Bronwen Maddox
You sitting comfortably?
John Kerry
Roll the Chair. Thank you.
Bronwen Maddox
A lot of rushing round. Right, is everyone else sitting comfortably? Great, we shall then start. Good afternoon and a very warm welcome to Chatham House. I’m Bronwen Maddox, the Director, and I’m delighted to be having this conversation here with John Kerry, the Special Presidential Envoy on Climate, which he’s been since January 2021. If I were to read out all the other things he’s been as well, we could simply have the session on that.
John Kerry
Oh, do, come on, let’s remind me.
Bronwen Maddox
Yeah, they – alright, he was a…
John Kerry
If I can – okay.
Bronwen Maddox
Starting closest to home, he was the winner of the Chatham House Prize in 2016 during a period of four years when he was Secretary of State for Barack Obama, and has been many, many other things as well. But while Secretary of State, was guiding the administration’s strategy on nuclear non-proliferation, extremism and climate change, as well, and has been given, in the words of the President, “a seat at any table” to do with the climate change negotiations, and we are just a week and a half away, obviously, from COP27 opening in Sharm El Sheik. Secretary Kerry, very warm welcome.
John Kerry
Thank you, great to be here and be back.
Bronwen Maddox
To be back, ‘cause you were here a year ago, and thank you for coming. Thank you for coming again. Let’s start with where we are. As I said, just a week and a half off this climate summit that everyone is looking at. What has the past year, since COP26, which Britain hosted, what has that past year given us in the way of progress on climate change, if anything?
John Kerry
Well, it’s given us – first of all, it’s wonderful to be here, thank you all very much. It’s given us a amazing number of new initiatives. There is a great deal of implementation of what happened in Glasgow taking place. Now, is there enough? No. Does there have to be more? Massively, and more and faster. I think that is really the hallmark of what needs to be taking place. But we left Glasgow with 65% of global GDP committed to legitimate plans that, if followed, could keep 1.5 degrees alive. The problem is, if you only have 65% of global GDP doing that, you got a real problem, and the other 35% has to come to the table with significant increases. That’s what we called for in Glasgow, we said specifically that there would be a review, that countries that hadn’t put in a sufficient NDC need to raise their NDC or submit one. NDC, of course, being your National Determined Contribution.
So, you know, we need to make sure that COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh is the implementation COP, dot dot dot plus, implementation of promises made, which Fatih Birol and the IEA said, “If you did all of that you would be, by 2050, be holding the Earth’s temperature increase to 1.8 degrees.” But the plus is getting these other countries to get a much higher percentage of global GDP committed to the same track. Will – remains to be seen if we can get there, but you know, China and the United States, the two biggest economies in the world, the two biggest emitters in the world, 40% of all emissions, need to be moving aggressively in the same direction.
We now, as you know, with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, with the infrastructure legislation, with other measures the President’s taking in terms of Executive Orders and regulatory process, we will be on track to get the full 50 to 52% reduction, and the science says we have to hit a minimum of 45% by 2030. We could still do that, folks. You actually could do that if we deployed renewables fast enough around the world, but we’re not. And so, the choice here for a lot of countries is not, “Oh, my gosh, all you have to do is just renew.” No, that’s not fair. People can do nuclear, people could do capturing of emissions, people could do geothermal or – I mean, there’re a lot of different options here that are not sufficiently tapped into, and that is our challenge right now, is speeding up massively, getting more people included and setting firmer goals for the people not yet there.
Bronwen Maddox
What did the UN report that has just come out on the Nationally Determined Contributions – how did you read that? In a way, it was better than a year ago, but it still showed a formidable gap.
John Kerry
There is a formidable gap, there absolutely is a formidable gap and obviously, I mean, it’d be, you know, it’d be inappropriate and crazy not to acknowledge that COVID has had an impact, Ukraine has had an impact. And there is a new, false narrative being circulated by certain powerful interests that this is the signal, what’s happened to the marketplace is the signal that we’re moving too fast and that we need to somehow be pumping one thing or another much more. False, false, false, and a repeat of a pattern that has gotten us to where we are, to some degree, which is avoidance of reality, downgrading science, unwillingness to be truthful with each other, basing policy partly on the basis of self-delusion. And we have to stop all of that, and I hope Sharm El Sheikh will be another, to pardon the pun, but shaking-up of people who need to get more serious about what we need to do.
And you – and excuse me, but every single legitimate analysis, economic analysis, tells us it is far more expensive to not proceed at the pace we need to now, than it is to proceed at it. And solar and wind, among other things, are definitively, by any legitimate accounting process, cheaper than staying with coal or with fossil fuel, it’s just cheaper. And mind you, no-one, historically, has appropriately measured the true cost of the fossil fuel, which after all, 90% of all the warming taking place on the planet, which comes principally from unabated emissions, goes into the ocean, and it’s warming the ocean with the impact that we have more moisture going up into the atmosphere, dropping in the form of rain. Ask Pakistan what the consequences of that are. Other places in the world where there are floods.
We are just, you know, rather – I hate to say it but if we just, sort of, myopically, stupidly, almost pursuing a, kind of, ostrich policy, put your head in the sand and pretend there’s nothing happening. But it is happening, inexorably, and it is legitimate to say that if you look out at the world today that we live in, this past year may be the best it’s going to be. Think of that.
Bronwen Maddox
And this has been, as you said, not just in Pakistan…
John Kerry
This year…
Bronwen Maddox
…a year of enormous…
John Kerry
…may be the best, because everything…
Bronwen Maddox
…unexpected weather.
John Kerry
…indicates there will be more damage, worse consequences, going forward.
Bronwen Maddox
I’m going to…
John Kerry
That is a very bitter pill to offer our children and future generations. There is a way to change that, and the issue is will we seize the options available to us, which, by the way, offer the greatest economic opportunity the world has ever known?
Bronwen Maddox
I’m going to come on in a second to the question of damage and what might be done about it, but I wanted to ask you about the US and China specifically, because you have said, “Look, the two countries need to co-operate with each other on this.” What are the chances of that at Sharm El Sheikh?
John Kerry
Well, I mean, I can’t give you percentages, but I can tell you that…
Bronwen Maddox
I wasn’t asking for that, more a diplomat’s answer.
John Kerry
Sorry, I learned a few bad habits over the last five years.
Bronwen Maddox
Which is what, to quantify things that cannot be quantified? I was going to ask what movement you thought there might be and…
John Kerry
I hope China…
Bronwen Maddox
…what agreement between the two countries?
John Kerry
I think China understands. Look, they chose a particular moment to make a particular point. We have argued adamantly, and I still argue that this is not a bilateral issue, it’s a multilateral, global threat to the planet itself, which the two largest economies and the two biggest emitters have a fundamental responsibility to come together and try to address.
So, I’m hoping, I still genuinely hope that we will come together in Sharm El Sheikh, that China and the United States will find the opportunity to do some work together, and I have great respect for my counterpart, he’s a long-time friend, 25 years. Someone will probably tweet bad things about me for calling somebody from China a friend, but he is, and I have respect for his knowledge and his ability. He wants to get things done, and the question is, will we be able to, or have time, hopefully, to be able to do that?
This is not a bilateral issue, it’s a multilateral, non-ideological, non-political issue, and therefore I believe needs every voice on the planet to come together to help us find a way forward. And we can’t win this battle without – nobody should cut me off at the battle – without the ability to bring these countries together and reduce emissions. No country can do this by itself, number one, not even can we do it without all of those 20 largest economies in the world joining in, at least the vast majority of them.
Right now, we’re at 65%. That means 35% is outside of that pathway. If we can bring them on board, that’s China, Russia, India, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Mexico, if we can bring some of those – and we’re working with them, every one of them. We’re negotiating with Indonesia right now. We hope to be able to sign a joint ener – a just energy transition partnership. We’re working with South Africa, we’re working with Vietnam, with – I’m going tomorrow morning, early, to Mexico to meet with President López Obrador. We hope Mexico will come more – on board more. UK has been leading our effort with South Africa; we hope that can come together.
If we can move those countries, folks, we have a chance in Sharm El Sheikh to raise ambition well above the 65. I’m not going to prognosticate, you know, a number, but think about how that moves us forward.
Bronwen Maddox
You were mentioning just a moment ago damages, some of the damage from climate change, you were talking about Pakistan and the floods there, but there are lots of other examples. And people in those countries might say, “Look, it’s all very well to talk about our children, about future generations, all that is real, but what about the damage caused right now by climate change?” to countries which, they would argue, had not been the ones putting the bulk of carbon and other gases in the atmosphere? What is the obligation to…
John Kerry
Well, they need…
Bronwen Maddox
…help them financially right now with the damage that they say that they are suffering?
John Kerry
Well, we need to help them with a lot of aspects of their challenge right now, including some of the damage, but also – the question is how and what is the framework within which that will happen. But let me put an exclamation point on this challenge and then, share with you how I think we’re beginning to really address it. 17 countries, I mentioned equal – 17 countries in Africa – out of 20 of the countries in the world that are most impacted by the climate crisis, are, as I said, African, and yet Africa as a whole is only two-and-a-half/3% of all the emissions in the world. They’re not causing this problem.
I was just the other day in Senegal and DRC and Nigeria, where each of the Presidents said to me, you know, “We’re prepared not to dig for gas, we’re prepared not to be gas-dependent going forward, but tell me how I can provide energy to my people without it. We have it, do we have your money, do we have your technology to deploy the renewables and have a better grid and alternative?” The answer is no.
So, we are failing globally to be able to provide countries with the development capacity they want and now, frankly, that’s a development challenge, not just a climate challenge. It’s how do we develop the developing world? And we’ve been falling short of what we should be doing, grotesquely, with respect to health and community-building and energy and a host of different things. So, that has to become more real, number one.
Number two, we have got to help those countries to be able to jump start. When you have only 17% of your population that has electricity, you do not have a sufficient revenue base to support the marketplace becoming involved. So, if you’re not going to just have the status quo dragging on and creating horrendous North/South tensions and changing this dialogue from one that ought to be constructive as to how we move forward together, we’ve got to address that.
I believe there is a real North/South compelling factor in how we come together, but if it becomes just, sort of, liability and compensation and reparation or something, that’s not going to advance the dialogue. The dialogue has to advance around finding ways to address loss and damage. What will be the legitimate facility, or financial arrangements, if you will, not facility, but financial arrangements, by which we go forward? Well, we have to put more into adaptation, we have to put more into development. I’m convinced that if there was a more legitimate development process taking place, with the multilateral development banks more engaged and putting more money on the table, we’d have less of this, you know, angst and anger. I understand the anger.
Bronwen Maddox
And it is anger.
John Kerry
Yeah.
Bronwen Maddox
And there’s a morally charged anger saying, “Look, what about some kind of reparations for the damage suffered?” And I was listening carefully as you were answering, and it seemed to me your first answer is, “Look, we’re going to do a lot more about development and helping these countries…
John Kerry
No, it’s not…
Bronwen Maddox
…with development…
John Kerry
I’m going finally…
Bronwen Maddox
…and energy development, and then adaptation.” And then you started saying…
John Kerry
We will have…
Bronwen Maddox
…“We will have a facility.”
John Kerry
We will have a very, I’m sure, deeply engaged – we’re already working at it. I mean, we’re not sitting around waiting to go to Sharm El Sheikh to begin the discussion. Our teams have been meeting and working on this very hard, and I think there is a very good meeting of minds beginning to gel as to how we can manage this, and I want to say very directly to the media, “Don’t come to Sharm El Sheikh looking for a storyline that says, “Loss and damage is somehow ripping this place apart.” It’s not, it’s not going to. We are not sitting on the outside of this dialogue. We are not resisting the notion that we have to deal with it.”
The dialogue – I mean, the – there’s already agreement about standing up the Santiago Network. There’s already agreement that we have to be having this discussion with intensity and serious purpose, but there are complicated relationships here. For instance, let me give you an example. Damage has been done over the years, historically, by a certain group of countries that were engaged in principally coal-fired power production. But mind you, an awful lot of countries have been using coal for 70 or 80 years, not just us, so, how do you apportion that, how do you deal with that? What is the appropriate way to begin to build consensus here of how we go forward?
And it is a conglomerate effort to provide better development capacity, to provide legitimate help to deal with the loss and damage, to provide legitimate help to deal with the reality today for adaptation and resilience building. We’re committed to building out an early warning system that could be in place in the next five years. We’re committed to building, through the dialogue, understanding of how we can do more faster, to deal with damages and disaster, Pakistan for instance.
One of the principal tools available to us that has not been adequately pursued are the MDBs. There are – I – we just met in Washington a week ago, under the auspices of the Bezos Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation, and we had discussions with several of the Presidents of the banks and with a bunch of folks who are stakeholders, “How do we follow up on Janet Yellen’s notion of a new Bretton Woods and what is the shape it ought to take?” We are the largest shareholder in the world, we need to initiate that, I would say, fundamentally, together with France and Germany and Britain and others. And rapidly come up with an understanding of how the capital allocation of those banks could be replenished, very significantly, without a major change of rules. We believe that could happen by looking at called capital differently and looking at the sharehol – at the preferred credit preference, etc.
We think there are ways to do this, and it could provide hundreds of billions of available additional funding, right now, for lending. We also could begin to deal differently with debt. Many of these countries are burdened by debt, they are greatly impacted by what happens with respect to the crisis, the climate, and then they turn around and the West or the North offers them more debt. That isn’t going to work, and I think we got to find out ways to do either debt forgiveness or debt leverage, or – you know, there are a lot of tools available, and there are a lot of people smarter than I am in finance who could lay out new financial instruments and new ways in which we could behave better. But we have to face up to this, and I’m confident we will, and the storyline should be how we’re addressing it, not whether we’ll address it.
Bronwen Maddox
Alright, thank you, really interesting points there. Let’s take a step, not quite sideways, but one of the biggest things that’s happened in the past year is Ukraine. Obviously, a catastrophe for the people of Ukraine, for the…
John Kerry
Hmmm hmm.
Bronwen Maddox
…rules-based international order, for all kinds of other things and it’s driven up energy prices very…
John Kerry
Hmmm hmm.
Bronwen Maddox
…dramatically. Has this been – is there – I’m reaching for a silver lining, I guess, of the kind that the IEA, the International Energy Agency, sketched out in its recent report. Is it accelerating, do you think, a move away from some kinds of energy?
John Kerry
Absolutely, without question.
Bronwen Maddox
How much?
John Kerry
Well, Germany has made the decision…
Bronwen Maddox
Yeah.
John Kerry
…that it will be deploying – 80% of its energy is going to come from renewables, and they’ve made a very radical break with dependency on Russian gas, and I think, with such a determination, based on the horror of what is happening in Ukraine and based on the stark realisation of what this dependency has done to their own economy and their own future. So, I see this replicating itself in many places around the world. The obvious response to what has happened when a dictator can weaponize your energy is to get out of that situation, take the bullets away, and that’s exactly what I think is happening.
Bronwen Maddox
Which can produce a drive towards renewables, but it can, as we saw with the last brief UK Government, produce an impulse towards fracking, for example.
John Kerry
Well, yeah, but I understand that’s…
Bronwen Maddox
If we’re ever after a drive towards energy security of any kind.
John Kerry
I understand that’s already been reversed.
Bronwen Maddox
I believe so, in the…
John Kerry
They must have some other possibilities on that score, yeah.
Bronwen Maddox
But the point being that countries reach for energy security wherever they can get it, and suddenly, that that begins to trump some of the…
John Kerry
We could get it.
Bronwen Maddox
…renewable environmental…
John Kerry
We will get energy security. Don’t overblow this energy security challenge. Is it real? Yes, it’s real. Every country faces choices with respect to how they will provide energy security to their citizens. But I think we have the options on the table and we have some of them available to us immediately, which can get us down the road enough that other technologies will come online. Let me be specific.
The IEA tells us, and I think the IEA, by the way, has become a terrific referee, if you will, between countries and hemispheres on the issue of what’s – what are the facts and what’s viable? One of the things we must do here, I said this at the Council on Foreign Relations the other day, is our decisions must be based on truth and on science, not on, you know, these slogans and false assumptions about the, you know, sort of, self-delusion about what’s going to work here.
We have a fixed set of choices available to us now, which could get us well down the road to this transformation. Just doing more geothermal, folks. Geothermal is an underappreciated source of remarkable energy. We now have drilling capacity, I might add, coming out of the drilling we’ve done for years in fossil fuels. But we know how to drill down for heat and to take extraordinary levels of heat and put it to use, to drive turbines, to produce electricity that’s clean. We can get higher levels of degrees of heat than we ever imagine, which can help us with certain industrial processes, etc. You look at Iceland; Iceland is 100% renewables and 90-something percent geothermal.
So, we know how to do it and we can – and it’s increasingly – China’s doing more of this, other countries are looking at it. So, we also – you know, some people recoil when you say this, I don’t see how we get to the achievement of our goals without some component of nuclear, personally. That’s just a personal opinion. President Biden shares that, our policy in our country is that. Our National Laboratory in Idaho is building a new generation, a large-scale nuclear plant.
Bronwen Maddox
Do you mean specifically about the US getting to its commitments or…
John Kerry
No, I mean globally.
Bronwen Maddox
…many countries? Yeah.
John Kerry
Globally, the entire planet. I don’t know how we get there. I mean, look at France, 70% of its energy comes from nuclear, and has for years now. And I think if you look at other countries, you have four or five major producers of nuclear: Russia, Korea, China, the US, France, and, you know, I think that they all have the tech – have developed technology and have great means of doing. They’ll compete in the marketplace with that ability.
But I think beyond that, there’s much, much, much more we can do with renewables. If fusion breaks through, I mean, you read the latest reports out of Commonwealth Fusion at MIT, you look at what other countries are do – Britain is pursuing this, other countries. I went out to California, to go to Google and to our National Lab and then to meet with start-ups, and as I listened to the Scientists that I listened to for 28 years in the Senate, when they always told me, “Well, fusion is 30 years down the road,” and then, ten years later it’d be 30 years down the road, you don’t hear that now. Now there have been some breakthroughs that are proof of concept that have drawn private capital to the table, and there is a collaboration between companies looking at how to do this, that will accelerate even more the possibilities. So, by 2025 I think Commonwealth Fusion is hoping to have a demonstration reactor that has the ability to put greater proof of concept on the table.
Now, will that work? I don’t know, but I know that there are a lot of things that are happening, and I’ve seen start-ups that blow my mind with the possibilities of what they’re going to be able to do to change the dynamics. Whether it’s water storage or longer battery storage, better balancing of grids, artificial intelligence in the grid process, how we send energy from one place to another, how we produce that energy, how much energy we can produce that way. I mean, windmills, you know, large turbines now are capable of, what, 15-plus megawatts. That’s a whole different world, and you start putting out 15 megawatts here and, you know, suddenly you’re, you know, 500 megawatts, half a, you know, gigawatt, I mean, you’re going to see changes, I think, that are dramatic. So, that’s what we have to…
Bronwen Maddox
I’m interested in the way you interpret the role of being Envoy. Do you feel you have licence, for example, to say to Germany or Japan, “How about thinking again about nuclear? I’m not so sure your energy plans are going to work out”? or do you see yourself as an advocate around the world for – just as you have been right now, for countries embracing things that they may not quite have got grounded?
John Kerry
Well, I think it’s – I think in the time of crisis, you have to be more willing to look at things that you might have been – more question about. You know, 30 years ago, when I was a young Senator, I was totally opposed to nuclear power, and I was very much at the forefront of, you know, better and longer-lasting restraints on nuclear weaponry. And I regret where we have come to be in that, pulling out of the ABM Treaty, all the things that have happened, the wrong direction. But I’ve – maybe I’ve taken some licence, which is the prerogative of somebody who ran for President and lost, marginally.
Bronwen Maddox
I wasn’t going to ask you about 2004 here.
John Kerry
But I think that all discussion is on the table. Now, I can’t fulfil my obligation to do this role properly, as President Biden has defined it and wants me to, without pushing the limits here a little bit, and we have to do that. We’re obviously not getting the job done yet. We’re not moving fast enough, we’re not moving big enough, and we have to overcome this, not new cultural and human frailty, where we don’t decide to do things that are obvious, that we have to do. And there’s something in the human psyche that has an ability to procrastinate and to avoid and to, you know – we all know this.
We can’t – we just can’t afford to do that on this one, so, we have to bang our heads against, you know, the table and the wall and find a way to accelerate what we’re doing. It’s incomprehensible to me that we’re, sort of, on a pathway that is as dangerous as this pathway is. Everything that’s happening today is happening at 1.1 degrees of warming. Our limit we’re trying to get to keep is at 1.5. At this stage, before we’ve even exhausted the seven years left to 2030, are we going to give up and say we can’t make it? I just am unwilling to give up this for…
Bronwen Maddox
Just wanted to ask you, just before we come to the wider questions, do you think 1.5% is still within reach?
John Kerry
Only if we implement with every promise made in Glasgow and the promises we have to make, still, in Sharm El Sheikh and in UAE, and implementation we have to engage in. We’re not implementing enough. I mean, I was with some MPs today, down at Westminster, and they sat there and said, you know, “We have great goals, we have 68% and then 75%, but we’re not implementing,” that’s their comment to me. And so, we all need to implement, when we consider that the consequences of not doing that are as grave as they are.
And look at where we are. I mean, this year in the Arctic it was 70° Fahrenheit above normal. In the Antarctic it was 100° Fahrenheit above normal. We saw a large sector of the Larsen Ice Sheet in West Ant – in the West Antarctic break off, went out and melted. We have a rate of melt that is telling us we’re now looking at metres of increase, maybe two or so, in this century. That was not the prediction of scientists five years ago. What they’re saying now was going to happen at the end of the century, they’re saying now is going to happen in 30 years.
So, we keep courting this disaster, and I refuse, and I think many – I think most rational people want to refuse to accept that as our fate. I don’t think it is. We can’t sleepwalk over this cliff in some sort of mutual suicide pact. We have to respond, and people all over the world are demanding that we do that. What’s so damning about this is it’s really good economics to respond. It is the greatest economic opportunity we’ve had since the Industrial Revolution. This is a second Industrial Revolution, and – only a clean one, that takes us to a healthier, cleaner, safer community, state, planet in which we live, and I think it’s still urgent that we keep pushing to get there.
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you. Let’s go to questions. There are going to be a lot, and I’ve got some terrific ones online, as well. I’m going to take a couple at a time. I have a marvellous array. Alright, I’m going to start here because I think you were first, and I’m going to take two at once, and please do say your name.
Chris McEleny
Chris McEleny. Thank you very much, Mr Secretary. I’m from 25 miles west of Glasgow, so, unfortunately, I never got to see you last year ‘cause I couldn’t get a ticket. So – but we – it’s great to get along today.
John Kerry
You know, I worked out interpreting you guys over in the States, so you’re…
Chris McEleny
You can translate for everyone else.
John Kerry
Now I got to get my…
Chris McEleny
So, just on that point of Scotland, so, we don’t really experience, you know, extreme climate change, but we’re actually one of the world’s leaders in terms of our drive towards renewables, but that’s perhaps easy because of our abundance of water for hydro. We have 25% of Europe’s offshore wind potential, and we have massive onshore wind potential. So, I guess it’s…
Bronwen Maddox
Will you forgive me?
Chris McEleny
Yes, I’ll be succinct, yeah. So, it’s quite easy for us to, you know, move into renewables, whereas you were talking about Africa, etc, it’s difficult. So, I was just wondering, do you not think that a state like Scotland, two words you used were “demonstration” and “abatement,” that we should have more of a drive to be a demonstrator nation…
John Kerry
I do…
Chris McEleny
…showing people how you carbon capture, developing cheaper technology on wind, hydro so we can then impor – export it to countries like Africa? And how do you think – you know, no country really wants to apportion most of its resources towards renewables. How do you think you create a state that actually says, “No, we need to do this, ‘cause this should be the next big export wave”?
Bronwen Maddox
Okay, thank you.
John Kerry
One – oh, I’m sorry, go ahead.
Bronwen Maddox
No, I’m going to take – the woman second from the aisle, yeah.
Belinda Schäpe
Thank you very much, Special Envoy Kerry. My name is Belinda Schäpe, I’m with climate think tank E3G. I have three short questions that…
Bronwen Maddox
No, I’m really sorry.
Belinda Schäpe
One, okay.
Bronwen Maddox
I’m really sorry.
Belinda Schäpe
Okay, I have one.
John Kerry
That’s alright.
Bronwen Maddox
Okay, pick your best one, but…
Belinda Schäpe
On your point on China, given that China has bilat – like, suspended the bilateral talks, and given the increased geopolitical tensions, are you considering other ways of influencing China’s calculus on climate change beyond bilateral co-operation, such as increasing the US’s own climate action, such as through the IRA and other bits, but also by perhaps stepping up your NDC at the upcoming COP…
Bronwen Maddox
Okay.
Belinda Schäpe
…and by increasing relations with countries in the Global South and stepping up financial commitments, such as to the Global Shield? Thank you.
Bronwen Maddox
No, thanks very much.
John Kerry
Well, I…
Bronwen Maddox
People have got long, intricate…
John Kerry
On Scot…
Bronwen Maddox
…points, which are terrific but, okay, China and Scotland.
John Kerry
On Scotland, your question almost answers itself, to be honest with you. Of course, of course, hydro. Now, you’ve got to choose – you’ve got to be care – I mean, given the changes that are taking place in the warming, you got to make some real analyses as to whether that hydro’s going to be there in ten/20/30 years. But if you’ve got sourcing and capacity to really make that work, absolutely, go for it. And we’re going to wind up pumping water to places, without any doubt in my mind. I mean, I look at the United States, and we see what’s happening with respect to New Mexico, Colorado, California, Arizona. It’s always had a water challenge, now it’s, you know, super up and it’s – so, we’re going to have to find ways to deal with that all around the world, and I’m confident we will. I don’t think – that’s not as complex, in many ways.
We’ll also have probably massive desalination various places. Miniature nuclear batteries, so to speak, and other options are available, as to how you power that, and so, they’ll be, you know, significant. But there’s going to be – there – I mean, I think there was a book written, many books written about water and conflict and the potential for conflict. We really need to be forward-leaning and prescient about beating, you know, the point where people are fighting over it. They already fight about water in various parts of the world. We got to prevent that from becoming a wholesale, new security challenge on a global basis.
On China, look, I’m genuinely hopeful that Xie Zhenhua and I will be able to get together when we get to Glasgow. I don’t know – not to Glasgow, get to Sharm El Sheikh, and – but we can’t just rely on that. We obviously, have to find other ways of dealing. If we can’t get together with China and if we don’t reach a meeting of the minds as to how we do the two thing – we agreed to do three things in Glasgow with China. One, that they will come up with a ambitious methane action plan for this year that they will release at the COP, and we hope to see that and be able to work on it with them actually, which is what we’ve wanted to do in these prior months.
We also agreed to accelerate their transition out of coal, to the degree that we can, and ours, to work together. Now, our plan is to be coal-free, basically, by 2030, and to be carbon-free in our power sector by 2035, and I believe we’ll get there. But if we can’t get agreement then, what the EU has been talking about with respect to a countervailing border adjustment of some kind, I don’t think our companies, or yours, are going to want to sit there for the next ten years paying for the cost of reducing and making that transition and producing products that reflect the increased price of those products because of it, where there is an increased price, while other countries are just producing dirty and trying to sell to the marketplace. So, I think you will see an adjustment there, unless people step up and join together.
But right now, those alternatives are, as I said earlier today, folks, far cheaper. I mean, I did not complete the thought with respect to the adequacy of how you price coal, but look at the cost of black lung around the world, look at the cost of air pollution around the world. We lose 15 million people in a year to the quality of air on this planet. That’s pollution, and much of that pollution is called greenhouse gases. So, we need to get serious about the real costs of the particulates we put in the atmosphere, and if we reflected that cost, even though solar and wind beat fossil fuel hands-down, without putting that in, you put that in and it’s just off the charts.
So, if you’re involved in actuarial judgments and you’re involved in accountability and transparency in the marketplace, increasingly, I believe, corporations have been called on to look down the road to their supply chains and to their distributor chains as to what sort of costs are really included in their cost of products.
Bronwen Maddox
Okay, thanks very much. I’m going to come in a moment to online ones, but here in the corner, and then straight behind you.
Victoria Seabrook
Thank you, hi, Victoria Seabrook from Sky News. We’ve seen some rowing back on environmental protections in the UK. Alok Sharma has lost his Cabinet position. How concerned are you that the UK is ditching its climate leadership role? Thank you.
John Kerry
Well, again, there’s no way me fairly to measure that in the sense that you just had a government for, what, one day, two days?
Bronwen Maddox
The jokes are too easy, but again…
John Kerry
So, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Rishi, and I respect his basic approach and his intelligence and I think, you know, the confidence of the country rides with him now, and let’s see where it goes.
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you. Straight behind.
Dr Al-Mostafa
I’m Dr Isaiah Pushito Al-Mostafa from University of Plymouth. I’m Independent Port Management Consultant. Thank you for your leadership, Senator John Kerry. My question is very simple. You’ve analysed key issues. With an African perspective, Africa emit just tiny portion of GAG, or global emission, but the issue is this, Nigeria, Mozambique, Tanzania have huge gas resources. What are the specific framework the US and the world superpowers want to – are doing to ensure this gas reserves, which is the next energy transition globally, cleanlier, cleaner than crude oil? That is one question. Second question, what do you think of carbon pricing?
John Kerry
Yeah.
Bronwen Maddox
Great.
Dr Al-Mustafa
Thank you very much.
John Kerry
Okay, oh, you want me – oh, no, this is good, okay.
Bronwen Maddox
No, no, yeah, answer those ones, those questions.
John Kerry
I – on a personal level, I say this because it was a matter of record before I took the job on, and I’ve al – I have favoured carbon pricing for some period of time. It’s not yet – you know, it’s not the adi – the policy of the United States yet, and, you know, the President has been very clear that he wanted to pursue other ways of trying to see if we can move forward, and we’ll see where we wind up on that as we go forward.
So - but on the gas issue, I don’t – you know, it’s – I don’t want any of this to get misinterpreted in terms of the gas issue, because gas is going to be part of the transition. It is right now, it’s already there, and because of what Russia has done, cutting it off to Europe, we are, US and others, trying to provide and make up for that loss of gas. But over the long haul, gas is also, obviously, a fossil fuel. It does have CO2 emissions and methane, and methane is the most damaging gas of all. It’s 20 to 80 times more destructive than CO2, and we’ve seen large emissions of methane as a consequence of the breach in the Baltic Sea, and also leaks that are taking place around the world. So, methane is very much on the map now. It wasn’t on the map when we were in Paris that much. It began to be, obviously, at Glasgow and now, it – you know, to a super degree. It’s not a stepchild of this process any longer.
Gas, if you’re replacing coal, or you’re replacing oil, is a 30 to 50% immediate reduction. So, can you get reductions between now and 2030 if you were to put some gas on the line? Yes, but after you get to 2030, if you’re going to continue on the track to Net Zero by 2050, you’re going to have to also be able to capture the emissions of that gas. And so, there will be a premium on capture and storage and utilisation, but unless we get that, folks, you can’t be – this is part of the self-delusion factor I mentioned. You can’t pretend that building out a 30 to 40-year infrastructure to have a major gas facility is somehow going to be okay unless you can capture the emissions. And that’s going to be a critical measure of these next few years.
Does it remain a possible alternative if you can capture the emissions? For sure, absolutely, but that’s got to be cost-competitive with the other forms of energy that are going to begin lowering costs, like green hydrogen and other things. The muc – you know, that’s something I can’t sit here – we’re not going to work that out today, but you’ve got to be – you’ve got to recognise and enter into your policy decision the reality of the danger of 30 and 40-year infrastructure that gets built that will be stranded assets, under most judgements. And I think that there are other ways to provide some of that energy in the meantime, but let – you know, it will be part of this transition, sure, if managed correctly and effectively.
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you very much, and thank you for the questions. Right, on the aisle, about two-thirds of the way back. Sorry, further back, behind you. Yes, I’m going – I will try to give some justice…
John Warren
Thank you very much.
Bronwen Maddox
…to people who are very, very quick and…
John Warren
Quickly, John Warren, Physician, thank you. In COP26 electric cars were in, increased GDP; anybody who cycles and walks is out, decreases GDP. Are you open to any solutions to climate that do not increase consumption and do not increase GDP?
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you, and here at the front, please.
Farhana Yamin
Thank you, Farhana Yamin. When would be a good time for richer countries to apologise for their lack of compliance over the last three decades, is it Sharm El Sheikh, or is it another COP, or is it another place? Thank you.
John Kerry
To apologise for what?
Farhana Yamin
For their lack of compliance, the lack of implementation, yeah.
John Kerry
Well, I am supportive, we are supportive. President Biden is supportive of anything that will produce sustainability, and which is adopted by a country and that can be implemented and put in place. We support nature-based solutions. We will be – we started, this last year, we created the lar – the most significant, broad-based joint effort with Brazil which includes all of our key agencies in the US Government: the EPA, Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, because there’s criminal activity involved in the logging and the destruction of these forests. So, we’ve been looking really hard at what we could do to change the equation with Brazil, and likewise with DRC. We’re talking with the DRC about how to proceed forward.
But yeah, sustainability, I don’t know a nation in the world, regrettably, that’s living sustainably, and nor are most human beings. We’ve destroyed 50% of the species on the planet, that continues, and we have a tall order to shift into a sustainable structure. I really think, obviously, with the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN and other countries, and with ESG, which is now in every boardroom of the world, hopefully, we may be able to turn a corner. But we’re not there yet.
And for this lady who asked a particularly pregnant question, every day, people, but rather than apologising every day, the best thing you could do to apologise is get about the business of getting it done, implement, make it happen, and we owe that to all of our citizens today, tomorrow. But, you know, I wouldn’t hol – you know, there’s – there are some countries which still – I mean, if you want to look at Russia, folks, in terms of what’s happening, not just in Ukraine, but their extractive activities are one of the most destructive on the planet right now. And because of their permafrost thawing, their extractive facilities are undergoing instability with respect to the landmass now, which is shifting because of the thawing and the emissions that are coming out and so forth.
So, there are just really big dangers out there that are going to require a remarkable level of co-operation and frankly, it really needs to be almost at a war – like you’ve really declared you’re at war and you’re going to win, and you organise everything to be working in that same direction, and we have not yet organised ourselves appropriately.
Paul Kennedy has a book out called “The Engineers of Victory,” and he writes about how in World War II key decisions were made and implemented with respect to how you win. Gaining control of the skies, gaining control of the ocean, knowing how you were going to penetrate the defences that Hitler had built up and down the coastline. Those and other decisions had to be made. They were made at mid-levels because people were empowered and given the ability, because you had to win. I think we need that same purpose here, if you will, and same sort of co-ordination.
Bronwen Maddox
We already have a war on with Russia, which doesn’t make it easier. That’s not a flip point. I’m going to – there’s a forest of hands up. I’m going to take two specifically about helping Africa in this, from online, and thank you for sending them. One from Sulak Emil Sala, saying, “An honour to have this discussion. Is the USA, public and private sectors, pulling its weight in the renewables field? If not, why? China and India have a big renewables footprint in Africa, operating cheaper technology, more effective, deployable research and development. What about the US?”
And the other one from Temitope Akintunde, saying that – this is the view of the Lagos Chamber of Commerce in Nigeria, and saying, “What – there is not as much awareness about climate change here. There is a need for government-to-government collaboration on the issue of climate change. What are you – what is your perspective, what are you going to contribute on that?”
John Kerry
On government collaboration?
Bronwen Maddox
Yes.
John Kerry
Government-to-government?
Bronwen Maddox
Government-to-government.
John Kerry
Well, I’m here, I’m here.
Bronwen Maddox
Oh.
John Kerry
We’re working at this constantly. I was with Ed Miliband and a bunch of Members of Parliament today, and our government is talking about it. We have a team over here, by the way, now from the National Security Council, who are working together with the new government and we’re going to work at it. We’re open to any collaboration globally, which brings me to the question about China.
We used to be a producer of renewable energy, producer in the sense of building solar panels and wind energy, and China, as you all know, years ago, came into the WTO, and this is one of the other areas where we have disagreements. We have big disagreements with China about their practices with respect to the marketplace, and the fact is, as you all know, even Germany, Germany was a huge investor and purveyor of solar energy, and then, of course dumping took place. Massive amounts of under-priced goods came in and the market shifted to where it is today, 95% of all solar panels come out of China, and – or 70% of all panels, and 95% come out with some wafer or ingot, whatever involved, that links it to Xinjiang and the possibilities of slave labour producing some of those goods.
And so, you all know that people have taken a moral position with respect to that. The Chinese have reached out to me about whether or not some of the panels are being held up inappropriately, and we’ll look at that, because we need to know. But that’s where, you know, global practices are somewhat more complicated. The fact is that we have a big difference with China over its practices regarding intellectual property and the protections that should be afforded to intellectual property, and access to the marketplace on a fair basis, and other kinds of questions.
So, those issues have got to be worked out, and we’ve got to engage with China on those issues, and we have to separate climate from those issues. But on occasion, sometimes it, sort of, commingles, as it does in this issue of the panels coming in and whether we’re going to have a fair opportunity for other supply chains. Now, I see other countries now really bending over backwards to develop those other supply chains, and I think the market will even out over a period of time here, to some degree, and part of it will come from that enforcement. But we’re prepared to work with a lot of countries to make sure that the marketplace rules are applied in a way that’s fair, and that we develop multiple supply chains and there’s no cornering of the market in ways that do injury to the whole notion of fair trade and, you know, and co-operation.
Bronwen Maddox
Okay, thank you for that. Right, over here on the aisle.
David Pollock
Thank you. Secretary Kerry, I’m David Pollock, a supporter of Chatham House. I’d like to ask you about the efforts to mobilise climate finance for the Global South from private institutional capital. They obviously have said very publicly, like the Net Zero Asset Owners’ association, they need concessionary capital to come from other sources. You’ve recognised that. The MDBs are only part of the picture. DFIs, by and large, aren’t providing concessionary capital. So, what efforts are being made, you know, between governments and with the national DFIs, to get them to do their part, because we need them to get it – to mobilise capital at scale from the private sector?
Bronwen Maddox
Thank you very much, and here in the front, Bernice.
Bernice Lee
Hi, Bernice Lee from Chatham House. I mean, the dramatic cost reduction you talked about earlier was a result of a more open, globalised economy and the world has changed, so, I just wonder, in that context, what is your worst and best case scenario for COP27?
John Kerry
Oh.
Bronwen Maddox
Concessionary capital.
John Kerry
Yeah.
Bronwen Maddox
And best and worse…
John Kerry
We – I think the biggest problem that I’ve seen, as I’ve travelled these countries, and we try to cope with the need to accelerate this transformation, this transition, the single biggest problem is lack of funds, not lack of technological capacity, even though we have 44 or so technologies that need to be brought to scale faster. But we still have a basic grouping that could allow us to transform much more rapidly.
The restraint is that when I sit with one of these Presidents, and in the case of these particular three, they were all he, they say, he – they have said, “I can’t do this without some money.” And as we have dealt with GFANZ and the banks and the large financial institutions over the last years, bringing them to the table, they are ready to deploy trillions of dollars, but as an investor, which means you’re going to try to make money. They need bankable deals, and the question for us is, how do you make bankable deals, how do you create bankable deals?
Well, that’s a mosaic of things that need to change. In some cases, it’s transparency in a country, or contract rules and laws, arbitration. How are the downsides going to play out, because most businesses want to know how to protect their investment? And we don’t have the concessionary funding, which implies we’re going to go in, potent – ready to lose money, or we’re going to go in with philanthropic money, which is a grant, anyway, and you’ve giving it to create the concessionary status. We have to formalise that much more effectively, which is what we’re working on right now.
Now, I believe, and the MDBs are a part of that, but only a part of it, but they can put many more concessionary dollars on the table, no question about it. And you can create blended finance structures where you have some philanthropy here, you have some state money, public money, you have some maybe sovereign immunity that you’re willing to grant. You may have some local guarantees that you grant. I mean, there are ways to construct, but it all takes time, folks. We’ve got to move faster in certain ways.
So, one of the things we’re looking at is the possibility of the private sector, in effect, being enticed to the table, because you have a way of them getting something they need and want, which might be a credit towards their goal, and you get cash that goes directly into closing down some coal plants and deploying renewables, which is direct emissions reduction. So, there’s nothing phoney about it if you can create the construct correctly. So, we’re working on that and I hope perhaps even by Sharm El Sheikh, we might be in a position to outline that. Together with the MDB reform, boy, we could put some money on the table, and if you could get concessionary funding, you get $10 billion of concessionary money, you’ve actually got about 100 billion, using leverage and accelerating the process.
So, I think we’re not yet proficient enough at applying some of the tools of the trade that could really open this up, and that’s where I think there was as much opportunity in the private sector, frankly, as anywhere else to try to make this transition happen faster.
Bronwen Maddox
I’m going to take one more from the audi…
John Kerry
Oh, wasn’t there…?
Bronwen Maddox
Oh, best and worst from Sharm, hmmm, yes.
John Kerry
Well, I’m an optimist, I never – I’m not going to…
Bronwen Maddox
Don’t do worst.
John Kerry
…deal with worsts.
Bronwen Maddox
Okay, great.
John Kerry
But I will deal with bests. I think the best is that we see a significant effort to implement what was promised at Sharm – in Glasgow, but that you also have a large grouping, a certain size grouping, of those countries that are outside of the Glasgow promise, who are coming on board with either a JETP or their own plan for how they’re going to deploy. India, for instance, has made a commitment to deploy 500 gigawatts of clean energy. Now, they’re pushing to do that, and if they can do that in the next eight years – and we’re going to work as hard as we can, or as they will let us with them, to be able to help that happen, if they did that, India is in compliance with 1.5 degrees, folks. What a message to the developing world, the possibilities.
So, that’s worth fighting for, and that’s one of the things we’re trying to do. If that can get locked down a little better in Sharm El Sheikh, together with, let’s say, Mexico or Indonesia doing some big things, then I think we’re starting to show people how this template can work and finance transition.
Bronwen Maddox
I have made an unbreakable promise to Secretary Kerry that we are going to end at four, which is now. I am so sorry, there’s a forest of hands up here. There are terrific questions online, including huge ones. Satish Chedenir, thank you for the one about keeping population levels down. One from Toby Aykroyd, beautifully phrased, about bio energy in Europe and the emissions attached to that. But we can’t get to any of these, even you on the aisle, who’ve been so patient.
So, thank you all for your questions, thank you for coming, and can you join me in thanking John Kerry?
