Two years to save the world

Ana Yang

Alright, good afternoon, everyone, a very, very warm welcome to Chatham House. So, the conversation starts here. Chatham House has been convening on big issues in international relations for over 100 years. Thank you all for being here, for joining us today to contribute and continue that tradition. My name is Ana Yang. I’m the Exec Director of Chatham House Sustainability Accelerator. I will be your Chair and your host today.

And we’re so excited to have Simon Stiell today, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. But before I hand over to Simon, I have some housekeepings and also, I’d like to use this opportunity to plug some of the work that my colleagues and myself we do here at Chatham House. So, on the housekeeping, the announce – the discussion today is on record, so it’s being recorded and livestreamed right now. We encourage you to tweet about it and share it on all sorts of social media and then we will – so in terms of the order, Simon will give his speech, we will have a dialogue here and then I’m going to open up for a very lively Q&A discussion.

So, for those who are in – just – I would keep that, but just for the Q&A session, if you have questions, raise your hand and then when – if you’re called then we will give you the microphone, state your name and your organisation. Online, we will also – I’m working on two computers, so testing my multitasking capability – and then so, put your questions on the Q&A box and then I’ll try to address them as much as I can.

So, before I hand over to Simon just a very quick, sort of, things that we work on here at Chatham House. We have a big team that works on the Environment and Society Centre, and we look across complex systems and how that intersects with the shifting global geopolitical landscape, and a lot of what we do is to help change and then shift – you know, move towards a sustainable and equitable and safe future. Things that we do are, we host coalitions to drive systemic change. Examples are the Alliance of Champions for Food Systems Transformation that was launched at COP29, the Accelerator that I run incubates initiative, which help – we foster safe space for partnership to happen and deep collaborations to occur. And one of the things that we’re incubating is a biobased future transition.

And we also obviously do quite a lot of, sort of, deep influential research around a range of topics, from calculating climate risks, rising competition for land. Check out that report, it’s really, really cool. We also published a report on what happens if we breach the Paris Agreement and me, as a Brazilian, for those who know me, and I’ve been working in Brazil for many, many years, we also worked on a report a couple of years ago on how we think the social and development trajectory of Brazil. There’s a couple of copies there.

But with that, Simon, over to you. Thank you very much.

Simon Stiell

Okay, thank you, thank you, Ana. So, “Two Years to Save the World.” Good afternoon. Some of you may think the title of today’s event is overly dramatic, melodramatic even. So let me start by explaining why the next two years is so essential in saving the planet. First, we know the stakes. You’ve heard me talk about, time and time again, the shattering heat and massive damage that climate change is causing to our economies and how there is no room for half measures. Let’s take all of that as a given. Second, we are at the start of a race which will determine the biggest winners in a new, clean energy economy, and with the global index of living standards in constant flux, each country’s climate responses will be key to whether they rise up the ladder or fall, whether they thrive or barely survive. Third, for many countries, they will only be able to implement strong new climate plans if we see a quantum leap in climate finance this year.

Fourth, it’s about how the Paris Agreement works. As of today, national climate plans in aggregate will barely cut emissions at all by 2030. We still have a chance to make greenhouse gas emissions tumble with a new generation of national climate plans, but we need these stronger plans now. And while every country must submit a new plan, the reality is G20 emissions are around 80% of global emissions. So, G20 leadership must be at the core of the solution, as it was during the great financial crisis. That’s when the G20 came of age and showed major developed and developing economies can work together to avert global economic catastrophes. Fifth, and finally, every citizen in every country has an opportunity to be part of this transition. Every voice makes a difference. This year and next we will need every voice more than ever.

Let’s consider for a moment what’s up for grabs if we do make the next two years really count. Bold new national climate plans will be a jobs jackpot, an economic springboard to boost countries up the global ladder of living standards. In the face of crop-destroying droughts, much bolder climate action to curb emissions and help Farmers adapt will increase food security and lessen hunger. Cutting fossil fuel pollution will mean better health and huge savings for governments and households alike. The transformative potential of bold climate action in tandem with steps to advance gender equality is one of the fastest ways to move away from business as usual.

For those who say that climate change is only one of many priorities, like ending poverty, ending hunger, ending pandemics, or improving education, I simply say this, none of these crucial tasks, indeed none of the Sustainable Development Goals will be possible, unless we get the climate crisis under control. In fact, business as usual will further entrench the gross inequalities between the world’s richest and poorest countries and communities that unchecked climate impacts are already making worse. These inequalities are kryptonite for co-operative global climate action and every economy, every country and its people pays the price of that.

To start curing this global cancer of inequality, we need to enable bold new national climate plans by all nations that protect people, boost jobs and drive inclusive economic growth, and we need them by early next year. The next generation of national climate plans must be investment plans for sustainable and strong economies. Which brings us back to the crucial importance of climate finance, because it’s hard for any government to invest in renewables or climate resilience when treasury coffers are bare, debt servicing costs have overtaken health spending, new borrowing is impossible and the wolves of poverty are at the door.

The quantum leap this year in climate finance is both essential and entirely achievable. Every day, Finance Ministers, CEOs, Investors and Climate Bankers and Development Bankers direct trillions of dollars. It’s time to shift those dollars from the energy and infrastructure of the past towards that of a cleaner, more resilient future, and to ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable countries also benefit. This year, at COP29 in Baku, we need to agree a new target for climate finance that meets developing country needs. But it’s not enough to agree a target. We need a new deal on climate finance between developed and developing countries. That deal should have four key components.

First, more concessional finance, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable countries. Second, we need new sources of international climate finance as the G20 International Maritime Organisation and others are currently working on. Third, as Prime Minister Mottley and President Ruto have made clear, we must reform development banks to make them work better for developing countries, embed climate in their decision-making and build a financial system fit for the 21st century. And fourth, debt relief for the countries that need it most, to give them the fiscal space for climate investment. Developing countries spent more than $400 billion servicing debt last year.

Experts have shown that if we do all of this together, we can meet developing country needs, mobilising hundreds of billions of dollars. Ever closer co-operation between international institutions is more important than ever. I offer UN Climate Change’s partnership wherever it can help support stronger and faster climate-related outcomes, to the World Bank, IMF, at the upcoming spring meetings, to the G7, G20, and their Finance Ministers. Together we can make this deal real. Together we must step up the pace.

The spring meetings are not a dress rehearsal. Averting climate-driven economic catastrophe is core business. It can’t slip between the cracks of different mandates. We can’t afford a talkfest without clear steps forward, when there is an opportunity to make real progress on every part of the new climate finance deal all nations need. At the spring meetings we need an ambitious round of replenishment for the World Bank’s International Development Association, IDA. Doing so could lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and increase clean energy access, especially across Africa. Progress in Washington D.C. on revising the World Bank’s capital requirements could free up billions more for concessional lending without asking donors for more money.

Next, to help give countries the fiscal space they need for climate action, the IMF can help more countries deal with debts made worse by climate change and the pandemic, for example, by making more use of the Catastrophe Containment Relief Trust. The World Bank’s work on climate resilient debt clauses, which allow countries facing supercharged storms to focus on recovery, are another welcome step in the right direction. Eligibility should now be expanded beyond small and island states to more countries and more climate impacts.

The G7 has a crucial role too, this year chaired by Italy. G7 governments are the key shareholders in the World Bank and the IMF. In truth, the provide both capital and direction. With their say-so, these institutions can do much more to use all the tools at their disposal in delivering large-scale impacts on the ground. It’s entirely in the interests of every G7 country to take much bolder climate action at home and abroad, including on climate finance. Firstly, because serious progress on climate finance is a prerequisite for bold, new national climate plans from developing countries, without which all economies, the G7’s included, will soon be in serious and permanent strife.

Secondly, because resilience building is equally urgent to protect the supply chains that all economies depend on. We’ve just seen what the supply chain disruptions flowing from COVID did to inflation and to households and businesses. Well, you can bet your bottom dollar these disruptions and inflationary impacts will only get dramatically worse without bolder climate action.

So too, the world needs a G20 to rise to this moment. We’re all aware of geopolitical challenges. I do not downplay them, but they cannot be an excuse for timidity amidst this worsening crisis. So, I’ll be candid, blame-shifting is not, is not a strategy. Sidelining climate isn’t a solution to a crisis that will decimate every G20 economy and has already started to hurt. So, the financial firepower the G20 marshalled during the global financial crisis should be marshalled again and pointed squarely at curbing runaway emissions and building resilience right now.

Brazil, who also host COP30, has a vital role to play to kickstart the ambitious action we need. I’m encouraged that the G20, under Brazilian leadership, is exploring ways to find a new finance for climate and development. Brazil itself is also trialling new ways to reduce unreasonable borrowing costs for clean energy, which could work for other developing countries. Ultimately, it’s not enough to invest in clean energy and resilient infrastructure without measures that also speed up the decline of fossil fuels. Stronger domestic process – progress on carbon pricing is essential to reflect the real economics of fossil fuels, including the massive health and economic costs of greenhouse gas pollution, which should not be shunted onto governments, households and other industries, to pay.

So, when I say, “We have two years to save the world,” it begs the question, who exactly has two years to save the world? The answer is every person on this planet. More and more people want climate action, right across societies and political spectrums, in large part because they are feeling the impacts of the climate crisis in their everyday lives and the household budgets. Rising costs for fossil fuel powered transportation, for heating and cooling, energy, rising food prices as climate disasters hit production and supply chains, to name but a few. A recent survey by Gallup of 130,000 people in 125 countries found that 89% want stronger climate action by their governments. Yet too often, we’re seeing signs of climate action slipping down cabinet agendas.

So, there is a disconnect, because in living rooms around the world, climate impacts and costs are rising quickly up the list of household worries. The only sure way and surefire way to get climate up the cabinet agenda is if enough people raise their voices. So, my final message today is for people everywhere. Every voice matters. Yours have never been more important. If you want bolder climate action, now is the time to make your voices heard. I thank you [applause].

Ana Yang

Amazing, thank you. I heard the call to action, thank you. So, we’re going to have about ten min – I’m just going to use the purview of Chair for us to have a conversation, and then I’m going to open for us to do a Q&A. You’re here at Chatham House, right, and everything that we do, the research we do here, has a geopolitical and international relations lens. And I think the concern – things that are on top of our mind is we have a really short timeframe to deliver our collective – this collective challenge ahead of us. But we’re also facing this quickly shifting geopolitical landscape where this year, you know, and I don’t want to use the East and West, but I think a lot of countries are going through democratic electoral – democratic or undemocratic electoral processes. There are multiple crises happening around the world. It’s like, how do we – and in the absence of a more leadership from specific groups of country, like, how do we push this agenda forward?

Simon Stiell

Well, as I said in my remarks, the focus on what progress is made over the period ahead of us has to be focussed on those within the G20, 80% of emissions, 85% of the global economy. So, the problem lies there, so do the solutions, so do the resources. I think what has been called into question is the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement, and what we have seen since 2015, even though we’re far from where we need to be, progress has been made, and the Paris Agreement is demonstrating its robustness. We saw that in Glasgow, we saw that last year in Dubai, with the outcomes of the Global Stocktake. So yes, a lot more progress needs to be made, but progress is being made. The crucial question is how do we spend the next six years in accelerating the action that – you know, momentum is building, but how do we accelerate that?

The Global Stocktake, kind of, showed us a pathway forward. What happens this year in terms of finance, the means of implementing the pathway that’s been presented to us, and the means of implementation to support this next round of NDCs, is going to be absolutely critical. So, the spotlight is what we do or don’t do in this period ahead, and again, as I said in my comments, I mean, we find the world seems to be unable to deal with multiple crises at any given time. But when we look at some of the global challenges that we face, without addressing climate change, those problems are not going to go away. So, it’s putting climate change and climate action within the context and that lens of, “This is what we need to do,” for not only able to address this climate environmental catastrophe, but to also address other economic and social challenges, developmental challenges that currently exist.

Ana Yang

Yeah, and I mean, I’ve been working in this space for a long time, as well, and I think what we see is, in my view, transitions already happening. I think the problem is whether it’s happening fast enough, right, and is at the pace that we need and it’s actually – is it addressing all those multiple things that we have ahead of us, I think? And you alluded – so actually, I want to pick up on something that – I really like what you said about, like, we can’t afford talkfest, and then we have to come up, you know, for the next generation of NDCs. Like, in your view, in your ideal, like, if you could, you know, if you had a magic wand, like, what are the key elements of next – of these next generation of NDCs? What should they look like, like, just the contours of it?

Simon Stiell

Well, there are three instructions that have come out of the COP decisions, and that is this next round of NDC should be informed by the output of the Global Stocktake. So, whether that is doubling, tripling renewables, energy efficiency, transition away from fossil fuels, etc., etc., all of those elements need to be reflected in this next round of NDCs. Also, that NDCs need to be 1.5 aligned. We’re currently at – globally, at 2.7, so it has to be aligned with a 1.5. They have to be economy-wide, across all sectors, and they have to include all greenhouse gases. So that’s one element, but I think we then have to go beyond that, and the opportunity that is being presented is that this next round, this third generation of NDC, has to clearly articulate how finance is unlocked. And that is the element that’s been missing from the previous two generations. A lot of technical data, but how do the nationally determined plans of each country, how do they speak to the finance that is needed?

So, one is the investability of them. The other is an opportunity to present an economic transformation plan. So how do all of these actions actually tie up in bolstering economies? How can all of these prescriptions add up to a new economy, a new economy that is based at the heart of it in climate positive action and linking the climate to all developmental needs? The NDCs also need to be country driven. So, this is especially, especially for developing countries. This is not about parachuting Consultants and coming up with theoretical documents. They have to speak to the needs of those countries and the support that is provided over the course of this year and next is ensuring that that articulation is there, and within that, and speaking specifically to developing countries, NDCs also need to speak to equity and justice.

So taking a whole of society approach, whole of government approach, is absolutely critical, but it’s an opportunity to rethink, and we at the UNFCCC have been working with development and implementing partners as to how – and there are over 50 of us in this space working on NDCs, but how can we, as those development partners, co-ordinate our actions so that they speak to providing that support and shining the light as to what a good NDC should and could look like?

Ana Yang

Yeah, and you know, I grew up – born and raised and grew up in an emerging economy, right, and I think that the real challenge that we have ahead of us is that climate transition is a socioeconomic transition challenge that we have, right? If it’s not – from where I’m coming, is it’s not about whether we should or should not develop, it’s just, like, how we choose those pathways to develop the delivers the environmental aspects, but also the social aspects.

And that’s actually, I want to – I cannot leave this conversation just between us without talking about Brazil, right? So, the current President of Brazil, he brings – in his inaugural speech he talks about the importance of conservation of rivers in an Amazon, also how Brazil should go through this redevelopment pathway. But also, he brings very squarely into this transition discussion on how do we address the social issues and inequality issue? ‘Cause I think that’s one of the things that could be an – one of the potential impediments or enabler. Like, do we bring people along in this transition, or do we leave people behind, right? What we see today in Europe after, like, the protests, is like, have we met – like, how do we manage this political economy of transition? And then how – what are the social econ – it’s delivering for all, which is what you’re saying about the fairness angle, there.

About Brazil, so Brazilian, love Brazil, worked for many years in the Brazilian Amazon. I think I have a concern, and simultaneously as an opportunity and as a concern, is I wouldn’t want us to wait for everything, to wait for 18 months, right, to deliver whatever we need to deliver, and then respecting Brazil to – for the COP30 to be the place. We have things that we have to deliver in COP29, we have things that we have to deliver in COP30, and also, we have what happens afterwards. What is your view about, sort of, the different paces, but also, what should we – what are the key objectives that we need to deliver now in Baku? What are the things that we need to do in Belém, and what needs to happen afterwards?

Simon Stiell

So, one of the concepts I came – when I took up this position, instinctively, I knew that how we look at the process, we look at every COP as a singular destination, and this concept of having a multi-COP agenda, how can we find ways of actually joining up COPs, the agenda, so that we create – well, first of all, set the context as to longer term, what is it we’re trying to deliver and how does that break down over those mandated items for each of the COPs? And how can we provide – how can we start to synchronise those, but how can we also create more oxygen within the negotiating space so that negotiators don’t come to the table wanting to achieve absolutely everything in a highly difficult, complex environment? But I didn’t know what that actually meant in practice. But what we have seen with COPs 28, 29 and 30, so the delivery of the GST in Dubai, which sets out the plan for this next period, how finance then locks into that, and supports the delivery of that path. And then how that is articulated country by country through their NDCs, and how these three COPs are actually interdependent and interlocked.

So, there is certainly that three-year horizon. So, where we are right now, it’s delivering on the outcomes from Dubai. So COP28 is still live, but how does that translate into the finance agenda, how does that articulate into the new generation of climate plans? And then within that, we interlace – there are other deliverables, too, and coming back to what a good NDC should look like, the issue of adaptation, how do we incorporate adaptation into these national climate plans? And the opportunity for, again, a revisioning of how we treat our national adaption plans. So, that is also something that’s actually live right now and the biennial transparency reports, which are delivered this year, which shed light on what countries are doing and not doing, and there will be this constant reporting cycle that, as I said, sheds light on what is happening there, and then of course, what is happening with Article 6 with carbon markets. All of these things, all of these things are live and interlocked.

So, there is a clear path as we within the Secretariat, we have this 360 degree view of what is happening. There is a clear story to be told, which we’ve started to articulate, and then, where each of the COPs then fill – fit into that. We have this unique situation right now where we still have a very active presidency, the UAE, who are pushing forward, building on that momentum, vested in ensuring that the outcomes of Dubai are actually implemented. We have Azerbaijan as the incoming presidency, who are shaping the agenda and what needs to be delivered this year, and we have a very, very active incoming COP presidency with the Brazilians. So, we are in this position where we have these three energies, but focussed, focussed on delivering a strong 1.5 allied outcome, whether in finance, whether in emissions, whether in adaption and all of the other peripheral agenda items.

Ana Yang

Thank you, and allow me one last question, but I want to, sort of, link it to – on your speech about, you know, there are things that you can do within the UNFCCC, but there – you will – you’re relying on handing the ball, also, to other international fora, like the G20, like the G7, or – you know, so there is, like, this – like, in my mind – sorry, this is probably not a good example, like, the synchronous ballet, underwater ballet, that you’re – anyway, but probably that’s not a good thing, but I was just, like, it – you know…

Simon Stiell

I’m not a good dancer, so…

Ana Yang

I’m not a good swimmer, but I was just trying to, sort of, imagine, like, this, kind of, handling things if we’re moving towards the same direction. So, I just – could you just – as you’re talking about those three different countries co-ordinating, but there are also different international foras where you’re handing the climate change implementation challenge, but then you need to pick it back, right? Just, in your view, do you have a bit of that, how that dance happens?

Simon Stiell

Yes, so the COP itself, I mean, that is the party-driven process, that is the space for the climate negotiations, and it has been that way for the last 32 years. But what is becoming more and more clear, there are so many other fora outside of the COP that directly influence whether it is the dynamics of the negotiations within the COP or the action that needs to be taken within the real economy. So again, when we look at the trajectory for this year, in a few days’ time we’ll all be in Washington D.C. for the spring meetings, that is about finance. So yes, this year within the process it’s all about the New Collective Quantified Goal, the new, you know, how the 100 billion transform into the trillions. But it’s very, very process-driven and what is going to drive progress there isn’t only about what takes place within the process, but it’s what takes place in Washington…

Ana Yang

Yeah, exactly.

Simon Stiell

…what will be discussed in Washington D.C. So how do we bring – infuse that into the play?

We also have the role of the G7, as I articulated, the role of the G20. So, Italy, Brazil, with their respective responsibilities have a heavy lift as well in terms of setting the agenda and making progress and sending the right signals that are going to complement the decisions that will be made in Baku, in Belém, and within the process. So, how one co-ordinates that and ensures that there is the correct and appropriate plugins so that, as I said, we can take that more holistic approach and view.

Ana Yang

Alright, thank you very much. Thank you for indulging me for my personal conversation. Just – so, I’ll do – what I’m going to do is I’m going to do a round of questions, three questions, and then I’ll hand over to Simon, and then I’m going to go back. Okay, so we have a gentleman here with a beard. Do we have some ladies? All of – okay, there is a lady, Ruth, over there, and then I have another lady on the blue top behind. I’m going to go do a bit of a gender balance here.

Richard Hill

Thank you, Ana, Richard Hill. How – you talk about every voice counting and every voice matters and taking bold action. How do we counter that against a polarised political view that’s happening across the world where it’s one side wants to do something and the other side doesn’t? It’s becoming really strong, especially if you look at America and Britain, and especially where we see action on climate being drawn back. How do we change that political landscape, where voices can actually count as individuals? Because we need to change, but it’s just happening fast enough.

Ana Yang

Okay, how to make voices count. Ruth?

Ruth

[Pause] And also, on making voices count, under the Paris Agreement Article 12, countries are committed to informing and engaging the public on climate change. Until they do that in a meaningful way, it might be difficult for some citizens to understand what is at stake. So, what more should governments be doing around Article 12 and action for climate empowerment to enable people to understand what they face and speak up about what they need?

Ana Yang

Thank you.

Laura Kelly

Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes, Laura Kelly from the International Institute for Environment and Development. Really great link – talk on linking the different institutions and processes together, Simon. What about the CBD? Nature of course, nature-based solutions are a key way to address climate. We’re – you know, but there’s also demand for finance there. How do we link these agendas up? Thank you.

Ana Yang

Thank you. The first round of questions for you.

Simon Stiell

Okay, thank you. So, if I link both Richard and, I think, Ruth’s questions. I think increased public awareness is what’s happening in living rooms with ordinary people all around the world, that I think is the key to creating that pressure and awareness, whether that is to cabinet rooms or whether that is to boardrooms. So, I think there is a dynamic there that is important to take note of, but people need to be aware, both in terms of what is happening with climate change, and we’re – I think progress has been made. The climate denial forum is still very active and certainly entrenched in vested interests, but I think in terms of the general public, I think there is an increasing awareness of the realities of climate change and the impacts, because we are seeing an acceleration, absolute acceleration of climate impacts. So, every region, every country, every community is now seeing and feeling it. But it’s then, also, understanding as an individual, what your role and your responsibility is. Whether it’s consumer choices that you make, decisions that you make and how that can positively or negatively impact on decisions that are being made at state level or within corporations.

So, governments certainly have a major role to play in terms of – so whether it is enacting Article 12 – but I think we’ve seen traditionally, you can’t leave everything up to governments. It’s all to have, for example, within civil society, how does civil society engage? And we’re finding, seeing within the process, more and more active engagement of civil society and having their voices not only heard, but also felt. And I think in the period that is ahead of us, I think there is room for even more activity and focus there.

With regard to – so, this year, the three Rio Conventions have their COPs, so the Convention for Desertification, as well as Biodiversity and Climate. So, there is an opportunity – we are speaking to three Convention Secretariats, how we can ensure that there is some level of appropriate co-ordination to make this and this moment count. We’re also seeing, between those three Conventions, the alignment of agendas in terms of what the issues are and what prescriptions are required at a global level to address them. And of course, the call on finance is central to addressing all three. So, there is a moment right now. So, certainly at a Secretariat level, with our very clear mandates and responsibilities to each of those conventions, but looking at how in an appropriate way we can work together to make this year as impactful as possible across those three Conventions.

Ana Yang

Thank you. I – there’s quite a long list of questions online on the Q&A. I’ve picked, using my privilege of being the Chair, I’ve picked one question, I’m going to put it here, and then I’m going to open for another. So, one of the questions here is actually around the role of the private sector. I just want to put that question here, and then the gentleman here. I want to pick the lady with the glasses here, and there is another gentleman over there. Sorry, you.

John Warren

Thank you very much. The carbon dioxide…

Ana Yang

Your name?

John Warren

Sorry, John Warren. The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is about 30% higher than the maximum safe level and the rate of rise is increasing, therefore we are failing. Each successive COP, with tens of thousands of people flying into airconditioned hotels, has increasing carbon footprint. How can COP sell the message of the need to reduce consumption?

Ana Yang

So, where was the other one that I had said? It was here, right?

Member

Yes.

Ana Yang

Yeah.

Member

Hi, I’m [inaudible – 45:55] from the British Fashion Council. So, with a particular industry in mind, and Simon, what you were talking about in terms of focus on NDCs, given the enormous footprint, environmental and societal, as well, when it comes to the fashion industry in particular, how do we, as an advisory body with the UK Government and with the UNFCCC, get fashion to be recognised as part of the NDCs for the UK?

Ana Yang

Thank you, and then there was a gentleman here.

Tim Stickings

Tim Stickings. I just wondered, Mr Stiell, what you make of the European Court ruling yesterday saying that there’s a human rights mandate to take action on climate change. Do you see it that way, or some Politicians on the UK have suggested that it constrains legitimate debate about what should be done? Thank you.

Simon Stiell

Okay, thank you. So, first of all, so the role of the private sector, absolutely essential. So, we work in this – you know, within the UNFCCC, it’s a climate bubble, but a necessary one and that provides the framework for the changes for the transitions, the transformations that need to take place externally. And where the needle actually moves, where action really happens, is within the real economy, and within the real economy sits the private sector, so, an absolutely vital role. And how we integrate the private sector, again, appropriately within the process, and there are fora, there is space that is created within the process. Not only to give them a voice, and there’s controversy there in terms of are those voices advocating for pro-climate action or is it, again, advocating for vested interests?

So, that is a very, very controversial space, but we have to find ways of breaking through that and engaging. And the co-operation and the alignment of the private sector to the goals of the Paris Agreement are absolutely essential, and we see momentum built in in the various alliances within the private sector space. We are seeing greater co-ordination and alignment with Paris, but it’s still nowhere near where it needs to be. But these are breakthroughs or certainly, challenges that we have right now, and a central focus.

With reducing consumption and – yeah, I mean, every COP we get the reports, you know, how many private planes, the CO2 footprint for hosting those COPs. Taking a very pragmatic view, we need the right people around the table in order for this process to work, and there will be a cost, there will be a cost to that. How you ensure that those who – those that are present are the ones necessary to contribute positively to the process is also important. But an opportunity that we have is relooking at the process as a whole, so volume bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better. We saw in Dubai record numbers of participants, but we also saw, you know, some of the strongest outcomes of a COP in recent times. But size does not necessarily translate to the quality of outcomes.

We have an opportunity with Azerbaijan, and we’re engaging with them, and certainly, based on some of the logistical challenges that will be presented in Belém for COP30, actively discussing with the Brazilians how we can reduce the size of the COP so that the logistics of it can be supported at that hosted destination, with the focus on the quality of the negotiating outcomes. So, I would – if I share my own personal view, I would certainly like to see future COPs reduce in size, but the quality of the outcomes, the space created for those negotiations, as rich and impactful as possible. And as we start re-envisaging how the process could look in the future and the opportunity to make some shifts there, with the approval of parties, of course, is there.

And then the footprint for fashion, there is the Fashion Charter, and so, there is a formal space within the UNFCCC process to engage the fashion industry. The footprint is a significant one. There is a coalition of the willing and within that sector to identify far more sustainable ways of production and consumption. So, the space is there, open to how that can be strengthened.

And then human rights, I don’t want to step into areas that are outside of my purview, but when we start to truly internalise the impacts of climate change on societies, on communities, on people, then that human rights question certainly looms large. So, it’s an interesting space for this debate to step into. I believe anything that can increase – and it comes back to the earlier question about public awareness – that increases public awareness and the impacts especially on the most vulnerable, I think can only be a positive thing.

Ana Yang

Thank you. I have another question here online, and it’s to dive deeper into the finance piece, but from a private finance perspective. And so, the question here is, “What would you like to see for – from commercial banks, institutional investors and investors? What kind of action do you want to see from them this year towards Baku?” So that’s one question online. I have a lady there on the back, you. I’m just trying to catch people on the back. Okay, I’ll give you – you, and then somebody – the gentleman here. It’s the waving that worked, right, sorry.

Claire Jervis

Hi, Claire Jervis from WHEB, an impact investment firm. You mentioned earlier the need to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels and carbon pricing being a particular mechanism to do that. It seems to me that carbon pricing mechanisms so far have proven fairly ineffective in actually, bringing about an acceleration away from fossil fuels. So, I’m just curious to know, what would you say have been the challenges there, what are the, you know, the opportunities to overcome those challenges and is carbon pricing still really the best mechanism to do that?

Ana Yang

Hmmm hmm. Thank you, and then I think there was somebody – oh, there, the chap – so the gentleman here and then the gentleman there.

Dr Yaroslav Melekh

Thank you. My name is Yaroslav Melekh, I am a Research Fellow at UCL, here in London, and I have some background in climate finance. So, for more applied science, you were talking about MDB’s reform and there is clearly a failure by more leveraging and mobilising private capital so that we get less than one dollar from public finance to developing countries. And MDB’s are clearly reluctant to do so because they need the same amount of capital assurance that they do for loans. So, my question is rather, is there any thinking within COP process and UNFCCC about looking into some other solution platforms rather than MDB’s? In particular, in relation to risks, risk guarantees, which for example agencies like CEDA or USAID have very good experience of leveraging with much higher rates. But it seems there is now a dedicated institution that will address climate finance and go just beyond loans and MDBs’ poor delivery on that.

Dr Robert Chris

Robert Chris, Dr Robert Chris, independent Researcher and Author and an Associate of the Centre for Climate Repair at Cambridge. I’d just like to thank you for a very clear and compelling presentation and great rhetoric, but remembering that the climate system is also an actor in this, and the climate system is not paying attention to our rhetoric. So – and things are getting worse. The climate system is not in the same state today as it was 30 years ago, not even as it was when the last IPCC report was published two or three/four years ago. So let us optimistically assume that all of the constituencies to which your rhetoric is directed do their thing, what I would be grateful is if you could say something about whether the UN still considers Net Zero emissions, whether by 2050 or even sooner, to be sufficient to avert the widespread economic collapse and societal collapse that you referred to you in your talk, or whether the time has come when prudence dictates that Net Zero needs some help from other interventions, such as, for example, to cool the planet directly by some form of intervention on albed – on – oh, on increasing the sun’s the planet’s reflectivity.

Ana Yang

Right, easy questions.

Simon Stiell

Okay, alright, so private finance and the role of commercial banks. So, what the 100 billion taught us was – well, it taught us many things, but one of is that the availability of public finance, even if that was increased, is still insufficient to meet the challenges of the climate crisis. So, what is being discussed, both within the process and outside of the process, and I think this links to Terence’s question, but how does one leverage the limited public finance to attract the private finance that is necessary to turn the billions into the trillions? So, the role of the – of private finance to fill at least part of that space is absolutely critical right now, and that is what is under the microscope in the finance discussions in the leadup to COP29.

So, how can – whether it is the de-risking, whether it is the reform of the MDBs, whether it’s the reform of actually, the global financial architecture, but what is broadly recognised – and I will link this to the rhetoric – so right now, these are just words. What is necessary is actually converting those words to real demonstrable action, and where we are within the process – the negotiations have actually ended, in reality. There are enough rules, there is sufficiency, a framework of guidelines as to what countries need to do, what non-state actors need to do, it’s clear. It’s turning rhetoric into action. And on the finance side, we have seen an alignment of that rhetoric and the language, both politically and institutionally, as to what needs to be done within the finance space.

I am not a finance expert, but there are many experts out there who have put forward different frameworks, different modalities, different concepts, as to how public and private finance can come together. Whether it’s addressing credit ratings, credit risks, whether it is leveraging factors, whether it is leveraging balance sheets etc., etc., how this can work in practice. So, there’s no shortage of theory here. What needs to happen is a channelling of all of that to concrete outcomes both in Baku and the discussions that take place at the IMF and the World Bank over this period. But more importantly, the actions and the political signals that come out of the G7 and the G20 on finance, on climate and development finance over the course of this year. So, I hope I’ve answered at least two or three questions.

Carbon pricing, is it the best way? It’s one of. What is clear is carbon pricing, carbon markets have the potential to address some of the calls for innovative sources of finance. The challenge that exists is the immaturity and the abuse of what currently exists. One of the outcomes we’re supposed to have achieved in Dubai that we did not was with regard to Article 6, which is the article that speaks to carbon markets. It’s expected that in Baku at COP29, agreements will be made that will start firming up the framework for the operationalisation of a system that not only speaks to unlocking potential sources of finance, but also speak to the environmental integrity that’s absolutely essential for this market to work. So, it’s – potential is there, let’s see what the coming months bring.

Ana Yang

Okay, we’re at…

Dr Robert Chris

Dr Chris. Can I press you on my question?

Ana Yang

I’m sorry, we’re out of time.

Simon Stiell

I’m sorry…

Ana Yang

I’m so sorry, we have…

Dr Robert Chris

You haven’t answered my question.

Simon Stiell

Sorry, no, I didn’t answer your question. So, we know what is needed, absolutely needed, to reduce emissions, and that speaks to actions that need to take place in the fossil fuel space. That is where focus needs to be placed. So, whether geoengineering has a role to play or not, I see right now some interesting technology, unproven, keep doing the research, but right now let’s not get distracted from the concrete actions that governments, sectors, businesses need to take that we know what needs to be done, we’ve just got to do it.

Ana Yang

Thank you, thank you so much. We have to close. Thank you very much [applause].