Bernice Lee
…who would like to ask questions, and we’ll introduce some order to the proceedings so that we can take us through this hour, where we’ll learn a lot, I think, about what happened and what was Paris, really? So, I thought that we should start from something a bit basic. I’m assuming if you’re in the room here, you know what Paris is, but still to – good to hear from one of the founders, tell us, what is Paris? Why is it important?
Todd Stern
Well, Paris is an Agreement that actually was a product of a number of years of work, and I, just for the record, have a book out for a couple of weeks on the road to the Paris Agreement. You know, Paris itself – look, if you go back to the start of the climate regime, that’s the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, back in 1992, and that was the first time that the UN body started to take climate change seriously, and it is in fact, a framework. It frames out what climate change is, the importance of it, the importance of limiting it, and, kind of, in broad strokes, talks about a number of the issues that are involved, but it doesn’t get down into the nitty-gritty.
And in short order, after that 1992 Agreement, by 1995, which was the first of the every year climate conferences, the conference of the parties meet – that’s why you’ve probably heard the term “COP,” so it’s COP 1, 2, 3 all the way up to 29 this year. And so, there was an understanding, I think a pretty widespread belief, at the time of that very first one in 1995 in Berlin, that there needed to be an actual, kind of, operational concrete agreement to put flesh on the bones of what wasn’t there in the original framework.
And the Kyoto Protocol got done. The Kyoto Protocol, for some particular reasons, had flaws and didn’t end up working, more on account of the fact that the US couldn’t join it than any – for any other reason. So, then there was another effort to get a new big agreement going, and that started with a mandate in 2007, and it was supposed to be finished in 2009 in Copenhagen. That also didn’t succeed – it succeeded more, in my view and probably the view of people in the United States, than in view of most people, which is that it’s, kind of, a complete failure, but on the other hand, it didn’t do what people hoped it would do, that’s for sure.
And so, then in 2011, there was still another effort, you know, a new mandate, to negotiate an agreement that would be a real, effective, ambitious, concrete, operational agreement, and that’s what Paris was, and that’s what Paris is. It doesn’t mean Paris – everything’s going to go perfectly, but the Paris Agreement, with its various provisions, is one that I think the vast majority of countries, the vast majority of Negotiators came in – came away thinking that Paris was better than its best case scenario coming in for the – in the negotiations. We can get into more detail about any of that, but that, very broadly, that’s what Paris is about.
Bernice Lee
Oh, fantastic, I mean, look, I’m regretting that I don’t have a copy of your book on me, because if you had had a copy of the book, you would see that the cover…
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Bernice Lee
…is this astonishing picture of President Obama crashing, effectively, a meeting with Pres – you know, Wen Jiabao, I think, the Premier, Wen, and Lula, and…
Todd Stern
Right.
Bernice Lee
…etc., etc. So, I just, sort of…
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Bernice Lee
Well, let’s start off with somebody a bit juicy.
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Bernice Lee
What happened, Todd?
Todd Stern
Well, so, Copenhagen is, without a doubt, the most dramatic, chaotic, mind-bending COP that there has ever been, before or after. In the minds of most, as I said, of most people, most Negotiators, at the time, and even to this day, the view is that was a complete failure. And as I said, it failed in doing the thing that people – many people wanted, but it did some very important things. The – if you go back to – so, I came in, with President Obama, in January of 2009, and the – this negotiation had started at the end of 2007. So, we were, kind of, halfway, a little more than halfway, through the negotiation, and we, kind of, jumped onto this moving train. And there was a – there were, kind of, two elements that made this particularly difficult. One made it difficult for everybody, and the other one made it difficult particularly for us, us being the United States.
So, the thing that made it hard for us is that there was a, kind of, basic paradigm in climate negotiations, which was most clearly solidified in Kyoto, and it said two basic things. One is that all action – all obligations, for sure, but really strong action, was expected of developed countries and not of developing countries, and that fact was actually written right into the Berlin mandate. and so, you had that very important element, and the other element is that it should be legally binding from top to bottom, again, only with respect to developed countries, but nonetheless. So, the United States said yes to those things in 1997, but then we came back and we didn’t have – there was not a ghost of a chance that we could get that agreement approved by the Senate, which was required, by two thirds majority.
Many international agreements in the United States do not have to go to the Senate. Depends how they’re negotiated, depends what they say. Kyoto did, and there was no shot. So, the US said yes, and then didn’t join, and so you had an agreement without the US, there was – the – I guess, already – I think we were already the second biggest at that point, to China, but you have to have the US in, and you didn’t have any of the developing countries in terms of their emissions, so it just was, sort of, by definition not going to be very successful.
The other part of climate negotiations that’s just incredibly difficult for every country is that the basic means by which decisions are made, decisions such as do we adopt, or do not – do we not adopt this thing that we’ve just been negotiating, has to be done by consensus. Which means, essentially, that everybody – and everybody, by the way, is 195 countries, that’s a lot of countries, and it’s a lot of countries that are organised into – so, there’s the two big blocs, developed and developing, but there’s all sorts of other groups and subgroups with quite different ideas. And so, that is inherently really, really difficult, and – but to get back to Copenhagen, because of what we had been through, in particular, I mean, if I had one immovable conviction when I came into my job in January of 2009, is that we were not going to have the United States say yes to an agreement that we couldn’t join. We couldn’t do that.
So, that meant to me, there were certain parts of the agreement that could not be legally binding, and the agreement just had to be, you know, reasonably sellable in the United States. So – and the paradigm was not exactly the same as it was from Copenhagen, but it was, basically – it was quite similar, and the – certainly, the notion of who was going to participate or not, who had to do things under the new agreement, it was understood, even by the Europeans, for example, by the EU, that – the EU’s theory was, we’ll move first, we, the developed countries, will move first, and if we show that we’re taking the lead, then promptly after that the big guys, China, India and whatever, would follow suit. Which I, just frankly, always thought was naïve. I just didn’t think that they were going to look at it that way, and since they still – well, anyway, I’ll just say that.
So, we then – the Danes were the head of the COP that year, the presidency of the COP, and they were led strategically by a guy named Bo Lidegaard on climate change, and Bo had figured out, from talking to us and others, that we just were not going to be able to do the thing that many people wanted. And he came to Washington in September of 2009 with an idea for a much different, kind of, agreement, not the, kind of, big one with all of the elements that I just said, but, “Let’s do a short agreement, non-legally binding. It’ll say that developed countries and the big developing countries will all agree to do things, in terms of reducing emissions,” and fundamentally, kind of, those elements. And he tried – he started trying to sell it and, you know, he tried hard to sell it. He sold it enough the EU was on board, but, at the end of the day, the Chinese and others were really not.
So, the – on the second day of this two week – all of the COPs are two week meetings, on the second day of the meeting, there was a leak from The Guardian, which was extremely overwrought and oversold in terms of – but they got their – and they got their story from whoever leaked it. And the effort clearly had been to, kind of, blow up the capacity of the Danes to move forward on this ‘Copenhagen Accord’, which was what they were calling it. And we also are not really even guessing here, because there was…
Bernice Lee
Well, why not guessing?
Todd Stern
What?
Bernice Lee
Who leaked it?
Todd Stern
Well, no, I don’t – I’m not – I don’t know who leaked it, but the reason for leaking it was very clear.
Bernice Lee
Yes.
Todd Stern
China had invited the Indians, South Africans and Brazilians to Beijing in the week or two before the – just about a week or so before the COP started, and there was a story, in I think the Times of India, quoting somebody from that meeting, who’s – who didn’t want their name to be used, but explained that the purpose of the meeting was to stop the Copenhagen Accord from getting any traction, and that’s exactly what the leak did. So, there was – the Danes tried everything they could and they couldn’t get anything going.
So, fast forward all the way ‘til Thursday night, 24 hours left in the whole thing, and as a result of a dinner hosted by the Queen, they went around and gave invitations to 25 or so countries, who came now at the leader level. That’s the other thing that the Danes did, there had never been a COP with leaders there. Bo Lidegaard took the, kind of, crazy risk, but a bold risk, also, I mean, he – I think he was quite sure that an agreement this different from what people accepted could never be done at a level below leaders and Negotiators, even if they thought it might be a good idea, would be too hesitant to jump into that. So, Bo, sort of, thought correctly, you need leaders, but if you’re going to have leaders show up, it would be helpful if you had a piece of paper on the table that they could look at, and there was none.
So, people were pretty much freaking out, particularly in the Danish delegation. But – so, there’s – now there’s this meeting, it starts at 11 o’clock on Thursday, it goes ‘til three in the morning, Ban Ki-moon, and, I guess, more Prime Minister of Denmark, Rasmussen, sent the leaders home, kept everybody else working, basically all night, the leaders came back in the morning. Hillary Clinton had been there on Thursday night, Obama arrived Friday morning, and then there’s these negotiations going on all day, but there’s two key points that we are insisting on, and the – everybody in the room was pretty much annoyed with the Chinese, because they, unlike everybody else, sent a – did not send a leader and did not even send a Minister. They sent a lower level, which made it very hard to make progress.
And Obama got – was getting aggravated and so, the White House is looking to find out, well, where is Premier Wen Jiabao? And the Chinese won’t tell anybody, and for – hours go by that we literally couldn’t find him, and somehow, somebody in the White House figures it out, and Obama just says, “Let’s go,” and takes off with Hillary Clinton and me and maybe three or four other people, and we get to the room, the conference room where he’s at, and there’s Reporters and Cameramen and everything outside the room waiting. Because it turns out it’s not just Wen Jiabao, but it’s also the Presidents, Prime Ministers of India, South Africa and – India, South Africa and Brazil.
And so, it’s, sort of, pandemonium on the outside, and Obama, who is always, kind of, Cool Hand Luke, he’s very – he’s a very measured, cool guy under pressure, so he just, kind of, pokes the door open, looks in, and says, “Do you all want me to wait a little bit? Do you wan – ya’ll want to wait a little bit, or should I come in now?” And they were, of course, just like ashen-faced, and – ‘cause they had no idea any of this was happening, and so, then started the meeting that the photograph is from. And the meeting was designed to – from our point of view, to negotiate these last two points, which ultimately, get done, and then there’s still a revolt in the plenary hall, which is why the Copenhagen Accord is not adopted, but is taken note of.
Bernice Lee
Hmmm.
Todd Stern
The fact it was taken note of rather than just tossed overboard was extremely important, because it allowed the substance of it then to be negotiated the following year, which is what happened.
Bernice Lee
I mean, I remember that day very well and in fact, I was wearing the earrings earlier, that I took off, that I went shopping that afternoon when nothing happened, with Kate Hampton and a couple of other people. And I was, sort of, thinking that maybe the, sort of – intuitively, I was, sort of, reaching for something that ultimately, turned into some positive…
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Bernice Lee
…than what was widely reported. But on the day, I remember thinking that what is – if there was any good that would come out of the chaos…
Todd Stern
So…
Bernice Lee
…what was that?
Todd Stern
…yes, so le – so, I’ll give you the what good. It’s a two and a half page agreement, it’s very short. A thing that was really, really important in the – ultimately, the way the agreement was done is developed countries had to put forward their plans, developing countries were not required to, but those who did had to do X, Y and Z. And we already knew, from a set of meetings we had all year long through an entity that we, sort of, created called the Major Economies Forum, it’s more or less the G20 countries, developed and developing, we knew that all of those four big countries, and several others, had already said in one of our MEF meetings, Major Economies Forum, what they were going to do.
So, it didn’t need to say more than that, which was lucky, but in doing that, you already had a chip in the – the basic word that was used among Negotiators for the distinction between developed and developing countries, the separation, was that there was a ‘firewall’, a firewall between developed and developing countries. So, this started to chip away, it didn’t knock it down, but it started to chip away at the firewall. It also included the pledge to – from developed countries to provide – to mobilise $100 billion a year for developing countries by…
Bernice Lee
Yes.
Todd Stern
…by 2020, without which there would have been no deal. That was hugely important. There was a initial step of – I think a first step in any UNFCCC agreement to recognise the two degree limit. I forget the exact words, it got stronger over time, but it got in there.
Bernice Lee
G8, and then – yeah.
Todd Stern
Huh?
Bernice Lee
I remember a G8 declaration, and a couple of others…
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Bernice Lee
…so, which basically…
Todd Stern
Yeah, yeah, so that was important. There was a reference, a little convoluted, the country that just fought it ‘til the very end, and got in trouble with a group of countries it never wants to get into trouble with, but that was China, resisting what the vulnerable and poor island and…
Bernice Lee
Small islands.
Todd Stern
…vulnerable island countries and poor countries, wanted some, kind of, reference to the – to 1.5 degrees as a limit, not just two. And the Chinese really held out all the way to the end, until there was nobody else in that room of, like, 20 something, who agreed with them, and they finally gave way. But that ended up in the Copenhagen Accord and that, also, was, you know, it was really important. So, there was – there were a bunch of things in there that made it important, and then – but what happened, I mean, certainly our approach, our strategic approach, the next year, was simply to get the language of the Copenhagen Accord modified, expanded, but get it into a place where the conference of the parties actually adopted it.
Bernice Lee
Hmmm.
Todd Stern
And that’s what happened in…
Bernice Lee
In Paris.
Todd Stern
…Cancun.
Bernice Lee
Yes.
Todd Stern
And then, in the next year, countries who had wanted more, who wanted some, kind of, bigger legal agreement, and that made perfect sense as long as the way it was legal was subject to negotiation, that was then the biggest source of – the biggest focus in the 2011 COP in Durban, South Africa. And the mandate was agreed to for a four year negotiation, and that four year negotiation gave us Paris.
Bernice Lee
No, good. Thank you for walking us through some of the key milestones…
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Bernice Lee
…as well. I mean, obviously, one of the – especially in the current climate, the US-China relations…
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Bernice Lee
…which, of course, helped in many ways, but in recent years wasn’t so great, all along.
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Bernice Lee
I just want to hear from you in terms of how you would assess how important the relationship is and has been.
Todd Stern
Yeah, so the bilateral relationship between the United States and China, and I’m not talking in the period that takes us up through Paris, was the most important relationship in the world. I mean, there were tonnes of other important players. The EU was always out front as the leader in terms of how aggressive and ambitious that they wanted to be. There was – yeah, I could name many countries, I won’t do that right now, but the US-China relationship was really important. My counterpart was an enormously impressive and likeable guy called Xie Zhenhua. He was their Minister, and I first met with him in Washington in March of 2009.
And I – honestly, I can’t – I don’t recall, looking back, and again, I was trying to recall, looking back, ‘cause of the book, I don’t rec – I remember doing the thing I’m about to say, I don’t remember if it popped out of my – probably – I’m sure it didn’t just pop out of my mouth. But I don’t remember the whole – my whole thought process, but what I said to him then, when we were just sitting down together for the first time, was, “I think you and I can make climate change a positive element,” I think I used the word “pillar,” or “positive pillar, in our relationship.” Which, even then, was – I was – was fraught with difficulty, it’s not as bad is it is now, and not as strained as it is now, but it was full of difficulty.
And he initially – he didn’t say no he didn’t say yes, but we just started talking, and one thing I would definitely say is that we – and you can – you know, you can debate about how important this kind of a thing is, as compared to national interests, but we liked each other right away. And we, kind of, hit it off and we – I mean, it’s good, because we saw each other, like, it must have been 100 times over the next seven years. But he was very skilled, he had clout within the Chinese Government, he’s animated, he’s – you know, he’s great, and he’s the kind of guy you want to spend time with, and he’s very tough. And so, all of that was really good, and things started happening. Again, that first year, China was just hard against the things that we were trying to get done, and the thing – the things that Obama got done at the end, I’d been working on those all year. It’s not like we just thought of those.
So, after that year, I think the Chinese away from the Copenhagen year, 2009, with, sort of, two things that they were bothered by. One is, they never want to get on the wrong side of poor countries. They want to be a developing country, and they want to be a good – a guy – a developing country that’s standing with others. So, that’s – for sure, that was the most important. But they also, I think, came away feeling that they did not do well by having as much, kind of, public difficulty with the United States, and I think he wanted to – I think they and he, wanted to change, and did, to me, visibly already, even in 2010.
Bernice Lee
Hmmm, well, that’s good to hear, because looking forward…
Todd Stern
And there was a very big thing that happened in 2014, but…
Bernice Lee
Indeed, which – I mean, we can go back to that…
Todd Stern
Yeah, sure.
Bernice Lee
…maybe, some of the detail around the Sunnyland, and others…
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Bernice Lee
…because there are obviously many different pieces. I’m just, sort of, think – look, we are on the way to Paris. Paris, you explained, is where all the pieces come together.
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Bernice Lee
We recognise that countries ultimately, will only really do what they want to do, in some ways, and that national action is a foundation of, not the result from, global agreements.
Todd Stern
Right.
Bernice Lee
And so, in some sense, this is the framework we’ve got right now.
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Bernice Lee
We also know that that doesn’t mean that things add up.
Todd Stern
That’s true.
Bernice Lee
So, looking back, do you – do – how do – I mean, have you – I mean, I – this is not a trick question, but it’s not an easy question, which was, if you were to go back to 2015 for Paris, knowing what you know now, what are the, kind of, things you might, sort of, adjust or change?
Todd Stern
Yeah, so, I mean, the truth is, mostly, with respect to the big elements of Paris, I mean, you just mentioned some, we can go over in more detail if you want, but I don’t think that there were a lot of things that we would have done differently. I mean, I think that – I can look at what I see in the UNFCCC, you know, the – what’s sometimes referred to as “the Paris regime,” I can see ways in which that doesn’t – that could work better and things that could have happened, and that still can happen, I think, to make it work better.
I don’t know that we – and what I have in mind here, most of all, is the way finance does or doesn’t work, but I don’t know that we – that – I don’t think that was something we could have negotiated differently in Paris. So, I don’t – I mean, if I sat down and looked at very page, I – maybe I could say, “Well, we did a little of this,” or, “a little of that,” but it – again, it is an interesting thing how many countries, how many Negotiators I talked to, from all sides of this, came away with the same sense that this was better than they hoped.
Bernice Lee
Great. I mean…
Todd Stern
And, by the way, you – it’s – you know, by the time we were going to Paris, I didn’t have much doubt that we were going to get an agreement, I mean, because the issues had been talked about a lot, people were, sort of, really focused on not letting this opportunity slip away. They were actually really focused on the fact that President Obama would only have one more year left in office…
Bernice Lee
Hmmm hmm.
Todd Stern
…and so, you know, all of that – all that is true, and I had – I was going in some other direction now, but I lost where I was.
Bernice Lee
No, that’s alright, we can come back to it if you want to. I just think, I mean, obviously, you’re not going to avoid the question about the US election, which I’m sure we will get from the floor, so just get ready for this, because I’m about to open you to the very keen…
Todd Stern
I’m – yeah.
Bernice Lee
…audience here, and…
Todd Stern
I’m going to give nobody satisfaction, but I’ll take the questions.
Bernice Lee
Well, I mean, I’m going to take some questions from the room and take some from online, as well. So, I – let me take maybe two or three in one go, maybe. So, I’ll have the lady here, maybe just take these three to start with, if I may [pause]. Please introduce yourself and keep your questions short, or your comments short, please. Thank you.
Katie
Thank you very much. My name’s Katie. I’m here on behalf of Transparency International’s Climate Governance Integrity Programme. My question is about the US energy, I apologise.
Todd Stern
That’s alright.
Katie
But I’m wondering what room there is, if any, to pressure Biden into taking pro-climate executive decisions before – if – in the event that there is a Trump victory, what mechanisms are there to protect pro-climate policies? And what do you think are the most effective ways for the climate community to make this happen?
Todd Stern
Just the last part, say that again.
Katie
What would be the most effective ways for the climate community…
Todd Stern
Ah, yeah.
Katie
…to put pressure on the White House to do this, so the current administration?
Todd Stern
Yeah…
Bernice Lee
Well…
Todd Stern
…so…
Bernice Lee
…can we Trump-proof climate legislation?
Todd Stern
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, the first thing is, the election’s super tight. I mean, you ask me right now, I’d say that Harris is going to win, I think she’s going to win, but I also thought Hillary Clinton was going to win in 2016, so it’s tight enough that nobody knows is the reality. Like, who’s – which side’s going to have better turnout? I think there, that’s an edge for the Democrats, ‘cause they’ve been – they have a great, great team on that front, and they’ve been working on it for a long time. So, in any event, let’s just stipulate that the good guys might win, but we might not win and so, we’re not sure.
I don’t think that there would be a – so, let me get to the bigger, the, sort of, bigger underlying question, which is, what can we proof? And I think that there will – there will certainly be things that if Trump is elected, that he will try to undo, and there’s probably some things, particularly if they’re essentially executive actions that didn’t require Congress. So, there are rules, regulations, that have been put in place by different agencies, like the EPA, and those are always easier to roll back. I think that it will be hard for Trump to roll back the, kind of, most important, sort of, central core legislation, which is known as the IRA, which is actually the Inflation Reduction Act, but it’s mostly about climate change, and for a couple of reasons.
One is that the White House and the people we were working with, well, not me, I’m not the White House anymore, but people that they were working with, were very smart in the way that they located investments that were coming out of that legislation. And there have been now several hundred billion dollars’ worth of investment, some of it – a lot – there’s a bunch of it, I think it’s 370 billion altogether, I think, from the government, but lots more using those government sources to attract private sector investment. And you will see a lot of that in so-called ‘red states’, you know, in the US, what we would call ‘red states’, which are Republican states.
And so, you know, whether it’s in West Virginia, or it’s in the plain states, in the centre of the country, or wherever it is, or Texas, or Oklahoma, Trump will find, if he’s there, that the Members of Congress from those states, as well as the Governors and so forth, are not going to want those things to be taken away. They are – they’re creating revenue for the states, creating revenue for companies built there, they’re creating jobs for people, and that was all very deliberately done that way, right? So, some of the absolutely biggest states in the country for renewable energy – and some of this was true even before the Inflation Reduction Act…
Bernice Lee
So…
Todd Stern
…are Republican.
Bernice Lee
…the biggest Trump-proof is already done, because the way it was designed is…
Todd Stern
Yeah, I don’t think…
Bernice Lee
…is using Trump supporters to help you proof this?
Todd Stern
Yeah, right.
Bernice Lee
Yes.
Todd Stern
And I don’t thi – my guess is there’s not that much that Biden can do, in terms of new executive orders, and I – again, I think the big stuff has been done. I don’t think that there is – I don’t think that – insofar as there are manoeuvres that can be made to protect things that are legislative, I’m quite sure that that’s happening. There’s, like – they’re, like, super-focused there, and, you know, it’s an extraordinarily good climate team there, both internationally and domestically. My old friend and original Washington mentor, John Podesta, who now also has the international performance he picked – portfolio that he picked up from Kerry, but he was brought in by Biden to – John Podesta, to implement the IRA, and they’ve – but they’ve just got a whole bunch of people who are focused on that. So, I don’t think that’s the issue, so much, but anyway.
Bernice Lee
Well, I’m going to pick up a question from here, before I come back to you, which makes me laugh, because it’s from Anika Patel from Carbon Brief. The reason why it makes me laugh is because it’s a question, I’m supposed to give her an answer tomorrow for the paper. So, I’m going to ask you that question, which is, well, “In your view, will China deliver an NDC this year that will keep us on track to the Paris Agreement, and how will the US engage on China in – on its 2035 NDC course?
Todd Stern
So, talking about – so, like, casting our focus on what’s going on now in the international – on the international scene, without spending a lot of time what’s the – on the current – you know, the upcoming COP is in Azerbaijan, Baku, their biggest city. And the biggest issue on the table has to do with financial assistance, an element of financial assistance, in reality, not the biggest element, but the element that’s biggest within the UNFCCC, so I won’t go into that unless somebody wants me to, but…
Bernice Lee
Hmmm hmm.
Todd Stern
…so that’s this year. But the thing that is looming next year is that it is the next – it’s the next time for countries to ratchet up their original commitments. The Paris Agreement includes a bunch of really important elements with respect to ambition, ambition being the climate worl – I don’t know how many of you are climate experts or not, so I’m trying to make it clear in case you’re not, but the ambition being the, you know, the word that shows that you’re trying hard and doing your best and all of that. But the – God, darn it, now, I’m lo – tell me where I – where was I just now?
Bernice Lee
Well, look, I think the – I’m sorry?
Member
In terms of financing this year and next year.
Todd Stern
Yeah, well, no, that’s right. So, that’s the …
Bernice Lee
The question was…
Todd Stern
No, that’s…
Bernice Lee
…the question was, sorry, the question was where was the NDC…
Todd Stern
Ah, yeah, I know.
Bernice Lee
…and I was, sort of, thinking that you want to, sort of, look at what the pressing issue for Baku is first.
Todd Stern
Right, but the – thank you, but the biggest issue on the table is what’s going to be the next – the new NDCs, and I was just starting to go back and tell people that that’s – the fact that you need to do that every five years was a super important part of the Paris Agreement. So, there’s – there was an agreement back at the time of Paris that countries would put those in – put their proposals in early, early in the – early enough in the year, so that – and that – this was actually our idea, so that there would be enough time for the press, other countries, Analysts, to criticise, and countries, knowing that they might be criticised, would do their best. That was the theory.
So, now the – in theory, these – the N – the new NDCs, the new targets – NDC is the – as the initials, or the buzzwords, but – are supposed to be put in in February. My guess is that a bunch of countries, probably including the EU, will have trouble doing that, but it’ll be put in – they’ll – these’ll all be put in relatively early this year. And it’s going to be tremendously important that those are a big step forward, because another piece of Paris, there are, sort of, two most important goals, one having to do with temperature, and one having to do with emissions, obviously related.
And what happens in these upcoming targets is enormously important for the mid-century goal. So, one of them is to – Paris didn’t say this at the time, but it evolved over time, to be essentially Net Zero emissions by 2050, and then holding temperature as close to 1.5, again, in that 2050, mid-century zone, as possible. And if the NDCs, the targets that are supposed to be announced in 2025, to last until 2035, if those come up short, like, really short, if they’re effectively pretty weak, then you’ve just killed your chance to get anything done that you need to get done by 2050, because you’re only 15 years away by 2035. If you’re way behind the eight ball in 2035, you’re not going to get there. There’s going to be great pressure, as there should be, from people who care about this all over the world.
So, that – and with respect to China, China mo – is most certainly going to put in a target. I don’t think it – they’ll put in a target in – literally in 2024, although they might, I don’t know. They’re the most important country in the world right now with respect to their target. I think that other major players, US, EU, countries like Japan and Canada and Korea, and countries – Australia, I think are going to be pretty strong. I mean, I don’t know the specifics, but I – my sense is that they’re going to put in pretty ambitious, pretty strong targets, of the kind that you’d want to see. China now is 30% of global emissions. If China – and China is basically peaking about now, they’re peaking their emissions, so their emissions are going up and then they’re hitting, if not this year, then next year.
But at 30% of emissions, people who have done a lot of analysis on this kind of thing, the – I’m a Fellow at the Asia Society in New York, who’ve done an analysis, but so have many others, basically say that in order to be where we need to be, we need to see a – something like a 30% reduction…
Bernice Lee
Yeah.
Todd Stern
…30% reduction from China, which I am sure is certainly not what the Chinese are thinking of at the moment, but we’ll see if – we’ll see how much chance there is to move. If the Chinese come in with five or 10%, it’ll be very bad.
Bernice Lee
Brilliant, thank you for that. I’m going to take more questions from the floor. Now, let’s take a few, Todd, we will come back to you, then – don’t answer immediately, so let’s take one, two here, the first two, and then I’ll go to the back in a second. The gentleman there that – this…
Domenic Carratu
Alright, Domenic Carratu, a member here. Quite fascinating listening to all this, and the history, again, of Copenhagen and Paris, but looking ahead, in your own dialogue talks, effectively about the Democrat backing at times, and then Bush doesn’t sign up to Kyoto…
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Domenic Carratu
…Trump comes out of Paris. So politics reigns, domestically, but internationally, so – again, behind you’ve got the map, Gaza, Ukraine, Taiwan. So, a question then is, politically, geopolitically, can we get consensus anymore? Number one, and secondly, does the other issues, you know, tight finances, you know, strongman politics, Trump, the technical work that need – is needed to get to Net Zero by 2050?
Bernice Lee
Okay, this one, the gentleman in the second row.
Dr Ishaka Shitu Al-mustapha
Thank you so much for your wonderful presentation, and we appreciate your effort. I’m Dr Ishaka Shitu Al-mustapha. I’m a Lecturer and a founder of Oil Logistics Advisory. My question is very simple. Mr Todd Stern, do – what do you think of the contending issues around business figures that said it is better to put more effort or strength on planning for a war with warmer temperature than focus on what is unlikely to be achievable goals?
Todd Stern
I’m sorry, the – what is…?
Bernice Lee
Yeah.
Dr Ishaka Shitu Al-mustapha
Can I say it again?
Bernice Lee
Please.
Dr Ishaka Shitu Al-mustapha
I said, what do you think of business figures…
Todd Stern
Business figures.
Dr Ishaka Shitu Al-mustapha
…those in the business industry, that said they think that it is better to put more strength, more effort, on planning for a war with warmer temperature than focus on what is likely to be unachievable goal? And I…
Bernice Lee
Sorry, I didn’t hear that, either.
Dr Ishaka Shitu Al-mustapha
Than focus on what is likely…
Bernice Lee
Okay, so, yeah.
Dr Ishaka Shitu Al-mustapha
…to be unachievable goal?
Todd Stern
Oh, unachievable?
Bernice Lee
Unachievable, yeah.
Dr Ishaka Shitu Al-mustapha
Very – because of the contending issues of the climate finance, which you just mentioned earlier yourself, petrostate are willing to stop hydrocarbon investment, and also the evidence of bilateral emissions in developing countries. That is the question.
Bernice Lee
So, in a strange way, these two questions are potentially similar, which is, given all the political challenges and…
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Bernice Lee
…one, talking about the geopolitical challenges and strongman politics, the other talk about…
Todd Stern
Right.
Bernice Lee
…vested states, vested interests, in some ways, but also, the fact that the rich countries that did promise money hadn’t deli – probably delivered as much as it should. So, in terms of – given all the political complexities, is another agreement really possible?
Todd Stern
Well, look, let’s step back for one second, which is we’re not looking for another agreement in the sense of what’s the successor to Paris, ‘cause Paris is the agreement. What we’re looking for is enough action spurred by Paris and, you know, taken as, you know, part of what Paris requires, that – will that be good enough? You know, will the ratchet up be good enough? Will other related issues be good enough? And I – look, I think that there’s, sort of, a double answer to your question. There certainly can be action that we need. I think that if you talk to – and I was actually just with some of them in Paris for the last two days, if you talk to people from China who are in the – sort of, in the climate world in China, like, government people, but in the climate world, I think, generally, they are in favour of the notion of the US and China continuing climate change co-operation and work together, even despite the more strained relationship.
You know, if there’s a war in Taiwan, that’s not going to happen. I mean, if – you – things can get bad enough that you’re unable to do those things, and I think that – and I think you can – I mean, I mentioned Taiwan. There’s other areas that are obviously either in some state of war now or threatened, and I think that it is – it’s certainly possible that things get so hot that you can’t really make any climate progress for some period of time.
But I don’t think – and now I can, sort of, slide into the second question, I don’t think it is a tenable thing to say that, “Well, we – it – we just can’t deal with climate change. We’ve just got too much other trouble, and, you know, why should we put out all of this effort when it’s – when what we’re trying to do is unachievable, and it’s – well, we’d be better off trying to worry about the war?” President Obama said in a meeting that I attended, you know, when I was in the White House – not when I was in the White House, I was in the White House that day, I was – my actual office was in the State Department, I was in the White House as an employee at a different time. But he said in a meeting in the Roosevelt Room, with about 15 or 20 business leaders, that climate change was the one thing that he worked on, other than nuclear weapons, with the capacity to alter the possibility of global progress, of human progress. That it was that serious.
And it is. I mean, it’s that kind of thing, and if you – you know, if you look out – you look both at the various scientific reports that have been published in recent years, mostly by the UN climate body, the IPCC, if you look out your window and cast your eyes on most any continent around the world, you see what is basically biblical weather happening already. The – I mean, I – you know, when I look at the, sort of, the lands – the climate change landscape, overall, right now, I think there’s three factors, the way I look at it, that are paramount. The first is that the science and the impacts are coming at us faster and harder than anybody realised. I first got pulled into climate change when I was working in the Clinton White House doing other things. I was pulled in to help on the Kyoto negotiation, but nobody had any idea, and – that it was going to be this bad. And even five years ago people didn’t think it was going to be happening as intensively as it is now. So, that’s real, that’s number one.
Number two, the progress that has been made on green technology, the, sort of, green revolution, is absolutely spectacular. I mean, nobody should take their eye off of that. It is happening at a speed and a rate of effectiveness that is so far beyond what the absolute best modellers thought ten years ago, that is, kind of, breathtaking, and there’s a lot of areas still where there’s more research and development that has to happen, but it’s happening. And there’s a tremendously – there’s a huge, innovative pulse that is going on all over the place. But the third issue – so, if there were only two issues, I’d think maybe we had a chance to hit the Net Zero by 2050 mark, but there are also – there are obstacles. And the biggest obstacles are – biggest source of the obstacles is the fossil fuel industry, both for what they produce and for the influence they have on countries all over the world.
And a piece of what needs – and this is a longer conversation than we have time for right now, but an important piece that I think is going to be critical in getting over that hurdle is – has to do with everything that I wrap up in what I sometimes call the ‘human factor’, which is political will and what – you know, citizen mobilisation. And – because the one shortform I will – I’ll tell you that, sort of, capsulises what I have in mind, is that the one way to get Politicians to do something that they might not otherwise be inclined to do, or thought they wanted to do the opposite of, is if they think by not doing what you have in mind, they will lose their – they will be voted out of office. I mean, if it gets that serious, then Politicians act, and it’s a lot better than it was in 1997, when I first got tapped to work on this, but it’s not where it needs to be yet, but we need all of that.
Bernice Lee
Great, thank you. Let’s take more questions. Oh, there’s one right at the back, towards there [pause].
Todd Stern
Talk loud.
Bernice Lee
Yeah, please, and then maybe after that, we’ll take this lady here, as well, so we can go straight here. We’ll take these two question. Please.
Cathy Yitong Li
Great. I hope this one is better?
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Cathy Yitong Li
Perfect.
Bernice Lee
Yeah, no, it’s fine.
Cathy Yitong Li
Cathy here from BirdLife International. I lead our global climate and energy policy, and personally been focusing on UNFCCC since I was a teenager. So, yeah, great to hear your perspectives. I guess I have two parts of a question, one is, I guess everyone cares about elections. I think probably many of us in the room have heard from some US Negotiators that they’re getting a bit stressed, that they don’t know what things are going to be like for them in Baku, when they’re going to travel in a few days’ time. Would love to hear your advice for them in this situation and situations like this.
And I guess, my second part of the question is, of course, there’s growing momentum on the links between climate, nature, land issues, and in particular, the link between Rio Conventions and other multilateral environmental agreements. Knowing that US did not sign up to some of them, but would love to hear your personal perspective on synergies between these issues. Thanks.
Bernice Lee
Do you want to take this or we’ll hear one more?
Todd Stern
Yeah, let me take that. Well, what advice I would have for my old colleagues. Look, Baku is either going to be – Baku is going to be difficult under any circumstances. If Harris wins, it’ll be – there will be a massive relief felt by countries all over the world. If Trump wins, it’s going to be grim. I mean, if you imagine that, you know, three or four days after it’s sorted out that he’s won, the climate conference starts, there’s not going to be, like, great spirits there. I think all you can do is – in – I mean, if I’m talking to my old team, for example, is focus on what’s got to get done in Baku, try to be useful and constructive in coming up with, essentially, the – solving the problem of what is referred to as the “NCQG,” which is, sort of, think of it as the son of the hundred billion dollar promise from Copenhagen in 2009. So, under Paris, there’s supposed to be a number, not lower than 100, resolved this year, to start, you know, to start in 2025.
So, keep your eyes focused on that and whatever else, but – and by the way, just as a, sort of, point that’s interesting, when Trump came in in the – the first time, in 2017, the – there were a number of people who stayed in the career climate office. I mean, the US has a different system than many countries, so more people come in from the outside each time there’s a President elected than in many others, but there’s still a career Civil Service office that stayed there. And they actually were constructive, sort of, behind the scenes working on issues. The two so-called ‘Facilitators’, a word that’s used in the climate world, who were working on the more detailed guidelines for transparency, which is an important issue, was one from China and one from the United States, before the election, and they didn’t change. And it proved – that proved to be a super successful negotiation for a piece that was important in what was happening then.
So, you try to do your best, but, I mean, obviously it’s, you know, it’s extremely bad if that happens. The other question was…
Bernice Lee
Connection to the other conventions…
Todd Stern
That was about bio…
Bernice Lee
…biodiversity, nature.
Todd Stern
Well, it was about other related problems, and other related treaty organisations. And I think that – I’ve actually heard this, you know, as I’ve been speaking a bunch ‘cause of my book in the last few weeks, I’ve heard people say, “Well, what, should biodiversity and climate change be merged into one treaty organisation” and – “or, are there other ways in which those kinds of things should take more cognisance of each other?” And I think my – without having thought about it deeply, my initial reaction was, don’t try to put them into one, because it’s hard enough to manage all the issues with just climate change and to try to expand it.
On the other hand, climate change is a huge issue with respect to biodiversity, and there are other overlapping bodies that have to do with the oceans and aviation, and so forth. I think that, yes, there should be serious consideration, and look for ways in which, you know, there can be – the – what they’re doing in the climate negotiations are cognisant of what’s happening in the biodiversity negotiation, as well. But – I mean, that’s about what I would say, and I’m not at all expert in the other areas.
Bernice Lee
Good, that’s good. Look, I mean, we have a little time left, and what I think what we’ll do is the following. We will let whoever gets to ask a question now to have ten seconds each to ask a question, or something like that, and then we will give Todd the rest of the time reflect on which bit he wants to pick up on, as a wrap up. So, what we’ll do is we’ll do a quickfire round, so that we hear the different views in the room. I will say that, if I may, the questions I’m seeing online actually very much chimes in with all the questions that we’ve heard so far. So, I don’t think we’re necessarily missing an enormous amount. So, why don’t we have this gentleman here, ten seconds [pause].
Andreas
Thank you so much. My name is Andreas from the London School of Economics. My question is, what is your main advice for developing countries to accelerate the energetic transition, keeping in mind their dependence to natural resource? Thank you.
Todd Stern
Taking effect the?
Andreas
Taking in mind the dependence in natural resource.
Todd Stern
Okay.
Bernice Lee
Dependence on natural resource. Okay, so there’s – why don’t we try at the front, as well, and then these two, and then we’ll – this one at the front, the lady at the front.
Ahmed Laheraitani
Hello, my name is Ahmed Laheraitani, and I’m a Lawyer and the Young Ambassador for Climate Change, from Morocco. As we said earlier, we were – you were talking about the importance of finance regarding the upcoming COP. So, my question is, do you see a pathway to legally anchor financial obligation within the Paris Agreement to enhance accountability? And specifically, how can we ensure that commitments are not only ambitious, but are actually delivered, especially with – when the line between public obligation and private contribution remains blurred? Thank you.
Bernice Lee
The front, the lady at the front?
Todd Stern
Do I have to answer that?
Bernice Lee
Hold on. Please.
Ruth Townend
Hello, Ruth Townend, Chatham House. You talked about the importance of ‘citizen mobilisation’ to create a government mandate for stronger climate action in democratic countries. How do you feel the public should be mobilised, given the huge efforts going into this from NGOs, and the fact that that mandate still doesn’t exist, despite really high awareness of the climate emergency?
Bernice Lee
Okay, the – what about the lady, right at that side, sorry? Oh, sorry, I just realised, I called on a colleague of mine. Go, go, go, go.
Anna Åberg
Hi, Anna Åberg, Chatham House. We’re just a few days away from COP29, and as you said, there’s a strong focus on climate finance. What do you see as possible landing zones for the new climate finance goal? And what is the important of this COP for future COPs, not least COP30, where countries are supposed to submit new climate targets? Thank you.
Bernice Lee
I think you’ve got quite a lot to choose from. So…
Todd Stern
Yeah, actually…
Bernice Lee
Advice for developing countries, how to anchor the finance.
Todd Stern
Several of them, kind of, overlap on the issue.
Member
I have a question here.
Bernice Lee
Well, we’ll listen.
Member
Can we ask a question?
Bernice Lee
Sure. Ten seconds.
Member
Thank you very much, thank you. Do you have the mic?
Bernice Lee
I think…
Member
Hello, testing. Can you hear me?
Todd Stern
Yeah.
Member
We support Donald Trump in a way on his climate protest and secondly, go on.
Todd Stern
Good for you.
Member
Not necessary.
Member
Okay, I’m speaking on behalf of climate experts, Meteorologists, okay, in this field. The question that they want to ask you is, do you recognise that the manmade climate change theory is incorrect, because CO2 levels – ha, ha, ha.
Todd Stern
I think…
Member
Can I ask my question or do you not like another opinion?
Bernice Lee
Well, actually, what is your question?
Todd Stern
You know what? We have…
Member
Is incorrect, because CO2 levels follow…
Todd Stern
I got to…
Member
…temperatures, not the other way.
Todd Stern
Miss, miss.
Member
So, the climate scare is to control and tax us.
Todd Stern
I understand the question.
Member
And which…
Todd Stern
We have two minutes left, and other people have ans – have asked – I’m not going to answer anything from you.
Member
Less of the…
Bernice Lee
Well, thank you very much, thank you very much for your view.
Todd Stern
Let’s…
Bernice Lee
What is your question?
Todd Stern
Let’s just…
Bernice Lee
What is your question?
Todd Stern
…I understand. There are some people…
Member
Climate change theory is incorrect, and CO2 levels follow temperatures, not the other way.
Todd Stern
Great.
Member
So, what is this all about?
Todd Stern
Appreciate it.
Member
Because to me…
Todd Stern
Appreciate it.
Member
…it’s not something that you are…
Todd Stern
Let me…
Member
I’ll be the judge….
Bernice Lee
Well, thank you. We heard…
Member
No, just…
Bernice Lee
…your view, thank you very much. Now…
Member
And we are…
Bernice Lee
Would you mind?
Todd Stern
Yes, yes, nobody wants to listen to you now.
Member
COP29, how are they getting there?
Member
They’re all…
Member
Are they flying there?
Member
They’re all…
Member
Are they flying there?
Member
Their little…
Member
What about climate change and…
Member
They’re off to [inaudible – 61:36].
Member
…are you flying to COP29?
Member
You’re in…
Member
…sort of thing?
Bernice Lee
Well…
Member
There are children minding this stuff…
Todd Stern
If the people who’ve asked questions…
Bernice Lee
If I…
Todd Stern
…would like to come up after this is over, I’ll talk to you separately. I think we’re done.
Bernice Lee
No, I think – no, I mean…
Member
Well, no…
Bernice Lee
…no, look…
Member
…look, the question’s…
Bernice Lee
I mean…
Member
…[inaudible – 61:58].
Bernice Lee
No, look, there’s – listen, you’ve…
Member
And they go up.
Bernice Lee
Well…
Member
Well, the problem is…
Bernice Lee
…no, it’s just a good reminder – it is a good reminder.
Member
But I just want to say…
Bernice Lee
Excuse me, sir.
Member
…are they flying there?
Bernice Lee
Excuse me, sir.
Member
It’s a simple question.
Bernice Lee
Excuse me, sir.
Member
…how many flights did you take, sir, to save the climate?
Member
Can I just please ask a question?
Member
How many flights…
Todd Stern
I’ve…
Member
…have you taken in your time?
Todd Stern
I’m taking – I…
Member
How many private jets…
Todd Stern
I’m…
Member
…in your time?
Todd Stern
I’m taking a rowboat to Baku.
Member
Did you take any private jets? I thought you was supposed to save the climate.
Bernice Lee
Well, I mean, it’s good to – it’s a good reminder for all of us that climate remains a…
Member
No.
Bernice Lee
…very important contentious issue.
Member
We’re not going to let you…
Bernice Lee
But the battle is the beginning. I’m sorry about this, but…
Member
We’re not going to give up because you’re not giving an answer.
Member
You’re being very closed…
Member
But remember about…
Member
You want to…
Member
…the prospect of [inaudible – 62:41].
Member
You have provided him, you have provided him…
Member
When…
Member
…with some [inaudible – 62:43].
Todd Stern
Should – I was just thinking that people could come up and I’ll talk to them.
Member
I think it’s hard for him [inaudible – 62:49].
Bernice Lee
I know, but there’s no point. You can’t really do this. We will have to stop this.
Todd Stern
Okay.
Bernice Lee
I’m sorry, I tried to not [inaudible – 62:54] too, no, but…
Member
But let him answer the question [inaudible – 62:57]. But let him answer the question.
Member
And I do not see – I don’t believe in what you’re saying. You are not taking…
Member
Let him answer the question.
Member
I’m a Psychiatrist. I’m a Psychiatrist and I’ve studied [northern climate – 63:10].
Member
Let him answer the question.
Member
And I do not believe…
Bernice Lee
Well…
Member
Let him answer the question.
Member
…what you are saying.
Member
How many private jets did you take to go to [inaudible – 63:15]?
Member
Sitting in your office…
Member
Answer the question.
Member
I do not believe it. I worked with the [inaudible – 63:21], yeah? You are not genuine. You do not believe what you’re saying.
Member
You look, but then you [didn’t believe it – 63:26].
Member
I can see it in your face.
Bernice Lee
Well…
Member
It’s fake, his face.
Member
Make your way out. Would you please make your way out?
Member
It’s the face of Satan.
Member
How many private jets did you take with Obama and save climate? Yeah, how many…?
Member
You can’t answer, ‘cause you’ll [inaudible – 63:39].
Member
How many private jets did you take, sir?
Member
[Inaudible – 63:40].
Member
Can you try and answer the question, yeah?
Member
Okay, stop it [inaudible – 63:44].
Member
Just remember, we support Donald Trump [background chatter] and we support an end to Net Zero. Net Zero’s costing everyone money. We support end to Net Zero. How many flights did you take, sir? How many private jets did you take [background chatter]?
Bernice Lee
Uh-oh.
Todd Stern
Okay, some events – I mean, let’s – should I try to …?
Bernice Lee
Well, I mean, if we could regroup quickly, so that I…
Todd Stern
Can I…?
Bernice Lee
I would like to let…
Todd Stern
Yeah, so one thing…
Bernice Lee
…obviously, Mr Stern to wrap up.
Todd Stern
Let me just talk about the finance question from – for a minute, because it, sort of, overlaps with a few of the questions that were asked. I think there are two fundamental aspects of finance. The issue on the table for Baku is, as I said before, what’s going to replace the hundred billion dollar goal from Copenhagen? And I think that there is a growing understanding, and I – you know, I – this was evident in this meeting that I was at this morning in Paris, that there will need to be two elements of the outcome. And that people call it different things, but there’s an inner layer, there’s an outer layer, there’s that kind of thing. There’s, sort of, two different things to look at. One is what’s the – what – let’s just look literally at that 100 billion and say, “What are we going to be able to do to increase that to some extent?” But the notion that you’re going to increase it to a trillion or, you know, whatever, and those – that kind of money probably is needed, but you’re not going to be able to just crank that up at that level.
So, you’ve got that, but then you’ve also got, outside of the UNFCCC, a huge amount of work has been going on. The group that has been the most focused and the most really usefully focused on this is the G20, and the G20, if – over the last three years, and last year’s was in India, and they put out a report called “The Triple Agenda,” the executive summary. It’s not very long, and it’s very good, it is focused on a deep fundamental reform to the World Bank and the other multilateral development banks, to some extent the International Monetary Fund, where there are large amounts of money which can be used in a much better way. And by a ‘better way’, I mean, like, for example, rather than giving an $X million loan simply you give to a developing country that needs it, use much more of your resources to lower the risk for the private sector to invest, to derisk those investments, and try to get those to move, like, way up.
So, that, there’s a tremendous amount of work that’s been going on and good work. My old – I worked for Larry Summers for a couple of years, when he was the Secretary of the Treasury, the Indian Government asked him and an Indian Economist to do this report, and this was, like, very, very effective. And people are talking about it now. People, as I said, were talking about it at this meeting that I was at this morning in Paris. So, I think that there’s – you got to, kind of, separate those two things. I think that within the UNFCCC itself, you know, the Paris – not Paris, but the UNFCCC, the Paris regime itself, I think you’re – they’re going to mostly be focused on that first piece…
Bernice Lee
Hmmm.
Todd Stern
…but I think there could be also some reference to this other outer layer, if you will, and…
Bernice Lee
Well…
Todd Stern
…that’s – is that – that may be all the time, huh? I can hear you saying…
Bernice Lee
No, I – it’s not that. It’s more that I want to thank you for your graciousness for this. I’m sorry to – as the Moderator, let me just say I’m sorry that I should have resisted the catcalling earlier. I tried to, but, also, obviously this is an indication of the kind of strife, as I said, that we are going to continue to see as we move into the Net Zero. I suppose if it doesn’t hurt, in some ways, the transition is unreal…
Todd Stern
Sure.
Bernice Lee
…transition does require changes, that obviously…
Todd Stern
Can I just have…
Bernice Lee
…create…
Todd Stern
…30 more seconds?
Bernice Lee
No, you can have 20/40 more seconds.
Todd Stern
So…
Bernice Lee
As long as you like.
Todd Stern
Yeah, so, some – one…
Bernice Lee
Generously.
Todd Stern
…another one of you asked about advice for developing countries and their transition, and I – look, I think that the most important thing is still – still harkens back to the financial questions that I was talking about. There’s a lot, actually – I mean, if you look at some of these, there’s one – a big report that Nick Stern, Lord Stern, at the LSE, put out a year or so ago. Actually, there have been two versions that he and a team have put out, and they talk about the – kind of, an analysis of how much – if you imagine everything that needs to get done on climate change be – getting done, all over the world, what would it cost?
Not going to happen right away, but then you do get into the over a trillion zone. But in the report that Nick and Vera Songwe led, they also talk about not just what has to come from developed countries, but the steps that developing countries themselves need to take in order to make all of this work better. There is – some of that involves their own domestic resources, and their own governments has to – have to be tapped and used in an effective way, and a number of other things.
So – but I think that the biggest issue, I think is this finance issue, and I think if we can get it right, which is not going to happen in a day, but I think hopefully, there can be a halfway decent step taken in Baku, I think this is the biggest thing that could get the overall climate regime, developed and developing countries, moving on a better track. And with less acrimony and, if you can really, you know, sort of, wish upon a star, more partnership between those countries, for doing something which is – you know, which we can’t not do. You know, that’s why the question about, you know, do you have to focus more on a war? You’ve got to deal with a war, but none of those wars is going to actually be more threatening to the world than climate change. Just think about it that way. Okay, so, I’m sorry that this got…
Bernice Lee
Well, no..
Todd Stern
…disrupted, but…
Bernice Lee
…no, thank you very much, Todd, for this. I think that we have learnt a lot from, obviously, a long experience of negotiations, none of which is easy. All of which has drama, but also, more importantly, you are reminded that staying the course is part of the challenge, in some ways, however the difficulties ahead. I hope that all of you will join me, however, in thanking him for his knowledge and very interesting studies. Thank you.
Todd Stern
Thank you.
