooding that
essentially impacted all of british columbia and lower mainland so these are some of the things that are really taking place once in a century flood has now become once you know 20 years or even
faster and this gives you the sense of earth is faster now in the polls the last thing i'll say before we move on to um the next next present there are the solutions the kind
of solutions that are made in the north for the north because world is thinking about the arctic a lot but very few people are asking what would be the solutions from the ground up from the people and knowledges and science that's
actually from here so a lot of the things that could happen on keeping carbon on the ground are to do with large scale rewarding of peatlands conservation of those parts of
the arctic and boreal where we can still take action we need to engage with indigenous rights knowledge and memory because only by understanding the past we can understand the present change and therefore make
the right kind of decisions and finally of course why don't we try to build a alliance on this question of boreal and arctic fires because that is one of the most dominant drivers of big
change on methane and system change that will also impact waterways large siberian rivers and eventually of course the whole arctic region i'm very happy to take more questions
but these are some of the thoughts that we have had since glasgow and while it was a disappointment we will continue to search ahead in these
communities and in these programs and do the practical work day-to-day time is running out and we cannot afford to change direction thank you very much thank you dr terror um some really
really valuable information there now i'm going to hand over to dr aaron koch thank you a day and uh good day to all of you i'm arun abu kosh i'm the ceo of the council on energy environment and
water i'm speaking to you from new delhi and india building on what sir david and dr mustang said i just wanted to draw your attention um two weeks after
a little under two weeks after the cop 26 has ended to what i believe is the fundamental tension between two equations the first equation is the carbon equation which is embedded in science
and it tells us that the carbon space is rapidly shrinking and that the space that's left for a 1.5 c world will disappear
in in a very few years from now what that equation does not tell you however is why it is so shrunk why is it that we have so few years left
because that equation does not bring in equity into this conversation and therefore we have a second equation which is the trust equation the paris agreement
changed the way in which we approached um climate action because it required all countries big and small rich and poor landlocked and small island to
bring to the table what they believe they could do in the form of nationally determined contributions and over time ramp up and ratchet up those ambitions but that approach only works
when we deliver on our commitments and the less we focus on the interests of humanity as a whole and the more we focus on our own self-interest and that to our own myopic
self-interests the trust equation begins to be undermined and if the trust equation is undermined then there is little hope that the
integrity of the carbon equation will be maintained as i reflect on what happened at cop 26 i reflect on about five kind of stories
that played out in my head and those also offer some lessons for what we need to do between cop 26 and cop 27 and of course beyond the first story is that of a drunk
driver one who's brought before a judge being prosecuted for drunk driving except the prosecutor says that there is that this person has been
a repeat offender if the person's response is that the only way uh he or she will correct their ways if all other potential drunk drivers
are stopped from driving altogether then we have a situation that the actions or the inactions of the past are equated with the supposed actions or inactions of the future
unfortunately in the climate negotiations we don't have accountability for inactions of the past and that is why the carbon equation has been shrinking
the second story that comes to my mind is that of a poor community that gets impacted by the actions of a rich community living not too far away
but for the longest time the rich community has suggested that their actions have no impact that they are not responsible over time the rich community then admits
that they are somewhat responsible and they even offer to pay for the damages but actually no payment comes and what happens is the actions of the rich communities continue unabated and
the damages on the pure community continue as well in this scenario we have a situation where the conversation around loss and damage actually
um increased significantly during the cop 26 deliberations but the hard delivery of payments for damages remained elusive and we have a new dialogue
to discuss how to generate the resources to pay for those lost damages the third story is about a merchant that comes to a market selling fine wares in the form of carbon credits
unfortunately over time the shopkeepers in that market refused to buy those carbon credits stating that they are not of good quality and this dispute goes on for a long time
and what cop 26 delivered was a an agreement that the article 6 market on carbon emissions on emissions trading could get ignited as long as the past carbon
credits especially those issued after 2013 would be admitted into the market that was a compromise that allows for breaking down some of the challenges that we have between how
do we deal with the unsold unissued carbon credits from the cdm market in order to trigger the article 6 market the fourth story that comes to mind is what i call the rocket without fuel
like here i think of high school students and middle school students competing to build a bigger and bigger rocket every year except that the middle school students are told they will be compensated with rocket fuel
but every year they come they're told there's no rocket fuel for them but they will be delivered more rocket fuel if they built a bigger rocket the next year and unfortunately that is where we've
got to with regards to the conversation around climate finance that while every country is being asked to ramp up their ambitions and rightly so the resources to deliver on those
ambitions remain elusive so will we keep building empty rockets without fuel or will we find the resources that can genuinely drive up climate action and
that leaves me with my fifth story which is around how much space is left we can't have a low carbon world where the remaining carbon space is
still captured by the historical polluters with very little left less than 10 percent left for the rest of the world in terms of their development prospects
all these stories have only one lesson and that is there can be no real climate action and there can be no real response to the climate crisis unless we have accountability
and all these stories have only one moral do unto others as you would do unto yourself and therefore if we have to think of the road between cop 26 in glasgow and cop
27 in egypt we have to think of a development cop a cop that focuses on equity that focuses on the resources and that focuses on how do we
ensure that the trust equation is not undermined in order that we can all collectively deliver on the remaining carbon equation that is left with us thank you dr aaron nava thank you uh sir
david king and dr terra marcin and what what i've got from those opening um points is uh the importance of iplc's indigenous peoples and local communities
um and also from aeronautical the fact that trust leadership and accountability is needed more than ever if we're gonna try and save humanity
okay with that i'm gonna hand over to our audience for our first question which comes from uh caroline lucas a member of parliament for the green party here in the uk
caroline you're very welcome thank you so much other and um thank you for letting me be part of of this i i wanted to say congratulations on your latest report and i particularly appreciate the emphasis that we've just
heard again from dr gush on the centrality of climate justice and what he calls the trust equation because i think that became such a clear demand during the process of this last cop both as a result of of the civil society
movements on the outside but also because of incredibly powerful testimonies from political leaders inside and i'm thinking especially for example of the climate envoy of the marshall islands who made so clear that the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees
is essentially the difference between life and death for people in her country but i wanted to ask in particular about your views on the contribution from the prime minister of barbados mia motley specifically on this failure to deliver
the climate funding pledge or to agree to the loss and damage finance facility she pointed out that climate finance to small island states declined by 25 percent in 2019 but she also offered
what she called a sword that can cut down this gordian knot of finance and she reminded us that 25 trillion dollars of quantitative easing has been produced in the last 13 years and that 9 trillion
of that was just in the last 18 months alone in order to deal with the covet crisis an annual increase in special drawing rights of 500 billion dollars a year for 20 years putting trust to finance the
transition is what she suggested is the real gap that we need to close not the 50 billion being proposed for adaptation and she concluded by saying if 500 billion sounds big it's just two percent
of that 25 trillion dollars that has already been created through quantitative easing so my question is is actually not an economic question it's more of a political question really what are the barriers to using that mechanism for the
enormous threat of climate change in the way it's been used for the frankly lesser threat of of covid and what can be done to build support for it thank you caroline um dr aaron about ghost would you like to
take that first i'll take a stab at thank you so much caroline for that question um a direct answer to what what is the barrier i think is the lack of imagination it is only in the
fourth time the history of the imf that you have a recapitalization of the sdrs that's happening and that's not because of the climate crisis we used the the tool of the sdrs for
planetary purposes whether it is climate change or whether it is dealing with a pandemic or whether it is dealing with funding for the sdgs these are all planetary goals that we've not been imaginative enough
about how to finance them but a slightly different position i have on this is that how do we if we were to be able to use the sdrs as i have also in my research
recommended we have to think about what is the purpose the purpose i would believe should not be for direct project financing because you will quickly run out of that money
in against the scale of investment that is needed the purpose of spending 500 billion dollars or a trillion dollars how do you spend a trillion would be to de-risk three kinds of
things number one de-risking against the physical challenges of the climate crisis similar to what terror was talking about how do you build up the local capacity to build
the resilience whether it is in the arctic north or whether it is in the tropical south the second kind of de-risking is for investments in emerging markets and developing countries where the sun
shines the most but money does not flow because we believe that it is risky to invest in solar projects or wind projects in the tropical countries now these are these risks might be real they
might be perceived but it has nothing to do with the solar developer it is to do with currency fluctuations and political crises and so forth so if you can de-risk that you bring down the cost of finance and you can crowd in
several fold of that 500 billion dollars in terms of institutional capital investment the third kind of de-risking is that of communities those that are currently reliant
on fossil fuels coal miners oil workers etc we talk about the lobbying by the fossil fuel companies but we talk very little of the conditions of the fossil fuel communities how do we create an
insurance cushion for them how do we create upskilling prospects for them how do we create unemployment insurance for them those are the things that are part of our collective obligation in order to
accelerate the transition away so if we can strategically deploy the sdrs i fully endorse what the prime minister barbados suggested i would in fact argue that the number should be double what
she asked for and we should be imaginative in how we deploy that capital thank you dr kosh so david i see you have your hand up there could you unmute yourself please sir
david sorry i thought i had i keep being muted so basically until we have a full political understanding of the business and
importance of managing the climate crisis we're not going to get this and that understanding means we're actually all in this boat together it is true that the developing nations are likely
to suffer much more than the developed nations but nevertheless we are talking about a future for humanity that is looking very bleak if we draw a comparison with the
really poor management of this covet 19 pandemic i would say once again there the governments of the world did not understand that if they had acted quickly we could well have seen this
pandemic over in a few months and instead we saw the governments of the world all acting independently and really all over the place there's no real political understanding
and until we get that i think we're really not going to get the action that's needed uh thank you sir david we have got many many questions to get through so i i
please ask everyone to be brief with their questions and uh and and then concise with your answers professor t i see you have your hand up i think uh madame lucas contrasting
climate change against uh the kobe 19 pandemic is very revealing while both of them are now considered to be a crisis and they are very different in nature
the pandemic is an immediate threat and the government failure to respond to the the kubernetes pandemic is in the eyes of the constituencies
a real failure and and they will uh lose their future votes and because of this failure for these politicians while climate change is more of a
creeping uh risks it's coming slowly it is a crisis and uh and it's also everybody's crisis right then this is a a typical
collective action problem failure to come up with the funding for addressing climate change in the eyes of the local and domestic
constituencies is not considered to be such a bad thing so uh and then a lot of politicians will choose to be a free writer on this then
uh you know what happens and we all understand this too well will be the tragedy of the comments i think the it's really the nature of the this uh two problems to crisis are very different
and this is really really the talent the i think the ultimate talent for the human beings to when it comes to solve this collective action problem
thank you professor chi and uh thank you once again uh caroline for for that great question um it's time for us to move on to our next question which comes from salimu huck director of the
international center for climate change and development thank you very much ade and thank you for inviting me uh greetings from dhaka bangladesh where i'm based
my question to the panel and the committee is really about today and not about tomorrow uh the sixth assessment report working group one report came out on the 9th of
august 2021 and for the first time in 30 years of ipcc reports working group one who are very conservative scientists very good scientists actually said they had
unequivocal evidence of the impacts of human induced climate change due to the emissions of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution this is now attributable to the fact that we have
raised global temperatures so david mentioned 1.25 degrees i would say even a conservative 1.1 degrees is now seeing impacts therefore we are now having loss and damage from human induced
attributable climate change my question to the panel is what do they see being done about this because to me 1.1 degrees of actual climate change is
now more important than 1.5 degrees in the future we are seeing impacts we are not dealing with those impacts cop26 uh abysmally failed to address this at the scale that
it was needed uh the first minister of scotland nicola sturgeon put some money on the table that's a good sign but it's happening outside the unfcc process the countries inside the unfcc completely gutted even mentioning a glasgow
facility on financing loss and damage it got deleted by the united states thank you sir silly more um so let's see i think i can see uh professor nerely abraham you've got your hand up uh
go go ahead um yes i i can't comment specifically on on the loss and damage i i i do feel that the disappointment that that didn't progress further at cop 26 um and i hope
that others can comment on that but i think you you are very right in pointing out that there was a step change in the ar6 report in terms of not only putting climate change not just as some sort of theoretical
construct but actually as a as a statement of fact that this is happening it's caused by humans but also really reflecting um the the advances that we've made in the
scientific evidence of being able to attribute um how human actions are making climate change worse and so while i i definitely feel that disappointment that we haven't seen it
flow through yet in terms of how that feeds into a loss and damage um discussion and and moving into those negotiations i think that scientifically we are in a much better position than
than we were a few years ago in terms of actually making that case for the damage that we're already seeing playing out in the world um and so um there definitely is a need to accelerate the conversation
in that space and i'll pass on to others who can hopefully provide some more insight on that as well thank you uh professor abraham uh professor lavanya rajamani i see you have your hand up as well
uh thank you ade and thank you saleem for that excellent question as you uh well know i think there are limits to how far we can go with loss and damage within the regime and much of the action on this issue is going to be generated
outside the regime within the regime of course both article eight of the paris agreement and the relevant uh decision paragraph of the decision one cp21 limits uh what one can do with loss and damage within the regime especially in
terms of financing loss and damage but there the advances in the science are hugely and tremendously helpful in terms of climate litigation um at cop 26 outside the context of the
negotiations uh both um um uh vanuatu and um and uh vanuatu sort of initiated its uh bid to request the general assembly to request uh the icj
the international court of justice for an advisory opinion on climate change um and a move was also made by uh to value um uh in respect of the international tribunal in the law of the sea so at the
international level uh uh it this is will be increasingly litigated because ultimately um this is about rights and responsibilities of states it is not just about what states are willing to do
within the context of the negotiated compromise text um so there is litigation at the international level that is in the pipeline and there are many cases that are being litigated or in the pipeline even in national courts
in relation to um in relation to climate impacts um and the advances in the science especially attribution science are hugely helpful in in these areas thank you
thank you 11 yeah um professor mark maslin um i see you've got your hand up and then can we go to dr fatima denton afterwards mark so i'll be very quick um i think the ipc
second and third report coming out next year will be really important because of course that will provide the impact assessment which will really hammer home how much has already happened and what's going to happen in the near future i
think that's really important but i want to come back to a bigger issue which is the lack of the hundred billion dollars and also loss and damage and i think that actually goes back to a lack
of knowledge and education in the developed world about our history and i think this is incredibly important that we need to think not just about the science but actually educating people
about colonization about how much we've actually admitted i think that if we can get the developed world to actually understand uh the crimes of our past to
be able to understand why there is this trust issue i think that's actually critical and it sounds really strange to deal with history to actually save the planet to deal with climate change but
i've become more convinced having heard politicians who supposedly studied history and politics at university must admit it was a very strange small oxford university you know they're not very
good but again i think we really have that whole education piece to do before we can acknowledge those crimes and move forward great answer mark i i really think people have to join the dots and
gain that knowledge um you know because the science is important but it's only important because of how it affects people living on the front line uh dr fatima
thanks addy um and thanks saleem i think partly some the parts of the questions have already been answered but i just want to say that i get a feeling sometimes that we are setting ourselves for failure
if we do not look for other alternative spaces to complement what happens within a cub space i think there are plenty of solution spaces out there but we're not maybe taking advantage of those spaces
because there are too many symmetries in the process there's lack of trust there are issues related to development priorities of con of some countries
um and and all of this is not coming together so the the way to go about it is to look at other spaces within regional economic groupings could be one possible example
or an african-europe sort of um regions coming together but it seems to me that part of the problem is that we're not widening the space enough to enable other spaces to emerge we have a very
unwieldy process of more than close to 200 countries with very stark differences sometimes and very different starting points so i think all of this doesn't really
make a good sort of negotiation process and if we if we go to the next cup my sense is that the process is extremely slow and we are
more or less at say setting ourselves up for failure but also you know we are going to one cup after another we with a great sense of a predictability of something that we know it's not going
to work at the pace at which it needs to work thank you dr fatima denton and thank you sally moore for that um for that great question um we're now going to move on to fatima syed
who's a climate reporter uh the noir vp of canadian association of journalists fatima thanks thanks so much uh for having me in for this very interesting conversation um uh
i heard everyone talk about trust and and one of the things uh that i felt was lacking from uh the glasgow cop was um a conversation about accountability um
and i wonder if the speakers on the panel can address what mechanisms need to be put in place in all countries to keep them in check about all the pledges and actions especially when we see subsequent governments or changes in
government through through elections and so forth how do we just keep everyone on track important question on accountability um who would like to take this i see lavanya professor levine you have your
hand up go for it thank you fatima another great question in terms of accountability um one of the outcomes of the glasgow cop which the media hasn't focused on but is i think
the most significant outcome of the glasgow cop is the completion of the paris rule book in particular the rules relating to transparency will uh speak to your point um so although the focus has all been on the glasgow climate pact
and in particular the sort of language around fossil fuel face down or phase out the real outcome of the cop was the fact that the all the rules relating to transparency rules relating to markets and rules relating to common time frames
were agreed these will enhance transparency of actions that states are taking will enhance um credibility of these actions and will ultimately enhance accountability and i think in in
terms of the glasgow climate pact itself there uh were efforts to integrate some of these pledges that are being taken outside the regime into the regime in particular in relation to net zero uh
targets which um so far we've had a 130 odd countries make net zero pledges but we are not even sure whether some of those pledges are carbon pledges or uh gig pledges or what credibility there is
or that the ndc's that states have put in the nationally determined contributions that states have put in um are on a linear path to these net zero targets they typically are not so what the glasgow climate pact did in um in in
a series of paragraphs around net zero is to ask states or request states to integrate their net zero targets into their long-term development strategies which uh will be docked into the uh
paris agreement architecture and the there uh there's been a request uh put to the secretary to produce a synthesis of these net zero targets and once these are integrated into the regime there will be a lot more
transparency around them so while yes we don't have a compliance mechanism in the paris agreement that is going to ensure or enforce compliance with these targets the enhanced transparency around these
targets and pledges uh improves accountability thank you let's hope that transparency does improve the accountability thank you professor rajamani uh okay we'll go over to professor johan rockstrom please
yeah just just to compliment lavana here i think there was something quite interesting with with glasgow which is that um a lot of promises were thrown around but what's interesting a red thread in those promises is that they
were numbered they were basically quantitative all of them and therefore they're measurable the methane pledges the forest pledges coal phase out the net zero plans they are
all even if they are outside of the ndc's and therefore not as accountable in terms of the formal system you can rest assured the world will keep these pledges accountable why well because
there was such a tremendous pressure from civil society from science from organizations outside of the negotiating space but also because we have the tools and we have the earth observations we
have the global forest watch we have the global ocean watch we have so much data today which makes it literally impossible for any country or city or region to kind of
escape from from being at least put in the public domain for for as let's say violating living up to their pledges i think we're kind of turning a corner here also in
terms of of transparency in in the follow-up of glasgow because the critique from outside of negotiations were so strong while the level of constructive efforts inside were very significant it was such a
mismatch between the in and the out and i think that can help us also in the accountability thank you professor rockstrom i think it's so important knowing so many people feel that um power comes from the top
down but we got to remember that the power can come from the bottom up and we've got to keep those people in power accountable um okay we're going to move on to our next question which comes from
wolfgang blau co-founder of oxford climate journalism network wolfgang thank you adi and thank you everyone my question is is a very practical one in the journalistic coverage of of climate
change um we notice that the amazon rainforest antarctica the arctic the gulf stream the coral reefs all get much greater coverage than the boreal forests and specifically the tiger
and i was just wondering if any of you had any thoughts on why that is another great question um who would like to take this one on i i think we've got um yes it's professor lorraine whitmarsh
i see you have your hand up yeah great question i mean there is a research literature on media coverage of climate change and i think that sort of shows that often the the issue is framed around
political events and so cop 26 attracts a lot of media attention uh and similar political announcements policies at the national level as well um around um very dramatic visuals of the impacts of
climate change or at least um impacts that can be linked to climate change so forest fires for example um the australian bushfires were a very visual image um and so i think there are sort of certain
uh images that probably attract more attention because they're very dramatic and they they sort of seem more newsworthy they're very sudden they're a sort of crisis um and so my my thought around this is that maybe that with the boreal um
impacts there they maybe are more than they may be more sort of gradual in some cases and they they uh they don't have they don't fall into those kind of stereotypic stereotypical categories of what what
climate impacts are perceived to be by by many people within uh within the public and within the media spheres so in terms of for example the arctic and and um sort of yeah amazon and so on so i that
would be my thought but i haven't seen a specific study on what you've asked about um it was a really good question and thank you for that answer professor lorraine with martian we've still got so
many more questions to get through so i know there's some hands up but please do excuse me if i move on um i'm not trying to be rude i just want to get through as many questions as possible um so our
next question we have is from stefan krauter solar expert and professor at the university of paderborn uh stefan sorry i forgot i'm good okay
thank you very much um my quest is a very practical one to give to you some background we have a new government which comes into power next week and the green party has a major contribution to that and
the renewable energy gain is very ambitious 80 percent to 2030 but it's not enough really to meet the requirements to avoid uh to meet the 1.5 degree
goal but still uh even if you have this less ambitious goal then we have a problems in logistics we
we have to install within the next 15 years about 400 gigawatts of photovoltaics uh that's it's simply not possible even if the politicians signed that there are not enough
engineers are not enough installers and not production capacity and so on and uh uh i see this in many countries in the world there should be some
something to bridge that gap from uh from that uh former times i'm been together with hermann chair which uh set up this uh arena this international renewable
energy agencies just to give numbers out what what is possible and to to give some help to the politicians and i think this is also in this um other challenge now how to implement how
to make this possible that we meet the climate goals thank you stefan um i see uh dr christopher mcglade you have your hand up thanks aday and thanks stefan for the
question just to put a couple of numbers here on on for context in the year 2020 the world installed about 250 gigawatts of solar
around the world that was about four times what had been installed and a decade before that roughly speaking to be on track for 1.5 degrees we need to increase it again by four times so we need to go from 250
gigawatts to a thousand gigawatts installed every single year um from the year 2030 onwards so we have in the past managed to have this huge ramp up in terms of wind and solar deployment we've
done that four-fold increase we need to do it again now that is not easy as you say but i would kind of turn this around a bit and say there are huge opportunities here whenever we're thinking about this level of deployment of renewables um of
electric vehicles of a lot of the clean energy technologies there are opportunities here for for countries for companies that want to move ahead with this quickly those that move forward first are going to be in a great
position they will get the skills coming through they'll get people coming through and they'll get that domestic industries being developed and that will help them that will provide them with a commercial advantage so i wouldn't see this as a negative thing i think there's
a huge opportunity here there's a huge amount of optimism there should be about the potential for renewables for electric um electrification for many of the other clean energy technologies
thank you dr christoph um i also think at cop26 um the gfa nc said the globe glasgow financial allowance for alliance for net zero was set up to try and speed
this transition and and and also make the transfer to technology like this less expensive um but i hope that helped answer your question um stefan but we're
going to move on quickly to uh rose cobba singer um environmental change graduate at the university of oxford rose
um yes hi uh good to be here and listening into the discussion but also seeing familiar faces that i met during co-op 26 uh so my question is mainly on having
recognized that the ambitions that opened within the ndcs don't really drive us where we want to be uh as the discussions have gone on here that at 1.1 or 1.2
already many of our communities especially for some of us where we come from are already suffering a lot but back to the uh the languages were used the language that was used in the climate pact with
phasing down and i mean vesting out we don't really see our cold being faced out any time so and i mean that is my own feeling it's the transition is going to happen but i don't think it's
happening it's going to happen as soon as possible but then why is it that can be done the science has been very clear that we need to phase out fossil fuel but what can what can be done right now
to i mean encourage the ambitions of countries and states as we moved corp 27 because we don't want to have corporate seven again and come through have these disappointments again i know the transition won't happen very fast but
ways it can be done at least to make it faster and protect some of the communities like where some of us come from excellent question and i think i mean it's at the heart of the thing i feel
like the younger generation are losing trust in in in the cop process and i think that's coming out from um your your question there rose the frustration see professor nearly
abram you have your your hand up yeah thank you rose um it was a great question um and i think that one of the one of the positive things that came out of cop 26 was um this sort of not letting country sort
of off the hook that they have another five years until they have to come back and and increase their their ambition so i think that was a really positive outcome that um there's an expectation now that at cop27 next year um we do
expect that countries who haven't increased the ambition of their pledges will be requested to to take another look at their um their pledges for for 2030 and what they can do um certainly the the
country i come from um australia is one of those countries that went into cop 26 without increasing their ambition for for what they're going to do out to 2030 and so now the pressure is on for what they'll do in the coming year um and
then leading up to cop and i think that that's really is a recognition that the clock is ticking against us now and that we don't actually have the time to to waste to sort of hold her out for another five years and then see what
people come back with so so i think that that's a really positive sign and even though we don't have that wording in there about a phase out of coal um but by
keeping the pressure on the the the ambition that countries have for emission reductions and also tying it very closely into the scientific evidence for for what the carbon budget is um that hopefully we do have a
mechanism in there to help to keep that pressure on transparency i feel is what you're you're getting at there professor nearly um dr fatima dentin
yeah thanks rose and good to see you again um yes i think we we definitely need to understand the nuance between facing out and phasing down i think not all
countries are going to be sort of able to phase out completely late comers that have contributed to this problem in terms of emissions i think should be allowed to travel at
their own pace because they're simply not gonna have um the wherewithal to sort of go towards a rapid um deep um emissions reductions
um the other thing to mention is that a phasing out has implications for weaker economies because if a country is you know dependent on coal and and the report talks about zambia these are
countries that are not able to meet their basic energy needs um and therefore many countries again in the part of the world where i come from are very much
looking at industrialization as the next big thing in terms of their development plans so a lot of the jobs that they're going to create are going to be created out of industrialization so unless you can find very smart
technologies and ways in which they can industrialize fast um asking them to get rid of some of their fossil fuels that would expand that growth um i think can be
some sort of an economic suicide so really i think that the starting point is so different that you can't expect everyone to phase out so i think that keeping that nuance very clear and being
very deliberate about how we're going to enable countries who haven't got the tools to phase out completely and the support that they would need whether that's in climate finance infrastructure or technology transfer i think all of
those things would be important transitional levers and my problem is that we're not talking enough about these blind spots there are so many blind spots to the transition and many of these uh are not talked
about we talk about renewable energy in a very positive way and it should be a positive story but we have to realize that there are current difficulties in the deployment of renewable the
penetration of renewable in in so many countries and those problems haven't been resolved so not that we necessarily have to wait for them to be resolved but we also have to bring some goods to the table and to
acknowledge the fact that there are blind spots and the transition process is far from easy thank you dr fatima i think the 100 billion dollar green fund was supposed to be at the heart of this to help
developing countries make that transition to green energy but um i suppose that's a subject that we could talk about for a long time but let's move on to our next uh question uh thank
you rose by the way for that question um and this one comes from john burke municipal decarbonization expert working uh with uk cities to deliver their net
zero commitments john take it away john you're on mute can you unmute yourself please there we go um thank you very much on to the ccag
for having me along and today to ask a a question it's humbling to be in such illustrious company frankly and kind of before i proceed i'd just like to endorse the point that dr denton had
made earlier today about the use of and the creation of alternative spaces to cop to ensure that we can continue to make progress even in the absence sometimes of big uh
international events such as such as cop and i would kind of point to organizations like c40 cities italy and the global covenant of mayors for climate energy as um
you know as those kinds of alternative spaces were hugely exciting things are happening at the municipal level that can potentially be scaled up to the level of a nation-state um and so i think there's a great deal we can learn
from cities and cross-collaboration between urban environments is hugely important um not least because cities urban environments and mega cities in particular have more in common
with each other than many nation states do so the potential for collaboration um and uh learning from one another is i think uh more significant at that scale
and i'm very positive and enthusiastic about the level of energy and enthusiasm that currently exists in municipal um politics and entities to deliver net zero commitments but on to my question
which is that in march 2021 the uk's public accounts committee warned that the government has not engaged with the public on the behavior changes that achieving net zero emissions will require despite 62 percent of emissions
cuts needing to come from changes to our lifestyles and that's kind of specific to the industrialized world i might add in october 2021 the climate change committee noted that the government's net zero strategy contained an
insufficient amount of demand management to deliver the uk uk's decarbonisation commitments my question to the panel is was there a big demand management hole in cop26 and if so what can be done to engage
politicians and policymakers more widely in this important piece of the decarbonization jigsaw big question there john um professor lorraine whitmarsh i see you have your hand up yeah i'm hoping others have views on on
this as well but um yes in short i think there was a demand management gap i think the focus was very much on energy supply and to a limited extent on things like um yeah technologies and like vehicle
technologies for example but um much much less in terms of getting people to particularly in developed countries to use less energy and to change diet and to travel less and fly less and all these these things and i think part of
that and it is also reflected in the fact that it was fairly much absent in the uk's net zero strategy is that it is seen as being politically difficult that it might be a you know it might mean that they that politicians lose votes that
it's just too difficult to get people to change their behavior that it's threatening that it might mean lower standards of living um in developed countries etc so i think kind of it's still it's still seen as something and that that was quite explicit i think in
the forward to the uk strategy um so i think in terms of how we move beyond that that's that's difficult but i think it is about reframing behavior change and demand demand management in
much more positive terms to say this isn't a threat there are actually opportunities there are opportunities to improve people's health and well-being to create green jobs to reskill people in new sectors and
and so on and it is not about you know reducing uh quality of life or well-being it's not about people losing jobs etc so this is i think there's a job here to kind of reframe it in terms of those those opportunities and those
co-benefits so that would be my my initial thought thank you professor whitmarsh professor mark maslin um so i completely agree with what lorraine said about being very positive
about producing the win-win solutions but i also want to have a little bit of warning because i think we have to be very careful about not blaming the individual and i think that sometimes a lot of the narrative is
well you're using your petrol car you're using your gas spoiler you're basically taking your kids to school you know i think that's really problematic and i think what the rain is saying is we need to move away from that which is then
what we need is we need government to actually provide some infrastructure and some incentives so we can actually all do the right thing again when we're looking at say moving away from meat and having a more plant-based diet then we
need some taxation to remove some of the unhealthy really over processed food we also need to live people out of extreme poverty in the developed world and developing world so
they actually have choices so i think it's a balancing gap between being really positive about behavior change making sure that people are empowered but at the same time not blaming people for climate change
thank you mark um and uh john i hope those qui those helped uh answer your questions gonna move on we've got three more questions to get through our next question comes from
uh brent loken wwf global food lead scientist brent it's all yours hey everybody um you ever seen i think we're running out of time here so i'll be quick and it comes back to
what we're currently talking about and that's food um one of my big concerns is that uh food systems are still not being discussed to the level that they need to be discussed at top you know and if we continue to ignore them
um we're doing it at our own peril uh it was great to see so many food events at cop this year i think we hosted our um we're part of uh nearly 25
but it's still lacking in the formal like the formal parts of cop so what do we need to do to lift food systems in all parts of food systems not just
agriculture but also diets um you know between now and cop 27 you know to really push to make cop 27 the food top great question brent um
have we got any hands up for this one uh i can see uh mercedes professor mercedes bustamente yeah thanks brent for for the question you are right food systems is an
important part of the global emissions and it's thinking last so we have two important advance the first one was the declaration of forests and land use this also includes to stop deforestation and
the sustainable use of agricultural lands i think is this important aspect i know that we have a forest declaration before in new york in 2014 but i think this time we have more countries involved a large extent of forest area
and also more funds involved and i think the second important advance was the mccain agreement the maintained pledge that also involves the livestock sector and i think this is important component of the
greenhouse gas emissions i think one issue that is still missing is the nitrogen management in agricultural areas that contributes a lot to attend n2o emissions and i think that's
the nitrogen issue also includes the invalidity between countries and regions because it's an issue of too much and too little so some countries using a lot of nitrogen and other countries that needs to use more nitrogen but i think
these issues are covered and about the diet i think this is a particularly complex point because it involves also a lot of cultural contexts and aspects that needs to be careful to address but
i think some points are there and if you check the ndc's men many countries are included in agriculture forests and land use in the ndc so as part of these solutions as well thank you
thank you professor mercedes bustamante i see also uh professor johan rockstrom has their hand up yeah thanks and great to see you brent and uh but this will come as no surprise to you of course i i totally agree with
you and we've tended to kind of have the food agenda eat itself deeper and deeper into the climate negotiations but mostly hand wavy and i think that mercedes points you
point your finger on on a few of the quantitative operationalizations i think we have to go further i mean we are recognizing in the energy transformation that we need legislation we need
regulation and we need economic policies but we're never talking about that in the food space but we need to have exactly the same thing i think i think mark you kind of put your finger on that we cannot load the responsibility for
healthy food transitions to the individual only we have to make it cheaper to do the right sustainable healthy choices and that can only be done by having a price a cost on
destroying ecosystems releasing nitrous oxide methane destroying soil carbon and we've not recognized that yet we're kind of still believing that the food system is kind of some kind of untouchable area
and i think we need to become much more policy savvy also in the food space to to ever make it part of the of the serious climate discussions and i think we are taking a few steps
by having the the nature positive agenda for the kunming process to put science based on and some of the real key issues on avoiding expansion into intact ecosystems for example but
anyway so i think it's about quantifications to a very large extent thank you professor yan rockstrom and that's why and climate change is such an existential issue you know it's about us changing
the way we think um and uh thank you brent uh time for us to go to our next question which comes from ed goodell who ed goodall project manager whale and dolphin conservation
ed over to you thanks addy and thanks so much to ccag for inviting me along to ask a question today so the cop 26 text finally strongly recognizes the ocean as a major
nature-based solution to the climate crisis and at whale endorphin conservation we're working with a network of scientists conservationists economists and businesses to scale up whale conservation given their major role
as ecosystem engineers my question though is how can the newly announced annual ocean dialogue be utilized to unlock genuine conservation collaboration in the deep ocean beyond
the borders of national jurisdiction good question who wants to take this one on uh i see tarot so um professor tierra mustang yeah
the question of the deep oceans and beyond the ees that conservation will will be a tough one for these decades what i wanted to offer as a solution quickly was to refer to the
precautionary agreement on central arctic ocean fisheries that was agreed to by china korea the arctic states eu u.s and some of the other countries
so there are some diplomatic efforts that are having a consensus on how to um manage and even take pre-cautionary steps i don't think much of humanity
understands that we'll have a new ocean soon in our hands the central arctic ocean but this doesn't tackle the question of all of the beyond is that ocean governance this
model on the on the uh cec ao agreement could be a model on a larger framework and of course uh it will be a wild space for a long time
and we'll just have to stick with imo and and other un mechanisms for the time being however there are new steps like the central arctic ocean agreement that might be a model for a better future
thank you thank you dr terra mustanan um sir david king i can see you have your hand up dave can you unmute yourself you've raised a critically important uh question
uh and and so let me just quickly stay the oceans are not well governed at the moment and nor have we governed the state of the oceans well for the last 400 years and i say that because of
course talk about whales whales were one of the first sources of alternatives to oil before we discovered oil and the whale population of the planet
was reduced by a factor of more than a hundred over the last three or four hundred years as we caught wales as quickly as we could this massive enterprise around the oceans of the world to remove whales for their blubber
now what what we therefore have today is a remnant and much of the oceans compared with that period of time is now more like a land-based desert as a result of the loss of of species
it's only recently the function of the whales in the biosystem of the oceans has been fully understood i think we need to work really hard and
really quickly on managing the the global system for operating how we manage the future of the oceans and at the moment i don't think we have a
system in place thank you sir david um and thank you also ed that was a really really good and important question um okay uh we are coming to our final question
of the uh of the session and this comes from nick king managing and communications manager at energy research and accelerator nick
your question please sorry nick could you unmute yourself please hello um so my question is if governments aren't doing what is necessary right now
um for us to stay below the 1.5 degree target what role should the international scientific community play both in terms of lobbying governments and educating the public about the
urgent need for action thank you for being so concise nick so sir david king i see you have your hand up david unmute yourself please people keep
muting me so that was a heritage hand but let me nevertheless try and answer the question that is precisely what the ipcc was
generated for and of course that's where we derive our central actions from the ipcc puts out its big reports once every six or seven years and we put out a report once a month the whole point of
setting this organization up is to answer your question we we are a group of experts drawn from 11 different countries and we believe we have a critically important role to play
we would like to see the role expanded moving forward in time and to achieve this we need to raise money frankly to so that we can get a support system in place on an international basis
and and deliver this i'm going to stop at that point because i see my good friend bob coral has his hand up dr bob corral can we can you unmute yourself please
sir go ahead here we go david sir david you gave me precisely the opportunity that i wanted to talk about there have been extraordinary number of
discussions meetings conferences workshops in this short period of time since uh cop 26 ended there are several themes that i wanted
to mention one the ipcc has mentioned several times i went back into all of the various reports since 2007 with ar4 and asked the question is
there progress for example the word very high confidence did not exist in the reports in 2007 and it's been substantially increased over time so
ipcc is doing a better job to help us give a confidence in the knowledge base that we that we have the other theme that came up in these discussions was hey corral don't you remember we're
living in a nationalistic world and so it's going to be hard to talk about how we do things globally i have some suggestions sir david that we adopt the following strategy
and that is every month we ask the following question what have we done action-wise in cop 26.1 we'll go to 26.2
over the next 10 months asking ourselves how are we in this wonderful enterprise called the aag are we contributing to the action part
of this agenda one of the meetings occurred only three or four days ago in a local arena who were very disappointed in what they saw in
in the cup in that room were 200 people 50 people from each of four quarters a science expert community a private
sector business industrial community a governance community and one that surprised all of us was the ngo philanthropy community those are the players who might very well help us work
our way to 27 by going to 26.1 26.2 26.3 to give us our own agenda that we work towards 27 in a constructive action arena
so with that i'll stop and just conclude with the with uh our representative um uh secretary kerry is his uh concluding remarks have gotten very high
visibility in the elos he said i believe this is existential and for many of you out there it already exists unfortunately people are dying that kind of
of statement had gotten a high visibility in the us and in in a way it is a companion to climate crisis uh the word existential
um as a way of thinking about the action that we take and i'm suggesting we move to a monthly way of talking about it thank you thank you dr bob carrell for that really
valuable um contribution there and thank you nick king for for that great question thank you to all of our ccag members um i think it's been a really really
wonderful um uh live stream today um so that's all the time we have and a big thank you as i said to the ccag members for such a powerful discussion um we've
reflected on cop 26 and what needs to be done going forward and as ever a very big thank you to those of you watching at home and to everyone who joined us today with such vital questions if you want to
learn more about the work that ccag are undertaking you can find out more information on the website at ccag.earth you can also follow the group on twitter instagram and facebook and you can send
any additional questions that you may have for ccag on their social media pages too thank you once again for joining us today we're going to take a short break during the holiday season but we will be back stronger than ever
for another meeting in january until next time take care the situation with climate change is clear the crisis is not being managed in the
way it needs to be managed at the moment i am sir dave king i have set up a climate crisis advisory group the group represents the international experts on
climate change to be available to the public to policy makers and to the media around the world we need action now what we as humanity
do over the next five years will in my view determine the future of civilization
End of transcript