Why COP31 Could Surprise Us

Transcript

Mark Hertsgaard: Let’s be frank. UN climate summits have become all but synonymous with low expectations, long on rhetoric, short on action. And I say that as a journalist who’s been covering COPs since the 1992 Earth Summit that gave rise to these annual summits. The big exception, of course, is the summit that produced the Paris Agreement in 2015, a genuine step forward. 

Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of the world’s people, 80 to 89 percent of them, want their governments to “do more” about the climate crisis. That’s according to peer-reviewed studies. The Covering Climate Now partner outlets have been reporting on it via our 89% Project. The catch, well, is most of these people do not realize that they are an overwhelming majority, so they don’t act like it, and neither do their political leaders realize that — which may explain why past COPs have made so little progress. 

But there are concrete reasons why COP 31 could be different. First, it will begin six days after US elections that virtually every nonpartisan expert projects will see Democrats gain control of, at least the House of Representatives, perhaps the Senate as well, and that will cost Donald Trump his rubber stamp control of Congress and will unmistakably signal that he is a lame duck, which means that everyone at home or abroad can begin planning for a new era when the US position on climate change could be different. 

And there’s a second reason why COP might surprise us. At last year’s summit, more than 80 countries made it clear that they will no longer allow a handful of petrostates to block meaningful action by exploiting UN rules that require consensus decision making. Instead, 80+ countries joined a so-called coalition of the willing that then met last April in Santa Marta, Colombia, to begin developing a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels. Now, those 80+ countries amount collectively to the biggest economic superpower on Earth. So, if they do devise a credible way forward to leave fossil fuels behind, that will send an unmistakable message to governments and financial markets around the world that a critical mass of the global economy is transitioning to non-carbon enemy energy, rather, no matter what petrostates say. 

I’m very proud to say that Covering Climate Now has assembled a superstar panel to talk through all this today. Before I introduce them, let me add that in addition to this briefing for our colleagues, fellow journalists around the world, Covering Climate Now is also hosting a series of webinars just for journalists, where we will be drilling down on the issues at COP31. 

We’re providing tools and tips for covering the summit, whether you’re covering it in Turkey or remotely, and we’ll also be discussing very logistical issues about how you dial into the live feed and so forth. So, those are coming up October 27, 28, and 29. They’re staggered according to time zones around the world. Come to our website and you’ll get all the details. But please join us there if you’re a working journalist. 

Today’s briefing will be recorded and posted later on our website, along with links in the chat, and we’ll be reserving plenty of time for your questions. Please submit your questions using the Q&A button at the bottom of your screen, and then I will voice them for you. Now, this is important, my fellow journalists. If you want your question to be considered, be sure to include not only your name but also the name of your news outlet. This conversation is open to everyone today, but we will be taking questions only from working journalists. 

Now to our panelists in alphabetical order: Kumi Naidoo. He is the president of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, an NGO that was very active at the Santa Marta conference in April. Johann Rockström. He’s the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research. He co-chairs a panel of scientists at the Santa Marta conference established to advise governments on which policies to phase out fossil fuels work, and which ones don’t. Dr. Ana Toni, she was the CEO of the COP 30 UN Climate Summit, a position she continues to hold until COP31 begins, and on behalf of the Brazilian government, she has also been overseeing the work of the Santa Marta Coalition of the Willing. And last but not least, Stientje van Veldhoven is the Minister of Climate and Green Growth, The Netherlands. She co-chaired the Santa Marta conference and will be representing the Netherlands at COP31. Now, please join me in giving all of our guests a warm virtual welcome. 

So, I’d like to begin by asking each one of you the same question, and it’s an elevator pitch question — you have 30 seconds to answer. Given that quite a few of my fellow journalists and their newsroom editors and bosses are frankly quite skeptical about UN climate summits — they’re skeptical that they’re worth covering, that they make real news, that anything really is going to happen there — so, if you found yourself in an elevator for 30 seconds with such journalists, or critically with their editors, what would be your pitch to tell them now, while there’s still time to change their minds, that they really do need to understand that COP 31 could be different? That there’s going to be real news made there, and that they should have boots on the ground. So we’re going to go in alphabetical order. And again, I ask you to remember: please keep your answers to 30 seconds. Kumi Naidoo, you’re first.

Kumi Naidoo: What will hopefully be different is that after 30+ years of negotiations, 86% of the problem which is driving climate change is fossil fuels. And for 30 years, we only had one year where fossil fuels were even mentioned. That’s like Alcoholics Anonymous holding 30 years of conference and not having the backbone to mention the word alcohol in the outcome document. But I think [now that] Donald Trump has become an accidental advocate for fossil fuel phase-out, and people are seeing the link not only between fossil fuels and climate, but fossil fuels and war, fossil fuels and the undermining of democracy, fossil fuels and health impacts, and so on. I think it’s going to be, and I hope it’ll be, more difficult for fossil fuels to be kept off the agenda when it’s a core part of what we are dealing with when we gather in Antalya.

Mark Hertsgaard: Well, there’s the first soundbite of the day: Donald Trump, an unwilling advocate for the global phase out of fossil fuels. Johan Rockstrom, you’re in the elevator.

Johan Rockström: Well, to begin with, I would say that I share the skepticism. Already at the COP in Baku, I signed a letter to the head of the UNFCCC, arguing for the need for a whole COP reform to move from commitments to action and implementation. We’re now finally seeing this happening. Simon Stiell has led a process which continues to reform the COP process. The Turkish leadership is clearly understanding that this is about phasing out fossil fuels. And yes, 89% of citizens across the world trust science. They are concerned. They want action. And this pluralistic ignorance of thinking that we’re all minorities is simply wrong, and we see today that the pathway away from climate danger is not only existential, but it has massive opportunities of better security, resilience, prosperity, equity, health-simply a modern, more competitive, winning future.

Mark Hertsgaard: So we could have good news at Antalya. Ana Toni, you are in the elevator.

Ana Toni: I would say yes. I share the skepticism, but there isn’t any other meeting of the UN that is as important as the climate COP. This is where we have the most players around, not only governments, [but also] private sector, civil society, indigenous people. This is the biggest gathering of multilateralism, and therefore it is vital that we maintain the esteem that this is the place. In every COP, we go a little bit further, and I think that’s really important. At the last COP, we had a very strong debate about transitioning away from fossil fuel. We didn’t get anything on the negotiation, but we got out of that a very important coalition led by Santa Marta, a COP30 presidency that is going to publish a report on how to implement the roadmap of transitioning away, and I just had a meeting this morning. I’ve  never seen so many events being organized in a COP about transitioning away from fossil fuel. So real steps have started in COP 28,  we had COP 30. Now we’re going further. It’s a long process. It’s a difficult process, but it’s a process none of us can abandon.

Mark Hertsgaard: Big steps coming at COP 31. All right, Stientje van Veldhoven, you are the last one in the elevator going up. Let’s hear your pitch.

Stientje van Veldhoven: Thanks. So I think about two years ago I climbed Kilimanjaro, and when you’re halfway up the mountain, you keep looking up, and it still looks like a very very long way to go. But then, when you pause for one second and you look down, you see how far you’ve come. When we look at all the COPs and all the low expectations that we had for every COP. When we look back, we know that international meetings on policies to avoid climate change work. We used to be at a 4.5 degree global warming. After the Paris Agreement, we’ve been able to bring it down. So it works. It’s slow, but it works. And so, we need to continue doing it. And I would say, come and see where the action is. Be invigorated about the possible, not just the possible in more renewables, but also the possibility in phasing out of fossil fuels. This is a very critical part of the puzzle, and we will be talking about it at this COP31.

Mark Hertsgaard: Thanks very much, and you all kept admirably pretty close to the 30-second limit. I appreciate that. Let me just remind my colleagues who are attending here: you can start sending in your questions, post them in the Q&A. Remember, both your name and your outlet, and we’ll get to as many of them as we can. I’m going to ask another round or two of questions here first, but please do feel free to begin posting them now, and I’m going to kind of reverse the order now and continue with Minister van Veldhoven. 

You just mentioned the Santa Marta coalition of the willing, and Toni also talked about that. But the COP31 meeting is still held under United Nations rules, and those rules require consensus decision making. Which, by the way, my fellow journalists, that’s not the same as unanimous decision making. Consensus means not just one country can block things, but a handful still can block them. So, given that those UN rules will remain in place at COP31, how will you and other members of the Santa Marta Coalition advance the fossil fuel phase-out agenda at COP31? For example, will you introduce a resolution calling for developing a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels, and then, in effect, dare the petrostates to oppose it?

Stientje van Veldhoven: Well, actually, the need to phase out fossil fuels was already part of the COP conclusions, and so there’s no need for another piece of text to be negotiated. We should just start implementing it, and that is exactly what the Santa Marta coalition is about. It’s those countries that have their legal basis in the COP conclusions and that say, now let’s go to action. For every country, phasing out fossil fuels will be a different story, and so therefore, all countries will have to find a tailor-made solution that works for their country. 

But there are of course things that we can learn from each other, and that is why bringing this coalition together will enable us all to learn from both the successes, but also from the mistakes. That’s sometimes where you can learn the most — to not make certain mistakes that other countries have made — and that’s also the kind of things that we shared when we met at Santa Marta. That is what’s going to give speed to the transitioning away from fossil fuels, changing the policies in the countries, and that’s only what a country can do. So consensus or non-consensus in the general COP doesn’t make a difference for the choices that I have to make in my country to get my country to phase out of fossil fuels. 

But the best thing that I can do is make sure that I learn from others and that I share my experiences and that I show the possible. And of course, the science that Johan is bringing to the Santa Marta conference is essential in enabling all countries to make the best possible use of the science and the data of what works.

Mark Hertsgaard: Before I go on to Ana Toni, can I just clarify something you said? You said the legal basis in the COP30 agreement provides countries. Does it obligate countries to phase out, or just allows them or encourages them to phase out. What is the verb there?

Stientje van Veldhoven: Well, there’s just two things. So the the Dubai conclusions speak about the need to start moving away from fossil fuels, and then the Paris Agreement, of course, under Article 6.8, allows for multiple variable configurations of countries working together to implement COP conclusions, and that is basically what gives us the framework to work within the context of the the COP conferences and all the rules that apply, and still moving forward without having to negotiate. 

We in the Santa Marta coalition are not negotiating with each other. We are aiming to help each other, to show each other the possible and to share those best practices and find new solutions, too. Because none of us have all the solutions we really need — to come together and have the science there to find those solutions — because it’s hard for every country including for mine, but we’re working hard at it and we want to work with those other countries that also want to to make sure they implement this part of the COP conclusions.

Mark Hertsgaard: Thank you. That’s Stientje van Veldhoven. For those of you just joining us, she is the climate minister for the Netherlands and will be at COP31. So you can begin to make your interview requests for her.

Ana Toni, you were at the core of COP 30 with the negotiations, and now this year those negotiations will be run by Mr. Chris Bowen. He is the current Climate Minister for the government of Australia. And for journalists who might not know, this year’s COP has a bit of an unusual arrangement in that there’s two co-hosting countries. There is Australia and there is Turkey. Turkey is the physical location for the COP, and so Turkey is in charge of the logistics, security, etc. etc. Australia is in charge of the negotiations themselves. So Ana Toni, you know how difficult it can be to get consensus and agreement among the world governments, especially when there are petrostates that are hostile to the very idea of solving this problem. So, my specific question to you: What advice have you given Chris Bowen about how to make progress at COP31?

Ana Toni: I think the main advice is something that you mentioned, it’s that consensus does not give the right to one country or [even] a few countries to veto progress. And I think what is happening at the UNFCCC and the COPs is that countries feel that everybody has a veto power, and this is not the case. A consensus is not a veto power for 195 countries. So I think we need to be much more explicit about that, how we use consensus and how countries are using their own veto power. 

But if I may, Mark, you just explained how Turkey and Australia will be working together on the negotiation. A very important part of COPs that you did not mention is the action agenda. It’s the coalitions of the willing that are outside the negotiation because yet we don’t have consensus, but is a really important group. 

For example, now I’m hoping that with Santa Marta, there is this coalition of the willing — what can 80 countries that want to transition away, what can we do together? Even if 195 are yet not there, we have 80 countries. So let us do that. We have the same on the action agenda in relation to, for example, open coalition on carbon markets that Brazil, Europe, and China are working [on] together. So, for the implementation side in the action agenda, you don’t need the consensus of 195 countries — but you can and you should go faster. And I think, you know, we have now jointly but Turkey is leading on the 35 by 35 target on electrification that they put in as an action agenda of the circular economy [that] is as vital. So we should go to COPs not only thinking about what is the negotiation, but how can we move on the implementation with the implementers that are there, which is governments, private sector, subnational governments, indigenous people, because this is what gets emissions down.

Mark Hertsgaard: Thanks very much. That’s Ana Toni. She is still the CEO of COP30 and remains very actively involved in these negotiations. Now back to Johann Rockström. You said to this reporter at a Climate Week New York event that humanity is “in a final battle against the evil forces” that are trying to keep the world dependent on fossil fuels. 

Your institute, the Potsdam Climate Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research, which I tell my fellow journalists, they are maybe the best climate science institute in the world right now. You should definitely be following their work, including a study they did that looked at, I think it was 1500 different climate policies that have been instituted by various governments around the world, and they found that a very small portion of them — I think it was 63, don’t hold me to the exact number — actually worked, and the ones that worked, surprise, surprise, tended to do things like cut fossil fuel subsidies and basically threaten big oil’s business model. So my question to you for journalists at COP 31, what should we be watching to help our audiences understand this particular episode in this final battle between humanity and the evil forces that you described, trying to keep us hooked on fossil fuels?

Johan Rockström: Thanks, Mark. It’s an important question. And let me, before answering the question, just tick off one issue because I cannot leave it here. You mentioned before that the COP process follows the UN rule of consensus voting. That is actually not a really correct statement. There is nothing hindering the UNFCCC in the COP process to have majority voting. Actually, that resolution was never decided upon at COP1, which was chaired by Chancellor Angela Merkel at COP1 in Berlin. 

It was a huge debate about this, and it was left unresolved, and therefore it has established itself just as a kind of a culture within the COP process to operate under consensus. When you look at other UN conventions, they do not have consensus voting as a necessity. The only time we’ve been successful to deviate away from an existential threat to humanity, the Montreal Protocol, it aimed for consensus voting, but it had the allowance for majority voting. So I think it supports Ana Toni’s and Stientje’s points that having alliances of countries that move faster is absolutely appropriate to do also within the COP process, and this issue of majority voting is actually now up for discussion within this COP reform dialog that I mentioned earlier. 

But back to your question, I think that what journalists should keep an attention to at COP in Antalya is, of course, this sensitive issue of are the delegates there, country representatives, pavilions used to help the process towards phasing out fossil fuels and implementation, or is it for deal making to be able to stay on this status quo pathway dependent on coal, oil, and gas, and even discussing potential new business deals on on on oil and gas extraction — because this has occurred in the past, and of course, should be completely prohibited from the global climate negotiations, so that’s one thing to keep an eye on. 

The second thing I would keep an eye on is also what Kumi pointed out in the beginning, that the whole narrative is shifting, where we’re seeing that those actors and countries that are rapidly moving away from fossil fuels are becoming the winners in terms of not sitting in a cost of life crisis and having a fossil fuel dependency and sitting in the hands of conflict ridden, undemocratic providers of oil, coal, and gas. 

Seventy-five percent of citizens in the world are not living in regions producing fossil fuels; they’re consumers of fossil fuels. They’re sitting in the hands of this volatile global fossil fuel conundrum we’re stuck in, and allowing stories on how the phasing away from that dependence gives you advantages, I think also needs to come up much more prominently in the media communication.

Mark Hertsgaard: Thanks so much. That your first answer there, Dr. Rockström, is so revealing. You know, a lot of us as journalists, we’re carrying around assumptions in our heads about how these negotiations work, and turns out to not necessarily be so. So, let’s remember to step back and question our own assumptions here, and of course, it makes it a much more interesting story for us to cover frankly, so there’s that. 

All right, and then Kumi Naidoo, and then we’re going to go to Q&A’s from our colleagues, and we already have some excellent questions from my colleagues that I see from The Guardian, from the Tribune in Pakistan, from the Associated Press. Keep sending them in. You can use the Q&A function at the bottom of your screen. Your name and your outlet’s name are required, please. 

Okay, so Kumi, one more question now. You know, I mentioned earlier this 89% majority, which suggests that there is a massive political constituency out there waiting for any politician or social movement to mobilize it. You’ve been a civil society leader for decades. You had stints running both Greenpeace International and Amnesty International. So here’s a bit of a devil’s advocate question for you, why has civil society not done a better job of seizing this opportunity of reaching out to this massive global majority, and what might happen at COP 31 to change that narrative?

Kumi Naidoo: Thank you, Mark. Sadly, civil society reflects the power dynamics in society, and therefore we have in the world today an unequal distribution of power, completely dominated by 12% of the world’s population through their governments in the Global North, and 88% of the people living in the Global South and I just want to deviate for just a second Mark, to just go back to the term that you used, which is petrostates. I think it’s very important that we recognize that petrostates, historically as a term, was used in a somewhat racist way to refer to countries in the Middle East and Africa and so on, but let’s be very clear that even the presidency of the COP, Australia is a petrol state. It’s the third largest exporter of fossil fuels. US, Canada, many others. Okay, I just want to get that point absolutely.

And yes, what I would say is the main reason we are failing, and that is far too much of our messaging — right, from civil society, which sadly is also dominated by the Global North — as being very much about aiming our narratives at the brain and ignoring the heart, body, and soul. And secondly, so we talk in degrees, parts per million, scientific jargon, and so on, which our own families don’t really understand what we’re talking about. 

So, very importantly, what’s needed is for us to make the demands people-centric, and it’s very important for us to acknowledge that Western environmentalism, including from Greenpeace, WWF, and so on, really made a tactical error historically by framing the climate problem and put it in an environmental silo, right? We should now be moving in a way that we understand the challenge of climate emergency is not just a failure of our environmental approach; it’s a failure of our economic system, our energy system, our transport system and so on. So we need to go to the structural courses, and I think right now what I’m seeing, just when I look at the use of arts and culture, our what we call artivism as a way of mobilizing more people, taking the message to ordinary people, so that they understand that addressing on climate is not a sellout to their interests, but is fundamental to protecting those interests. We need a more people-centric messaging in the way we approach the problem.

Mark Hertsgaard: Thanks so much, Kumi. That’s Kumi Naidoo. He is with the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative. All right, now we’re going to switch to questions from my colleagues, and I’m going to start with a very esteemed colleague of mine, Hamad Safretz. He is the editor of the Express Tribune. The Tribune. Try that again. The Tribune magazine, which is the weekend magazine of the Express Tribune newspaper in Pakistan, one of the two leading newspapers in Pakistan, and a very close friend of Covering Climate Now. 

One of his questions is as follows: “A coalition of countries could challenge the influence of fossil fuel-producing states in climate negotiations. What mechanism could COP 31 create to turn this coalition into a force for accountability, while also ensuring that the global South countries help shape the transition away from fossil fuels, rather than simply bear the costs of that transition.” So, who would like to jump in on that question? Go ahead, you. Yes, unmute, please.

Stientje van Veldhoven: Yes, just finding the button, right? Thanks a lot for that question. And I think first of all, by being part of it, and they are already. When we met in Santa Marta, we had a really diverse group of countries, because it is a challenge for all of us and for all of us in a diverse way. And so, the solution will also be different for every country. It will have to fit every country. That’s why I like to connect to what Kumi Naidoo was saying. This is not just an environmental challenge. It is very much also a social economic transition, and we are seeing with the current high prices of fossil that again, the people in all countries that have the lowest salaries are most vulnerable to these high prices, and we need to make sure that we enable everybody to go through the transition. And therefore, we have to look at what, how does it work for people? 

And there, I think the fact that renewables in many parts of the world are actually cheaper now than fossil fuels is going to help us. But we have fossil fuel subsidies that stand in the way, basically, of making sure that we get to the right repetition of the costs and the benefits across the society. Changing that is hard because you’re changing, and while you change, you have to make sure that those people who need them most don’t suffer from a change in these subsidies, and that’s why I was talking about the fact that it is a puzzle. 

We have to learn from each other how we can make these transitions work. We very much need to do it together, and every country will be shaping their own solutions, which is critical because every country is different, and the socio-economic fabric of every country is different. This is a social transition as much as it is a technological transition or an ecological transition, and we have to make sure those go all hand in hand. 

On [being] a force for accountability. Every country, when they make their transition plan, that is one of the elements that the Santa Marta coalition is trying to support, and I’ve recently done it for the Netherlands. A few other countries have done it, and we are expecting a number of other countries to announce at the COP that they will be making their transition plans. Those plans will also ensure the accountability and the transparency of how countries are aiming to move away from fossil fuels, and will hopefully thereby also give a very strong signal to the market that these steps are being taken, even though it’s not easy for nobody. But this is how we’ll get there. Thanks.

Mark Hertsgaard: I know Ana Toni wants to jump in here, but I have to follow up. Can you tell us which countries might be?

Stientje van Veldhoven: No, I cannot. I knew you were going to ask that, but of course I wouldn’t want to spoil the fun of those countries announcing it themselves. So I thought I’d give you a little teaser. You asked for the elevator pitch. Well, this is a second to the elevator pitch. 

Mark Hertsgaard: Okay, so you could tell us, but you will not tell us. 

Stientje van Veldhoven: I will not. 

Mark Hertsgaard: That’s good. Everybody, there’s going to be some news made in Antalya. Ana Toni… 

Ana Toni: You ask what journalists should also look at. I think there will be three big moments. There are many others, but three big moments in Anatalya about transitioning away from fossil fuel. 

The first one is when the COP31 presidency will launch the roadmap that the presidency promised in Belém. So that will be on the 10th. I understand Santa Marta is going to do a big event on the 16th, and there will be another big event, a ministerial meeting on the 18th. So, as Stientje said, I think there will be announcements in those meetings. Those are three days that you should look at. 

But I wanted to go back to the question of how we move forward, how we [are] transitioning away. We can see that there are many, many countries now working hard to increase renewables in their energy sectors, which is great news and really welcome. But we also know that we are waiting for the market to say when is the time for you to transition into renewables and away from fossil fuel, and what I think we were all saying in Santa Marta and in the report that we put up is that we cannot allow [for] just waiting for the market to do that. Market is important, but governments have a role in when and how to transition, and we need to be explicit about that. 

So the plans that national governments [put forward are] vital, so people can say because we have a huge dependency not only on the energy sector but on the economic sector, on fossil fuel. Many countries depend on the royalties or all the money that that fossil fuel brings for those governments. And if we are not conscious about that and don’t take very important actions to diminish that dependency — that economic dependency — they will never happen. So we need to have an action, a determined action, on how to transition away from fossil fuel, not only from our energy sector, but especially from our economic dependency. And hopefully, we’re going to go much more in detail on how to do that with the Roadmap that we are presenting, and also, I know [that] Santa Marta — we are also working on that.

Mark Hertsgaard: So, my fellow journalists, as you prepare to cover COP31, talk to your colleagues on the business desks. What Ana Toni just described: climate change is a story for every beat in the newsroom, but it is really a story for the business desk, in particular. So talk to your colleagues there. See if you can work together on a project. If you’re there in person or if you’re doing it remotely.

Let me go now to Fiona Harvey, my colleague at The Guardian. I’m going to brag on her for a second. She just was named last month… She won the Covering Climate Now Lifetime Achievement Award for her incredible coverage over so many years, especially of COPs. And here’s her question: “A lot of the possible progress at COP31 seems to be coming from outside the main negotiating agenda. For example, electrification goals, the transition away from fossil fuels. Her question: What tangible progress can we expect from the core negotiations?” Who would like to answer that? I will call on someone if no one can. 

Ana Toni: I can. I mean, they are very important.There is Fiona — first of all, congratulations, well deserved. As you know, and Fiona is one that knows more than anybody else, the rule book of COPs has been finalized, and now we are in a phase of implementation. For many of those topics, there aren’t yet consensus — we cannot negotiate on how we implement — because the COP is through the National Determined Contributions. 

So, I think what we’re going to see going forward — in the Brazilian COP we had 56 negotiated texts by consensus, and now in Antalya [there] are many very important discussions, but they are less grand, big decisions. For example, on the indicators of adaptation, we are going to go back to that. On the issue of the Veredas Dialogue and how we make the whole economy [unclear]. We are going to go a little bit step forward on that on the mechanism of just transition. 

There are many decisions that need to be made. There are many granular decisions, but I know journalists love a big decision. I don’t think journalists — we said that in COP30, you take a while for us to have moments of huge decisions. I think the next big moment is on the GSG2, which is COP33. So I think COP31 and COP32 we’re going to see super important negotiated decisions, but not super big. But in COP 33, yes, we will see that.

Mark Hertsgaard: But it sounds like what you said is going to happen on November 10 at this year’s COP could be a pretty big announcement, isn’t that when the standard market coalition—

Ana Toni: Yes, but it’s not a negotiated announcement. I think Fiona was asking for the negotiation.

Mark Hertsgaard: Correct. Yeah, my mistake. 

Stientje van Veldhoven: Okay, and in addition to what Ana Toni said, I think also the details on NCQG are going to be important, Ana. Right, so what’s—

Mark Hertsgaard: Hold on, what’s NCQG? You got to tell us all what that is.

Stientje van Veldhoven: The quantified goal on finance. So the finance goal that was agreed, and now, of course, the question is: How do we make sure that that money gets to the people who actually need it in what form? In a combination between public and private, and all of that will be discussed. That is another important part of the agenda. 

But like Ana said, these steps are really crucial because if we’re talking about accountability. We need these rules because otherwise it will be very hard to actually follow and monitor, which journalists also do — fortunately, right? Whether countries are living up to their expectations, so let’s not talk about these negotiations as though they were minor. These are critical parts of the agreement, even though they may seem less grand, they are critical to actually achieve progress. But of course, mostly I wanted to take the floor to congratulate Fiona. Congratulations, Fiona! Well, well deserved.

Mark Hertsgaard: And let’s remember, journalists, my fellow journalists, accountability — that’s our job description, right? You know, we get paid by our employers, but we work for the public, and holding the public’s leaders accountable is what we are supposed to be doing as journalists. 

So, let’s switch now to, there’s a question from my colleague at the Financial Times, Attracta Mooney. How does the disaster in Nepal, she asks. “How does the disaster in Nepal, which has starkly shown the lack of climate financing. How does that disaster influence this year’s talks?” And I’d be curious to hear, especially from Kumi and anyone else on that.

Kumi Naidoo: So, thank you so much for that question. I think we need a little bit of reality check in this conversation as well, right? Because Paris set a target of 1.5 degrees. We fought really, really hard to get that target, right? Now, as things sound, and we — by 2030, if we look at the investments that are planned in fossil fuels — by 2030, we could double the level of emissions from where we are right now, right? So basically, we have to look at what’s happening on the ground. I mean, 30,000 deaths in Europe during the summer, we’re talking about children dealing with fire and smoke in Indonesia, Canada, and so on. 

And what I think is important about what happened in Nepal. Nepal was a very visual, visual shock that people saw the power of nature. And one of the things when I was at Greenpeace, and when Ana Toni was my boss as the chair of the board, I used to always say, “Nature does not negotiate.” We cannot change the science; what we can change is political will. 

And I think the political world right now, hopefully, is going to be accelerated as a result of not only the horrific loss of life and infrastructure we saw in Nepal, but what we are seeing across the continent, and importantly, both in the Global South and in the Global North. The Global North is not immune anymore, we are seeing. And that reality, let’s hope it brings the message home that we need to act. 

Just while I have the floor. I just wanted to support what Ana Toni said earlier about we have to get governments to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels, especially those whose primary revenue comes from that. But also, I think we need to be very clear here. We cannot have one standard for the North and the South on the phase out, right? Because the Global North built the economies based on fossil fuel exploitation, pushed that through colonialism as a norm, and all of that. 

So right now, we should say that there’s no carbon space. At some point, we are talking about, is there carbon space? There’s no carbon space, really, right? So, not only do we need to reduce the dependency, I think we need to come to a point right now where we actually say to ourselves and the world: any fresh new investments in fossil fuels is an investment in the death and destruction of our children and their children’s future. And we need to say that very loud… 

And let me just conclude by saying, just this year, I’ve been in Ghana and in Kenya working with the governments there, and we had national dialogs with the oil and gas industry and so on. And one of the things they say is, we know we must move because our people are already suffering in terms of impacts, and then they say to me, “But Kumi, how stupid will we look to our own people when the countries that built the economies on fossil fuels are still coming up with new and new projects? And we stop when we have revenue challenges.” So, I would make an appeal here to our brothers and sisters who have power in the Global North apparatus — who controls the world in reality, right? — that they have to show leadership now. They have to be the first ones that stop, so that we who operate in the Global South can go to our governments and say, “Okay, our brothers and sisters in the North are moving. You need to move as well.” Thank you.

Mark Hertsgaard: Thanks, Kumi. Go ahead, Johan Rockström.

Johan Rockström: Yeah. So anyone who follows science and anyone who’s been interested in hearing my public statements since before COP21 in Copenhagen knows that we’ve been very clear that [exceeding] the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit — not a target, not a goal limit — and we enter danger, danger of extreme events, danger of crossing tipping points, and this is why we’ve been arguing so strongly that we need to bend the curve of emissions and focus on mitigation as our top priority when we meet at these COP meetings. 

But I must say that what happened in Nepal and the Tibetan Plateau is, in my view, the very poster child of why the whole Loss and Damage Agenda will now very likely become a really central political debate topic in Antalya. Why? Well, to begin with, the disaster has such an enormous impact on people, on the entire ecosystem. Talking to finance ministry staff in Kathmandu just yesterday, estimates a 10% decline in Nepalese GDP because of this disaster. And as you know, three weeks after the collapse, the World Weather Attribution Program shows unequivocally that it can only be explained with human-induced climate change. 

So we are responsible for this massive social catastrophe, and that, of course, requires a serious discussion on compensation. I’ve been very hesitant on having the whole focus politically on loss and damage and compensation issues. But I think here we absolutely need to recognize that we have crossed the line, we are at the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit. We have failed so far in holding off from that limit, and now we see the consequences. 

And these consequences go well beyond what’s happening in Nepal. We know this, but this is such a stark example and when the Nepalese Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly, Prime Minister Balendra Shah, held his speech there, I think that was it was very clear how central this is and must be also for reminding everyone of how urgent action is at this point.

Mark Hertsgaard: Thanks. Let’s go to the next question. This is from Seth Borenstein at the Associated Press, which is: “What do you see as the best possible outcome from COP31, and what do you see as the minimum needed for this to be considered a success? Will it require some kind of a joint statement by the countries, or is that no longer needed as the focus turns to implementation? And finally, if there is no final joint statement, why bother with a COP?” Stientje, I see you beginning to answer there. Would you like to speak up?

Stientje van Veldhoven: Well, a couple of things. I think the work in all of the workstreams that Ana Toni just referred to is absolutely critical. But I think it might be relatively difficult for everybody to get a good sense of how important or what the details were of what happened there. But I think that work needs to continue, and the teams need to see also that this work progresses. 

I also find the idea of working on a shared goal on electrification really,  really interesting because this is going to give a signal to markets, and of course everything will depend, I mean, it may still take many different shapes and different forms, but I think having this clear indication that the world is moving towards electrification will be important. 

And I think the context of the current high prices of fossil actually show to many parts of the world their economic dependency on these fossil fuels has a price, so irregardless of whether your constituents have an environmental background, I think this is something that reaches across political spectra, and therefore, I think this message of, there is an alternative. That, by the way, talking about what it delivers for people, if you can electrify via solar or wind, you also avoid many emissions, right? [Emissions] that pollute the air, that can create better health for people. So there’s many co-advantages to moving from burning coal or burning fossil fuels to electrification, and this signal to markets, I think, will be important for the investment in climate. 

And then of course with the Santa Marta, I will be doing a report out, and [there] will hopefully be, like I said before, we’ll have some nice announcements of countries to reinforce that signal where the world is moving, and I think all of these action agendas are critically important also as outcomes. So for success, I also hope that we will see many, many parts of the implementation going forward with tangible results because that is in the end what’s going to create a change for CO2 emissions in the near future when those countries implement those concrete commitments.

Mark Hertsgaard: Thanks. We have two questions now for Johan Rockström. One is a quick follow up from Seth Borenstein at the AP, he notes that you said a moment ago that there’s a dialog about maybe changing to majority decision making, as opposed to this belief, at least, that consensus decision making is what happens. And Seth Borenstein’s question is: “What is the status of that dialog? Will it formally be on the agenda at COP31 to shift to a majority vote, and if so, who’s lobbying for it and who is lobbying against it?” And then there’s a second question I’ll get to in a second, but why don’t you tackle that one first?

Johan Rockström: Yeah, no, thanks, Seth, for raising that because so I can clarify that I have no expectations of this coming up as a formal agenda point, unfortunately, at COP31. It’s part of this high level informal dialog that Simon Stiell has initiated, which is essentially a working group behind, well, let’s say, facilitated by the UNFCCC. It’s Youssef Nassef, who chairs it. The topic has been up there for quite some discussion. We are, I would say, a majority in favor. But this is just advising the leadership of the UNFCCC to bring that to the COP. But we’ve not succeeded in coming that far. So I don’t see that coming up as a formal agenda item. But we’ll continue pushing for it.

Mark Hertsgaard: Second question for you, which is from Megan Rowling from Climate Home News. If you’re not following Climate Home News, you should. Question: “The IPCC has not been able to agree on the timeline for the next set of AR7 reports. That’s the assessment reports that come out from the IPCC every few years.” Your question is: “What impact could this failure to agree have on the discussions at COP31, and will it be resolved at COP31?”

Johan Rockström: So this is a deep concern. It is the misalignment between the AR7 scientific report and the Global Stocktake number 2, the next Global Stocktake. The agreement has always been that the science should come out before to inform countries ratcheting up their NDCs, the National Determined Contributions. This is now misaligned, and it’s basically India, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia hindering that and using multiple arguments to put spanners in the wheel in this timeline for IPCC. 

So that is a concern, but my conclusion on this is that we should not allow ourselves in the scientific community, to be let’s say, hindered, in our work for that, we should just continue to move forward on the IPCC work. It will not come up at COP31 as a topic, at least not that I know. I had an exchange with Jim Skea, the chair of IPCC, on this just a few days back. I think that he also lands in the conclusion that IPCC should simply get on with its own scientific assessment and communicate science accordingly. 

And finally, already with the AR6 evidence and the latest Gap Report, we know that global emissions need to reduce by 6% per year from now onwards, way before the Global Stocktake 2028, and so there’s nothing hindering countries gathering at COP31 to accelerate the pathway away from greenhouse gas emissions based on the science we have today. We don’t have to wait for AR7 to act.

Mark Hertsgaard: We have one more question from our colleagues, and then I’m going to ask each of you a final question because Kumi, we are in the last four minutes here. So here’s a question from Pranila Strid. Excuse me if I’m mispronouncing this. She’s from Sweden, and I’m not going to try to say the name of her outlet, but it translates into English as current sustainability. It’s a question for Ana Toni. How are the two plans on deforestation and fossil fuel phase out from Brazil to COP31 coming along?

Ana Toni: Thank you. Thank you for the question. Great question. We are finalizing, and as we promised, we are going to be launching the two roadmaps. One related to paragraph 28, transitioning away from fossil fuel, looking at supply, demand, and economic dependencies. So please be tuned, and we will be informing that, and be as I said, launching on the 10th. But hopefully, it will be that the media will have that before.

The same goes for stopping deforestation and ensuring reforestation. That we’re doing this report and we’re doing this roadmap and is going to be launched exactly the same way. The roadmap on deforestation will be on the 9th. That’s going to be launched at the COP, and the one on transitioning away will be on the 10th. 

And if I may, Mark, as I have, I mean, I know that everybody is really focused on the negotiation, and as we talked about, a very important piece of the negotiation will be a decision about one percentage, 5% of the carbon market, going to the adaptation fund. It’s not a headline, perhaps, but it’s really, really important because we all know that we need adaptation and therefore need money. So those are the types of decisions that are going to be done on the negotiation. 

But please media, also look at the action agenda because, as you said, is accountability. Many times, governments and private sector comes to a COP and promise that they’re going to do something on grids, or buildings, or mangrove, or ocean and forest, and nobody asks them what they have done with those promises. Now we have reorganized the action agenda. All the data of what happened from one year to another is there. So it may be that we will be able to make those players accountable on the implementation. It’s not negotiation; it’s implementation. But we need to cover implementation in a much better way that we have done that.

Mark Hertsgaard: So Ana Toni has just anticipated my final question to all the panelists. So I’ll do the other three, and again, it’s going to be a 30-second elevator pitch. 

But before I do that, let me just remind my fellow journalists [that] we have, next week, Covering Climate Now is organizing webinars where we will be talking as colleagues — Talking Shops, we call them — to really drill down and give you all the tools that you need to follow up on the great ideas that we’ve heard today and how to cover this summit, whether you’re in Antalya, Turkey, or you’re doing it remotely. 

So here’s the final question that Ana Toni has just answered, which is again 30 seconds [for] each one of you on our panel. If you could change one thing about how the media covers these summits, what would it be? And I guess Johan Rockström, I’ll start with you, and I’m going to move this way on the screen. So Johan, and then Stientje van Veldhoven, and then Kumi Naidoo gets the last word.

Johan Rockström: I think, Mark, that the most important — you actually alluded to it yourself — is to show that we are a majority that wants change. We are a majority that move this forward. We are a majority power that therefore can have confidence that we have a collective global community that really wants this to succeed, and that it isn’t too late. The window is still open, but rapidly shutting. And you also know, Mark, that I would kind of pepper that with the risk assessment as well, the latest science risk assessment.

Mark Hertsgaard: Thanks very much, Stientje van Veldhoven. One thing you’d change…

Stientje van Veldhoven: I would say show more of the good progress, so that the 89% of people that want governments to do more about climate change see that they are part of a majority, and that other people are working on it in other countries, as well, and therefore that will strengthen both the the sense that we can do this, that we can change that, but also the sentiment that none of us are at this alone. All of us are working at this around the world. The more the media can give those examples, also — that are being showcased at COP at all those conferences in that action agenda part of the conference — that will help to see others. We can do it, and others are doing it as well. So therefore, so should we.

Mark Hertsgaard: Thanks so much, and Kumi Naidoo, last word.

Kumi Naidoo: I think it’d be great if journalists push governments to say how long more are you going to continue to mop the floor without turning off the tap on fossil fuels. I think we need to be able to report also in a way that brings the global public into the conversation, not only the global policy elites. The big problem we have is that this is not landing with ordinary folks anywhere in the world, whether in rich or poor countries. And I would like to end with an invitation to Minister van Veldhoven and Ana and Johan, why don’t we do a joint op-ed calling for us not to have a COP that goes on consensus decision making? Remind people about what was desired in Berlin. I’m happy to do the first draft. Let me know if y’all want to co-sign it with me. I think it’ll be a very productive, practical thing to come out of this wonderful press conference that we’ve had. Thank you very much. Oh, you want to give me a thumbs up, Minister van Veldhoven and Ana? (laughs)

Mark Hertsgaard: I will say I think editors will find that of great interest. So be in touch with us, and we can help you perhaps offer that to various places around the world. 

And with that, we’re going to say thank you very much. It’s been a wonderful hour. We’ve had Kumi Naidoo. We have had Stientje van Veldhoven, Ana Toni, Johan Rockström. Truly a rock star panel. These are people who have been in this a long time. My fellow journalists, follow up with us if you want to follow up and get a one-on-one interview or email questions. I’m sure our panelists today would be happy to respond to you. 

And thank you for being with us. Come to our webinars next week. And with that, I’m going to sign off on behalf of everyone at Covering Climate Now. I’m Mark Hertsgaard, wishing you all a very pleasant day.