The Know Show – focusing on week one of Cop26 – what happened, what matters

Welcome to The Know Show. This week Andrea Edwards and Joe Augustin (Tim Wade is away for two weeks) will be joined by Andrew Milroy, Cathy Johnson and Susanna Hasenoehrl The Sustainability Speaker, to discuss week one of Cop26. The overarching goal of Cop26 is ambition, action and acceleration, but is it just more blah blah blah?

We’ll share our overall impressions and take-aways, the pathway to 1.5C, and some of the key issues and announcements, including coal reduction, methane reduction, the deforestation commitment, country commitments, what the financial industry said and more. 

The Know Show is a Livestream held every Friday, where Andrea T Edwards, Tim Wade and Joe Augustin review the news that’s getting everyone’s attention, as well as perhaps what requires our attention. We’ll talk about what it means to us, the world and we hope to inspire great conversations on the news that matters to all of us. 

The Know Show is based on Andrea T Edwards Weekend Reads, which get published every Saturday on andreatedwards.com, and covers the climate crisis, Covid 19, topical moments in the world, global politics, business, social issues and passion/humor/history. Join us. 

#TheKnowShow #UncommonCourage

To get in touch with me, all of my contact details are here https://linktr.ee/andreatedwards

My book Uncommon Courage, an invitation, is here https://mybook.to/UncommonCourage

My book 18 Steps to an All-Star LinkedIn Profile, is here https://mybook.to/18stepstoanallstar

Transcript

Unknown: 0:02

Welcome to the no show. My name is Andrea Edwards. And my name is not Tim Wade. He's actually enjoying the cruise right now. I'm joking. Like, right? Yeah. Well, that's great. So he's in a big leadership event today and he's going on a cruise. So yeah, we will discuss Tim social life way in advance. But yeah, my name is Joe Augustine, and welcome to the No Show, which hopefully is a show that leaves you thinking a little bit more about life in general. So we have a great show lined up today. We have some wonderful guests. We have Andrew Milroy, who's rejoining us from last week. He's the founder, of course, a vector eight cybersecurity advisory firm. We also have with us Kathy Johnson, the authentic leadership coach, another repeat offender to the show. Welcome back, Kathy. And a repeat offender is going to be Susanna Hassanal. Huseynov has an all the sustainability sustainability speaker and she will be joining us as soon as she's able to after another event that she's currently on as well. So welcome to the show. Great to be here. Thanks for inviting me back. I wasn't sure if he would after last week's performance, but it's fantastic. Now, it's all about people who are paying attention and reading the news. And I know you guys do so. And Susanna certainly has. She's been sharing her reads. Well, not all of them. But ya know, it's been a lot going on this week. Have you guys been busy reading or preoccupied with other stuff? I've read some and been preoccupied so little. So I've been I've been, but I mean, I'm interested in it. I mean, it's I track the you know, the British news pretty closely as well. And obviously, there's been a lot on cop 26 In the British news. But yeah, so I've, I've read more about it than I normally would. Yeah. Cool. All right, well, so we're gonna focus on cop 26. This week, there's obviously loads of other things going on in the world. But it's an important week. I don't think it's the be all and end all. But it is an important waking an indication of you know, where the global leaders are going. And obviously next week is the week where he focuses more on business and business commitments. So we'll see. We'll see a lot more coming out from that. And I thought what I could do, let me just get into the Word, what I do is just sort of maybe just start with a bit of a sort of a top level summary. Yeah. So the overarching goal of cop 26 was ambition, action, acceleration. Don't you love those? Don't you love those events, so that those have those three words, I used to be pretty good at coming up with the three words. So we went into cop 26 on a pathway of 2.7 degrees global warming, which is catastrophic. And the commitments that have been building up over the week are essentially putting us at two degrees. But obviously, the big commitment that we need is 1.5. But then, last night, there was a late announcement that the commitments have actually put us at 1.8. However, there's a person called Selwyn Hart. I'm going to presume Selwyn is a male name. And there are UN Special Advisor and Assistant Secretary General for climate change. And he warned the wander cop delegates that based on the NDCs that have been submitted, and I don't know what NDC stands for the world is on a 2.7 degree pathway still. So is it 1.8 is a 2.7. Regardless, it's catastrophic. And basically, the message is, we're not we're not there yet, it's far too early to celebrate. We haven't achieved what we've set out to achieve. And we've got a long way to go. And I want to remind everyone that 1.5 degrees is when large swathes of the earth will be at one point that will be too hot to live. So things like the food, you know, the people who are getting the rice, they won't be able to be out for significant periods of time during the day because it's too hot to live. If we get to two degrees, that's when it's too hot for the rainforest to survive. So we every commitment that's made is important, but we know that they're non binding. And historically, all of these commitments that have been made in the past. They haven't met them, and they've skyrocketed past them. Anyway, we have got Suzanna with us, so I'm going to bring her in Lacey's Nana. And Well hello everyone. Well, seniors nationally determined contributions. Thank you very much. All right. So yeah, so the whole point of cop 26 is all about keeping us should have been about keeping fossil fuels in the ground. George Manobo created a study in Nature, which is a scientific journal, and that says to stand a chance to At a 50% chance of avoiding 1.55 degrees of global heating, we need to retire 89% of proven coal reserves 58% of oil reserves and 58% Sorry, 59% of fossil methane. So natural gas reserves. If we want to have better odds and 5050, we basically basically need to leave them all in the ground. And then of course, the World Meteorological Organization also announced this week that heat trapping greenhouse gases in the in the atmosphere have reached record highs in 2020, despite the pandemic, and they are rising again this year. So that's kind of setting the tone for what we went in what we went in with. First impressions guys, big, big takeaway, something that caught your attention, favorite speech? I think if we look at the weekend before, cop 26 started that g 20. Meeting in Italy, left quite a bit of a void in terms of leadership. I think it's not entirely, you know, unexpected, but But certainly, there would have been room for a strong leader or group of leaders think the 20 to come forward and make stronger statement to be followed, of course, but was fairly compromise driven, in my view, setting a tone and leaving a lot more work to be accomplished by others. If you asked me. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I mean, what jumped out at me was, you know, the, the world's largest polluter. And by far the world's largest carbon emitter, the leader of that country wasn't present. It was a relatively junior delegation. So talking specifically about China here. And that's, you know, somewhat demoralize them, because a lot of the intentions that China has talked about for, you know, environmental perspective often sound very positive, but, you know, they're talking about what becoming, you know, kind of stop you stopping using cold and 2060, or something like that, which is just a depressing thought, right? Because we have what we need, now we have the technology to make the shift in a very short period of time. So I don't quite understand why some countries just feel that they need to go through the same process that some other countries countries did some years ago, in order to reach what might be described as a developed, you know, state, it's, it's just surprised me because the other thing about China is, it's categorized as a, as a developing country, which gives it more flexibility with me, Susanna, correct me if I'm wrong around some of the agreements that come out. And I'm not saying it's just China. I mean, there's a lot of people that are comparable here. But that was what kind of jumped out to me that Xi Jinping wasn't present. And not even the the, the his immediate leadership. But then again, it's been commented in the in the past days that, you know, China has a plan somewhat detailed already, and, and that they saw no need for their kind of show and tell, you know, circus in a way that, you know, skills or has been described as g 20. Perhaps a bit less. But yeah, there's certainly a lot of, you know, showing up and and, and greenwashing as well happening at at Glasgow, unfortunately. So will that bring us the results? Yeah, I'll just keep busy. And then we had Biden's speaking out about China and Russia. And it's, I can't guys, this this, this backfire? It's, it's like, it's not, that's not what's going to get us where we need to go. And, you know, maybe the whole COVID argument for China and Russia was valid, but, you know, the divisions that we're seeing seem developing in the world, we've talked about China's sort of shrinking back and sort of closing up its borders. It's none of its good. But you know, China's got over well over a billion people to take care care of. And I was just reading another article, not China, but North Korea, uh, facing one of their most severe famines because they're there at 1.9 degrees, for some reason, they're heating faster than everywhere else, but they're already being severely impacted. And of course, they're on the border with China. So you got to start thinking, you know, the impact is here, it's happening. It's now so it's not like China can it can ignore the climate crisis, right? What's happening their minds, you know, so they can't get their own got coal out and it's going on. You know, big picture. One thing that I've been holding this week is this whole idea of politics around everything. And the truth is China If they can just decide what they're going to do, and they're going to do it, Biden can't get his his bill through Congress being stopped by one of someone from his own party. And the question for the US is, or, for me, is, even if Biden were to get something through, who's the next person coming in? What will they do? It's just after the dramatic shift with Trump. It's, it's, that part is scary to me. Yeah. Especially with the governor of Virginia. Was it like being convicted? Yeah. I mean, based on the Republican Party, we've got right now we can't afford to have those guys back now. One thing I was I was watching, but the only good thing about that is he distanced himself from Trump. So by distancing himself from a Trump supporter, maybe it's a bad thing, but yeah. He distanced themselves. And by distancing himself from Trump, he managed and maybe all this narrative about stolen elections and election fraud and will go away, and they'll start to realize that they can potentially win elections based on policies. If you look at what kind of treatment munching is getting, why whenever he is appearing in public, I mean, the youth are after him and really confronting him with slogans like I want to live and so on. I think the more people do that, well, the more power people will actually have. This cannot be completely ignored by him. And the next election that for the first time the millennials will dominate the voting cycle. So if if the if the the players in politics switched on to the changing demographics from a voting perspective, and the power balance, I think they're gonna, they're gonna miss a key trick they used to appealing to the boomers, but the boomers are now finally shrunk. You know, by 2028. For the first time, my generation Generation X, who's Generation X here, all of us. Yes, up to that. Yeah. In 2020, will be the first time that we will have more voting power than our parents. Thinking. That's amazing. Yeah. It's been a it's been a thing for a lot of things. I mean, even the entertainment industry has always been bogged down by the whole, you know, the older age vote. So yeah, it's gonna be interesting to see what happens with the rest of the world in terms of climate change and economics. Yeah, that's, that's one area that gives me hope. So I know a lot of people are going, they're gonna listen to this and go, there's no hope. So the story, the story that I was really listening to, and really interested in was the 100 billion dollar pledge to developing countries which has not come to pass. And they're basically saying, now, it won't happen till 2023. And you heard people like, I'm the MIA, what was it me and Motley, the prime minister of Barbados, Barbados? Yes, she's Anna, thanks for drawing my attention to her. She was fabulous. And brilliant. But basically what the developing countries so I don't know if you guys know the history of that 100 billion dollar pledge, it was a number that Hillary Clinton put out there a number of years ago when she was Secretary of State. And then everyone said, Okay, we'll do that. But actually the mass of the cost, whenever sort of really factored in, anyway, none of the money's come through anyway. And Modi stood up and said, Okay, you guys want me to get my number down to net zero before 2070? I need $1.3 trillion. And all of the other developing countries are also coming up. And so maybe that's a really big part of the story that the government's and the businesses that have created the problem have got to pay the cost of the problem. And that's, that's the bit that we just don't ever seem to, you know, see a conclusion on. So, yeah, because if we don't pay, if our countries don't pay, it's gonna cost more in the long run. But equally, it's gonna create a lot more challenges for all of us, like billions of climate refugees, that we're gonna have to sort out. I don't understand why in order to develop, you need to you need to use 19th century technology. I mean, I don't understand that part of it, because the term with the technology is around to just leapfrog it. I mean, I can understand maybe investment is required in order to in order to use you know, more renewables in Indonesia and the developing world and so forth. But I really don't quite get why it's seen as a necessity for this huge amount of pollution to take place without massive transfers of wealth. Because we can very easily get you know, get away from it. It's not that not that difficult. Someone charges Sorry, sorry to jump in. Or if we talk a little bit about energy in particular, and it's clear that we we cannot save ourselves from the climate Unless we transform the energy sector in a very significant way, I mean, about three quarters of all the greenhouse gas emissions today go back to the energy sector. And an investor group here in Asia has calculated that to become 1.5 degrees compliant, Asia is going to need 37 trillion USD investment into changing the energy system here over the next 30 years. Now, it is a significant sum, even if renewable energies are very competitive. So when solar but we also need better transmission networks as storage? So yeah, we do need money. But then again, what what really bothers me in some of these conversations is that, yes, this blood has been made. And I do think that it's, you know, it also makes sense. But then again, you've got these countries like Indonesia, saying, Oh, give me the money. But by the way, I won't change anything. You know, they they sign the, you know, deforestation agreement, but the following day said that, Oh, this must not, you know, hinder oil palm oil business thinks like that. Is that is the dirty technology being funded as well, because somebody must be funding the, the non renewable power, as well, right. So it can't just come that somehow we transfer? Well, that is actually one of the keeps topics, a little bit of the white elephant in the room, but many international organizations are calling for the end of fossil fuel subsidies. So the International Monetary Fund actually just released a new number, and a staggering $5.9 trillion went into fossil fuel subsidies in 2020. Now, this number has been also contested by many people, climate denials, and so on. And I do need to say that out of that 5.9 trillion USD, only 7% or only 7% were direct fuel subsidies and and the other subsidies were in the forms of what are the different costs that societies need to pay, because of all the negative impacts of air pollution and fossil fuel combustion, but the bill of, you know, fossil fuel subsidies, you know, the global GDP was about 85,000,000,000,005.9 of that was subsidies paid to fossil fuel companies in different shapes and forms. And the other thing is, it sort of underpins the global economy, there's another another piece that came out this week, I'm sure you've seen it. In fact, Susanna, you might have shared a version of it, that's talking about the when the end of the fossil fuel industry is going to create a global financial crisis, like we experienced in 2008. Did you guys write that one? No, it's sort of this sort of in the 2036 range. So basically, the companies that are going to be stuck with the assets and the fuel assets, they're going to, they're going to being in big financial trouble. But but you know, like California, during the pandemic, almost went bankrupt, because people weren't buying fuel. So the taxes weren't being paid, which underpins the state. And so this is how the whole economic web that sort of links at all around the world, but then you see what OPEC is doing at the moment and holding the world to ransom. You say Russia, Russia is playing playing games with gas and Europe, right. So sorry, yeah, just on that note, the topic of the so called carbon bubble, it's not really a new topic, but good to have some more research on it again. So a new peer reviewed study just came out with said that they're actually 11 trillion fossil fuel assets, lots of cool assets, and also gas that could cause 2008 style, financial crisis. And actually, a lot of those especially call are here in Asia. And if you look at the stock market exposure 90% of the like the call stock assets are parked in Asian stock markets. So Mumbai has an exposure to Call of 58 billion USD ChipIn, 22, moneylife 6.3 and kl $6.2 billion. So this is for sure, a real problem. And that's why the Asian Development Bank has is also about to embark on programs where they would actually buy this, you know, dirty assets, coal plants, and so on and basically retire them early to abort a financial crisis. I mean, there's a bit of an analogy, Andrea, that you will be familiar with and those of you in the technology industry. Well, I don't know if it applies perfectly, but Certainly in technology, we talk about having paradigm shifts, right? significant shifts in the way we do business the way we consume, and it's very disruptive, right? And it happens what every 15 years or so. And then the industry moves along with that. Now, again, I'm not an expert in the utilities industry in the power industry, but we know what I mean, I think I mentioned the last one in 1979. My parents bought me David Attenborough's life on Earth that talked about global warming, deforestation, the ozone layer, etc, etc. We knew all about it, then, in the 80s, there were attempts to address a lot of those challenges. So the elimination of CFCs going, and perhaps that was because only a small number of countries in the world actually producing seeds at the time, right. So you were dealing with a, you know, a much a much smaller constituency to address these things. Now, it's a it's a much, much bigger one. But I guess my question is, we've known about it, we know what to do, there's money in it, right? So a lot of the, you know, the renewable energy companies are doing very well in the stock markets, and so on. So what is and I know there are vested interests in the old world, but the same technology, right, there was vested interest in staying on premise and not moving into the cloud. But eventually those vested interests have to give up and shift. So what is holding back the, you know, the oil and get well, let's say, maybe the, you know, the energy sector from from transforming in that way, it's got everything it needs to transform, there is money to be made. Yeah. It's, it's the big question. What is stalling? We know, the 30 years, and now you're looking at 50 years, right? You got some countries in Western Europe, for example. I mean, and I know, there's lots of reasons for the UK, but I just shared something, say the UK is carbon emissions have gone down 38%. Since the early 90s. I know a lot of European countries have a substantial decreases in the carbon footprint. Since it became a political issue, probably in the late 80s. It became a major political issue. Maybe in Germany, some other European countries that was even earlier. Right. So what is it that that is looking at? I don't quite get it, because you can say vested interest, but there were vested interests in, in certain aspects of technology, we shifted, you can say political will? Well, we've been talking about this politically for years. Right? What is it? That's blocking it? Well, I mean, if I give you a tech answer, I'll just say two words, or one word, depending how you look at the word mainframes. I mean, we still have mainframes, we still have banks that have them. You know, they've been around for way too long. And, you know, when you said there's no how you described as vested interest, right. So that I think, I think traditional fuel sources, coal gas, that they all have very much vested interests. I was listening to someone from from Poland the other day, just today, actually. And they're just talking about how they can't get off of coal as quickly as everybody wants them to, because there is so much that is that is entrenched there, it is really a massive, massive thing to try to unwind. I mean, it's, it's, and it's very easy on the outside to look in and say, okay, we can change this in a moment. And and I know that I mean, for me, I've been thinking we need to hit the emergency brake on this definitely. Right. But it's also not quite as easy as all that. Because yeah, there's lots of stuff that's lying, that that's relying on the way things are sort of still working. You know, we're talking about using an old technology, 19th century technology. I'm about to go and pick up my wife in a piece of 19th century technologies developed somewhat, you know, it's still going to be a car. There's some things that continue somehow to work, despite the cost. And we really have to get to the point where the cost is just so high, we say, You know what, we're going to stop using that. I don't, sorry. I think I think another thing is power. And, you know, I, I think it's really hard for us, like I'm totally with you, and you sort of sit there and the CEO of a petroleum company has children and grandchildren. So it's not like then they're not human. Right. But so how can they be so detached? And, you know, you talk about we've known about for 30 years, 50 years, that the oil and gas industry is known about since the 50s, probably even longer. The documented proof is from the 50s. The automotive industry is known about it from the 70s, you know, documented proof, but I think it's a power thing. And, you know, like, I've got so many I mean, so many the greenwashing conversations we've had, you know, the LP from Exxon, you know, and they showed the data that's being spent on the r&d into into working out how to turn led into fuel. This is the marketing spend of the company convincing us that we're responsible for climate change. I mean, it's just a joke. You know, it's a tobacco industry, Andrea, just to jump in the tobacco industry, we but that managed to get dealt with in a relatively short period of time. It's interestingly, right now there is the congressional hearing in the US where all the big oil and gas company, CEO Both from us, as well as from Europe are testifying. And I've shared it with a few people. But I think this kind of proceeding might actually have a bigger impact on the planet, then whatever happens at Glasgow, you know, if this becomes the next tobacco moment, you might be quite powerful. Yeah, that's part of how tobacco got there. Yeah, but the tobacco arguments, an interesting one, because people use it a lot to compare one with the other. But countries who got America bait mainly when they sort of stood up in challenge the tobacco industry, it's, that's a local problem right there, people are dying, it's costing the state to sort of, you know, dealing with the health and wellness of its people. So I get that. And I think, at that embarked that that whole climate crisis, I don't think they expected it to happen as quickly. I don't think they expected the ramifications to happen so fast. And you know, this this last decade, the development that's gone on around the world, or the last two decades, I think it's escalated the crisis so quickly, and it's beyond anyone else, anyone's imagination of how fast everything was gonna turn around, and the tipping points that have been passed, the tipping points have been close. So I think they've all been sort of caught, caught, not unawares, they knew what was coming. But I don't think anyone expected it as quickly. Like, if you look at the rising middle class in the last decade, it's just astronomical. And it was predicted by the, you know, the World Economic Forum, that it was going to be one of the greatest cataclysmic shifts in human history. You know, and most of that rise has happened in Asia. So I think it's, it's the speed that has caught everyone by surprise. And, and so and but I don't know why we haven't. And is it? Is it just cost? Is it lack of will? Is it? Is it ignorance? Is it because the greenwash I mean, they believe it is that the media isn't Rupert Murdoch, you know, I mean, who might have that answer might be a psychologist or neuroscientist at the end of the day, because, you know, if you're looking at this rationally, you know, there's really well ration this right. You know, you got children grandchildren is just not rational. But, you know, we know that we fossil fuel power is very unequally distributed, you know, we have a handful of countries today that that contribute the most of the fossil fuels. And then again, you know, some some hundreds or dozens or hundreds of companies that distribute fossil fuels and and in the US alone, the US oil and gas companies made something like 2 trillion in profits in that what was it the, since the Paris Target and Target agreement, not quite that but in a fairly short period of time. And and ultimately, it's quite a small number of people who profit from fossil fuel, especially if you contrast that with renewable energy, you know, anyone can put a, like a solar panel on their rooftop. You know, this is a power fight, you know, once you no longer need that fossil fuel fix. You are liberated, individually. And those companies as people lose their power, also over politicians. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. That's where the money goes. Right. That's how they become politicians. Andrew, to your point, I think you're one of us speeds a great one, because I think, I think I don't think anybody expected China or India or some other developing countries to shift from being basically agrarian economies, to what you might describe as I don't know how I mean, I guess you describe as an industrialized economies today, right? Into industrialized economies in such a short space of time. And those countries get huge populations. And obviously, with huge demands and requirements from an energy perspective, I don't think anybody expected it to be anything like that quick, like some of the statistics that come out of China, for example, that the number of people who moved into the cities from the countryside were in the countryside, their energy use would have been relatively low, much higher in the city in such a short timeframe. Just got going for bicycles. So nobody expected that you're right. Yes. A short period of time. So the five days of Beijing where everyone was on bicycles in the 1990s, to, to, you know, cars, and now you know, they've got their own domestic market now, so it's not, you know, they've built their economy on the back of making cheap shit to send around the world, let's be honest, right, which we buy. And we buy it, rebuy it, and, and now they've developed their own domestic economy, which actually gives them you know, a different different way of playing the game. But, you know, our consumer habits, you know, fast furniture for me is one of the ones that drives me absolutely crazy. But we all go out and we actively buy it and we upgrade our dining tables every couple of years, right? To be something you'd pass down from family to family and constantly doing it, you know, the the Christmas tree trend of every year you have a different color. And these people are buying these cheap, crappy plastic decorations. And then they're throwing them out and getting getting another round for the next year's thing. So we've all bought into these, these thing that sort of, you know, we're all responsible. We're all part of this game. But yeah, but that's how that's how China grew. But I think it's domestic growth is, to me probably one of the most interesting parts of the story. They've moved beyond relying on our money to join us. It's much of the developing the so called developing world. I'm not sure if those are the that's the right way of describing them. But officially, countries with like with a GDP that are outside the OECD, is that right? typically described as developing countries, right. Yeah. So but there's a lot a lot of them have moved very fast. India to right. billion plus people. Yeah. Thailand, extortionate. Right. Yep. So sorry. Yeah, just keeping things in perspective. And I and also concerning the announcement of of India to reach climate neutrality by 2070, which has been both applauded and criticized at the same time. I mean, just to bring things into perspective, today, the per capita co2 footprint, in India is about two times per person. I mean, I've seen different kinds of numbers plus minus. But you know, this is just a small percentage of our carbon footprint. And I would say in the developed economies, if you're like us 16.6 times per person, I think Australia is close to that Singapore eyes. 8.8 tonnes per person, I think. So, again, once we criticize such companies and such countries and their pledges and plans, you know, let's keep these things in mind as well. When I was in when I visited Dell, Delhi's garbage mountain, have you guys heard of just sorry? Have you heard of the garbage mountains? Oh, yeah, I'm environment. So there's one in Delhi, and there's one in Mumbai. And they have a light on top of them to stop planes from crashing into. Sorry, Andrew, I just wanted to immediately follow up on what Susanna was saying and optimistic about a lot of the Western European countries have managed to lower their per capita carbon footprint significantly, right, since the 1990s, which is manufacturing move to China. Right. So I mean, some of it was union related. So in the UK, it was a lot of it was to do with the government attacking the coal industry, right, there was a, there were some issues about the coal industry have too much control over power. But nevertheless, there was a shift in the way power is generated in some countries, France to right. The EU, the EU, when there was a recent report of what each country or regions on track for the EU was on track for 3.7. Based on the way the way it runs, England was about 2.7. So the EU is actually still very high. But what I'm saying with the with the garbage in India, the individual person's output of garbage compared to an American. And I can't remember the exact stats, but the average Indian is tiny, but versus the American, which is like 15 times higher. So you're absolutely right. It's just a it's just a scale with the population. But like we can't have, you know, every if every single person in India and China started to behave the way that we behave, we'll be in trouble, right? But still, I really want to recheck for you like that population growth argument, which is quite popular on climate change deniers as well. They're like, oh, there's too many people on this planet. We can't support that. And, you know, it's it's it's the, I would say, the the countries with most added people that, you know, will be the culprits. But then again, if we look at the footprint of our consumption, it's the first world if we can still use that term that consumes by far by factor x, what these people in the so called developing world are consuming, so I absolutely recheck the population growth. And I mean, let me assure you, that's not what I was. That's not an argument I was making. Because, you know, just just just for the sake of pushes, but what's the China per capita footprint? China's quite high. And I don't think it should be categorized as a developing country for for partly for that reason, China didn't have that on my mind. So it's quite high. It's no it's certainly higher than most of Western Europe. All right, before we go on Want to go into a couple of the key announcements that were made? Joe? Kathy, do you want to jump in? With anything? No, not at this stage. Go ahead. Alright, so sorry, Kathy. Just the output from the CRP, you're talking matter what, just news, anything. Anything you want to jump in on we've been talking about. I just, there were a couple of articles that I really, really loved one was about Denmark, which I really wasn't so aware that they had done so much and and really looking at pulling, getting consensus in a way that worked on not just, yes, fascinating to me, and making it market based partnerships, where people are actually working together government civic and the private sector, which was interesting. And I just, I also just love the speech by the pm of Barbados. It really, it's, it's, I think, having enough speakers, like users, who are speaking passionately about this, at some point it has to break through. Yeah, I don't know. That was my two cents. Thank you. I'm hoping so. Yeah, I know. Alright, so let's go. Let's let's go into sorry, Joe. So I was just gonna say just in case I run out of time, before I have to leave. There was one thing I thought about quite a bit about about this particular meeting. It was basically about how if there was one meeting that we actually should have had on Zoom, it should have been called 26. I mean, it's the the number of planes and cars running and engines and then chauffeurs next to them just waiting for someone to show up. It's just one of the great ironies. Right. So just a early on when you were talking about China, and I thought the greatest contribution that the that's been made so far is the China delegation not showing up. But then again, let's let's not forget about the human factor, I was actually thinking about this myself the other day, because it's all these negative posts or posts about people flying there in private jets. But, you know, let's face it, you know, there are lots of people who are working very, very hard to save ourselves, and who'd been doing that behind the zoo. For two years, also, like many of us have, but but just to give them a chance to meet in person, connect with other people. This can actually make a difference, I think in terms of keeping ourselves motivated, energize and to carry on the work. I agree, sometimes you've got to meet face to face and they're, you know, there's an environmental cost, but it's a it's a cost that you need to pay sometimes, right. Alright, so some of the announcements, let's just go through them. So the first one is on coal. So it is considered the single biggest contributor to climate change, and more than 40 countries signed the agreement to, or sorry, not the agreement to pledge to quit coal. And this included coal using countries like Poland, Vietnam and Chile. But the Chinese and the US did not sign up to this. But there was a separate commitment that 20 countries which include the US have pledged to end public financing for what they call unabated fossil fuel projects abroad by the end of 2022. And so this is where they're going to get with a digging for fossil fuels, coal, natural oil, natural gas, but they're not using the tech technology to capture the emissions in the process. So that's what that announcement is all about. So, you know, the media sort of we're moving in the right direction, we're getting ready to seal, you know, coals, fates, those sort of comments, but Greenpeace who I was often sort of reading the announcements and then reading Greenpeace has taken, they'd said, it still feels far short of the ambition that's needed on fossil fuels in these tech decades. And of course, the small print gives every everyone who signed that anonymously way to do whatever they want or to not to not do what they agreed with. So did you What did you guys pick up from a call perspective? I think one one of the decisive things that would have been needed would have been a a broader support for for the end of call. There's still lots of loopholes there. Although it's very clear, it's the most, the dirtiest form of energy. So again, I think what I expect from cop 26 is some advantage advances and some things that we're stuck with. So this is one of those things that is kind of positive and negative at the same time. Yeah, it was fun. Stronger agreement would have been better, obviously, and giving a lot of impetus for faster transition. Yeah, I find it really frustrating. Of course, countries like Australia, which you got coal and send it overseas and basically have anchored their entire, their entire economy. On on what they dig up. I just, you know, like I think for, for people in Australia who are voting for these politicians, they're actually going, they're putting their economy on the line. And it's going to happen quickly. It's this isn't in the long term. So yeah, I didn't feel very proud of being an Australian during cop 26. I can I can say that much. Why it's still happening, right? It's not over already supporting the political. And they haven't shown any willingness, as far as I've seen. Anyone, anyone else on the cold front? Just it's it's one of those, again, where there's such infrastructure, and investment, and and property. It's an for at least the US, I'm sure it's the same for Australia, there's, if that were to be cut off, there would be a huge backlash. And I think there aren't so many people in the US who are knowledgeable enough about climate change, to vote for whoever is cutting it off, as opposed to oh, they're making some of our people lose their jobs. Yeah, it's it's a, again, I don't know, I've been sort of really obsessed with politics this week. But that's the that's the sad part. Everyone on this planet, especially in the developing world, or the developed world, needs to understand that we have to make great sacrifices, if we have any chance of moving forward, we have to change how we live, how we spend, how we consume, we have to change it all. And until the people in these countries can get fair information, to understand really what's at stake, they're not going to be in a position to be able to Yeah, so understand that they've got they've got a they've got a vote for the people who are going to take care of all versus just taking care of themselves and securing their own idea of their future because otherwise, everyone's futures basically screwed. In. Quite, I think the only silver lining in this is that, you know, coal is no longer competitive cost wise. So solar event, wind, in most cases are much cheaper. So it's really mostly the subsidies that are keeping coal still burning. And, and obviously, it's about jobs as well in China and Australia, also in Poland, but so fair adjustment mechanisms are needed. I don't see a call exit happening without that because people will revolt and are revolting. So hence, the importance of the fair just drive the nuclear, the nuclear power industry, all of us to think nuclear power is going to mean it looks to me like a lot of countries are starting to look at nuclear power more than they were some years ago. Obviously, there's a lot of concerns around it. But a significant move to nuclear as well, as, you know, the Nate's I think, dangerous renewables home base make something either the price of uranium the move is happening already. I mean, it's quite divided, you know, many countries are just principally opposed to that, because of, you know, historic events or, or other things, you know, what I hear from Japan is that actually, what triggered a big like environmental consciousness was the, the hokushin catastrophe. I mean, they still have at home energy, I think they will have some more as well, but still overall, I think people experienced and actually saw so the catastrophe made them much more aware of their natural surroundings. Yeah, most of the nuclear power plants that, you know, are in operation today, I actually quite old technology, because, you know, many countries didn't invest into that, like Germany and so on. So they are kind of new generation nuclear plants coming up. Bill Gates is one of the advocates for them. I'm not really the expert on the topic, but what what is a disadvantage of nuclear that is much more costly and slow to build a renewable energy you know, you know, solar power wind farms can be built up in, you know, weeks or months. Whereas nuclear plants at least the you know, the current generation, they take years and years and years And what we don't have is as much time, right? Yeah. Bill Gates, nuclear facilities, they were going to be built in China. And then when Trump got in, that all got canceled. The other issue with nuclear is the waste that's created. And I think Bill Gates did come up with solution with a waste, but there are, there are, there are piles of waste, I think New Mexico has got one of them, that nobody knows what to do with it. So too many nuclear energy, they have to actually create it using the waste to generate to generate the energy. So it's a big mess anyway. And we will come back to the power game. You know, you've got countries like France, or Finland that generate a lot of their energy demands with nuclear. And now with, you know, the whole fossil fuel and LNG gas prices going up, you know, they're obviously like, hey, this was a great strategy. We love it when we're not dependent on these few countries for the supply of energy. I mean, there's something in that as well, but I don't think it necessarily has to be nuclear. Yeah. So I want to wish everyone a good rest of the session here, I have to run to the next thing I'm doing, which is ironically, something to do with cop 26, as well. I just want to leave you with an idea that I'm thinking about as in like, the problem, I think we faced with a lot of energy issues is that we don't have the outhouse in the house. I think if you if you're able to bring that problem, sort of what are the effects are what happens into into closer proximity to people, they can begin to behave a bit differently. I think it's because someone, someone who's consuming energy derived from coal doesn't see it, feel it, there's no connection at all. And that's really, I think, if we can if we can try to figure that out. And I think that's a communication problem. I've always thought that the arts would be a way to solve the problem. People need to the artists need to find a way to make that visceral, they need to make it so that it gets uncomfortable to do the wrong thing. And I guess the, the, the, what do you call them the incinerators in Phuket yesterday, and I didn't go inside, but I'm talking to them about setting up tours for tourists to go and visit the facilities. So face your waste, you know, so standing under that mountain in New Delhi, facing that waste was unbelievable. And I think if we can face our ways we can face you know, like, we breathing in the plant, what is it particular pollutants from from all of these, but we just can't see them. So any opportunity to see, seeing what we're doing, I think would be very powerful. All right. All right. Good luck. Thank you very much, you guys. Good job. Thank you. Just one other I mean, Suzanna, you might, again, you might have some insights into this, but with the with renewables. So with, with with with wind with solar with Tidal, what the big challenge at the moment is storage, is that right? Because obviously, it's, you know, you're constantly producing the wind power, because over periods of time where it's not sufficiently windy, right, well, I guess, storage and transmission. Yeah. Because that energy generation is not necessarily happening, where you need all that dried. But it's moving, right. So the storage technologies moving fast, why it's one of the area's size, getting a lot of a lot of investment right now. Because, you know, it's been clearly identified as one of the critical technologies, and I think it's progressing very well. But what is obviously a bit more challenging from a kind of political perspective is transmission, because you actually need potentially build more like transmission lines like to actually transport the renewable energy from A to B. And, for instance, Malaysia has said that they're not going to do that for for Singapore to transmit renewable energy from Malaysia to Singapore, I guess they want to keep it all for themselves. Right. So this becomes another different political game again, unless the country you know, has that kind of capacity. I mean, obviously, you know, it's all very gloomy, you know, what we're here, you know, politically and with a lot of, you know, the way the world seems to be moving from an environmental perspective at the moment, but I'm just trying to think of well, you know, for, again, trying to put up slightly more positive spin on a little bit technology tipping point, you think that all make the rush to renewables faster, like advanced advancements and storage technology? Because there is a move all right to renewables. Yeah, so I think with solar instead of a tipping point, it's been a, a steady declining curve in terms of cost. I mean, solar energy the panel's used to be very, very expensive, they have come down a lot, every year something like I don't know, 92% in 10 years or something like that. It's like number in my mind. So, and that's still continuing with winds. It's it's not quite the same, but But you know, all the time these things are, you know, very steadily becoming, you know, much more affordable and wind and solar are definitely very competitive already in in terms of the power generation itself. In terms of universities, sorry, sorry, but the investment as well, right. That's one of the things that's been struggling, the government's haven't been investing in this technology, there's not enough subsidizing the fossil fuel. So it's the direction turns and the money gets focused where it needs to go. And then and then the battery storage to move move energy around the world, or do we have pipelines? You know, those sorts of things that that's there's no agreement yet that I've seen where our path has been determined. So, but yeah, the focus needs to absolutely move in that direction. Yeah, I think the biggest challenge is political ones actually creating the right, you know, environment for the investments to fall in. I mean, it's flowing at a certain level, but more is needed. Yeah. If you say, if you see the future map of the world, when we get we go through significant warming the mainland of Australia apart from a little bit of green, about Perth, they're expecting it to be covered in solar panels. So Australia will basically be an energy producer with solar panels that that will then be captured and shipped around the world. But basically, Tasmania, and Perth is pretty much the only parts of Australia that will continue to be livable. So you know, it's it's pretty amazing when you when you look at the potential outcomes. Alright, so the next one is the methane reduction commitment. And this was definitely something I was paying attention to. Because it's, it's the easiest thing to do, it gets the quickest results and advisors time, right. So that's always been the case. But before it even began, the Australian rejected the US and EU call for global methane agreement. But this was announced that they would cut greenhouse gas gas emissions by 30%. By 2030. More than 100 camps, countries have signed up. And Russia, China and India are not part of this pledge, or commitments are obviously voluntary. But like I said, it reduces it reduces. It just basically reducing methane buys us time. So it's an important one, just I think there's a lot of people that might not might not know about methane, but it's a it's one of the it's one of the gases that is in great increased exponentially. And they believe that it contributes a significant punch when it comes to the rapid warming that we've seen in recent years. So you got you guys looking into the methane side? Very much. So actually, I think when when you say that it has increased dramatically, I believe there's some truth in that, but also our ability to detect methane leaks have increased, you know, improved a lot. So we actually now have satellite technology that can detect bigger methane leaks from the space, whereas previously, we were relying on infrared cameras, quite, you know, nearby sites where leaks were expected. And with those infrared cameras, you cannot even estimate the volume accurately. So you really need the satellite technology for that. Sorry, something going on with my wife. But yeah, of course, apart from you know, industrial gas production, drilling and all that are fracking, it's cows that produce methane. So, you know, it's something that we can all do something about by reducing our our beef consumption of the other ruminants, although, what's also a bit of, I would say, misunderstanding is that people often think all like cattle farming is the same which is not true. So, if you actually have cattle, you know living in more natural environments, CrossFit and so on, they actually produce far less methane overall not just not just through the enteric fermentation, but because of the they also work there many are back into the soil where it access the natural fertilizer. And they also now some coming upcoming fertilizers industrially produced but also like an kelp plants that actually reduce the enteric fermentation in the cows. But still, my point is, this is something that we all can do something. Yeah. So one of the things that Greenpeace Greenpeace said was that, you know, they're basically left. They like, what is it big agriculture off the hook. And I know this is one of your your areas, Suzanna. But meat, you know, getting commitments to changing diets, so the meat more plant based, but also things like rice fields, the way rice fields are managed, that there's, there's a way to, for that to be managed, so that it doesn't release methane. So there's a lot of different aspects to it. But the other thing is us all composting. You know, let's stop organic material going into into into rubbish tips. You know, so we've got a big part to play. But there's but there's but there's the biggest story in fracking, I think is one of the reasons why it's increased so dramatically in recent years as well. But this is this is important, because methane can dissipate within 10 years, whereas co2 sort of hangs around in the atmosphere for hundreds of 1000s of years. So if we can cut it, and like, you know, I think there's 900. And, sorry, let me find it, there's 900, or 9000, it's important that I say the right one, oil fields in the US, I can't find it, to which are leaking, Nathan, but basically, the Gup if anything's happened to these, if it's since 2015. If any, the companies are responsible for these oil fields, but before 2015, nobody's responsible. So there's all these oil fields in the US just leaking methane, and they just need to be plugged in. But nobody's taking responsibility for it summon some of them, and they've been owned by oil companies anymore, you know, they go back to the beginning. So there's all these just this leaking methane everywhere. And 40% of methane is produced from the natural world. So it's not all from us, but 60% is from us now. Let me find that number. Yeah, and one problem associated with that. So one big risk coming away is that as I would say, the big oil and gas company to start to divest, you know, they sell their wells to some other parties who are perhaps not so big, and not so much under scrutiny. Yeah. Who's Who's Who's then overseeing what, what? What happens to those wells? I mean, the code, the contracts are sort of companies, not just the oil and gas companies, but the contracts that they sign. And trust me, I've seen some absolutely horrifying. Okay, so it wasn't 9000 It's 900,000 sites in the US, uh, basically, unregulated, and nobody's fixing them, and nobody's paying attention. And there are people obviously trying desperately to plug up all these holes, but 900,000 sides 2015. What's also been identified, as, you know, fair adjustment mechanisms is that, you know, instead of drilling new oil wells, you know, let's get the skilled people to seal this wells properly. Obviously, someone needs to pay, but we'd actually have good useful these people at should no longer be employed in new exploration. Exactly. It's the payment of the job, because nobody's taking ownership. And that's the big problem. It's an interesting side of the story to dig into, if you're, if you're interested in it. One thing, though, about this methane agreement that we should keep paying attention to is, it's actually the execution of it. Obviously, you know, as of now, the 30% reduction does not actually apply per country. So there is that like, kind of loophole again to say, so two parties have signed it have committed to jointly reduce the methane emissions by 30%, not by country. So accountability and further collaboration in that field, further agreements will be critical. But we all have a part to play about 8% of methane emissions are on us and the way we consume and, and get rid of our waste so we can contribute. And I think I think we should be all sunny to step up into that. And one one really important thing here in Asia where a lot of rice is eaten, you know, rises. What is it? Well, half of the agricultural methane emissions if I'm not mistaken, but you know, let's not waste white rice. Let's not waste rice at all. It's a pity if we do that. All right, anything anything to add? The next the next big deal was deep deforestation commitment. So more than 100 Road leaders have promised to end and reverse deforestation by 2030. And my first reaction is why are we waiting a decade? Really? Why? I mean, I just just drives me nuts. And I'm based again, you know, Bolsonaro from Brazil, he's really comfortable signing this because he's got another decade of destruction. And, you know, the Amazon can't basically can cannot survive another decade of what's been going on in 2020. deforestation in the Amazon reached an all time high. So, yeah, we just, you know, that, yeah, we can't do it. The Indonesia like, it's another depressing one. Because it's something again, we've known about for so long, yeah. But it's this link between development and deforestation. Again, as the issue it's just, you know, the point I was kind of alluding to a little bit earlier that there seems to be a sense that in order to develop, you've got to use dirty northern your fuel. And you've got to deforest, which is what the rich countries did a long time ago, right? Or at least the smaller one, certainly Western Europe, again, have used the UK as an example. There's hardly anything used to be a forest and country, there's hardly any left. So there's this kind of assumption that for Indonesia, for example, I think one of the ministers got up and said, Look, developments are priority. We've signed this, but developments are priority. So this assumption that in order to develop, you've got to deforest, somehow, that link needs to be broken. I think it's a bit of a bit of an issue. I think the Brazilians tried to get onto that. I know, in a pre Bolsonaro government was much more focused on, you know, the rights of indigenous people and looking at ways in which they could protect the forest and so forth. But that seems to have somewhat fallen by the wayside. And in recent years, so somehow breaking that link, I think is, you know, between development and deforestation, why can you only develop a DeForest by destroying your environment? Yeah. How we'll come to that. I'm not sure. But the good news. So the good news is Brazil did sign they didn't sign last time in Russia, Russia and China signed as well. So it's been it's not bad. And there was also a pledge of 14 billion in public and private funding. So 2030 is too far. I mean, yeah. It's very depressing. Just in the time I've been here and knowing Indonesia and just seeing the rate of deforestation. Forests, the places that Sumatra with absolutely nothing. And it's both in Malaysia and Asia, and DeForest, at a frightening rate and the capital city of Indonesia is moving there. Yeah, right. The first time this kind of agreement has been made some some wondering what's what's going to be different. Now. But then again, we also broaden the perspective you look at Europe or whatever. You're have also a long time ago, but cleared most of its forest, right. And I do see the argument of this country's saying, hey, you know, why should we be the lungs of the world? And of course, they've been compensation efforts earlier, like, nobody pledges today pay Indonesia $1 billion. I think some money was transferred. But that agreement was just actually cancelled. I don't know all the details, but probably quite problematic execution. So what's going to be different now? I'm not quite sure. What isn't the best isn't necessary. Now in 2021. For a country that seeks to development the right word for a country that seems to make the quality of life of its of its citizens better? Is it necessary to go through the same process as the European countries went through? I mean, can't they you know, those are the character isn't necessarily DeForest. I mean, that we didn't we're service based economies. Now. I mean, back in the day, it was all one of the reasons they do for a variety of reasons, I guess a lot of the things were made out of goods, right. And of course, they were, you know, agrarian societies that came overpopulated or more. I mean, this is a big economy question, of course, but if you look at some of the, you know, the top export products of Indonesia, in this case, it's it's oil and gas and palm oil, right, and the world's demand for palm oil is growing and growing. And it must be said that in terms of like, oil plants, palm oil is actually very, very productive. It provides a much higher yield per hectare than you know, rapeseed, or things like that. So So in principle, palm oil as as the plant is a rather effective one is just the the way that land is cleared and then manage the social connotations that are very, very problematic the loss of biodiversity of course, I mean, the fundamental problem is that we need this kind of rich ecosystems to, you know, sequester carbon and so on. And, you know, kind of intact natural reserves usually sequester much more carbon than like monoculture plantations. But okay, what would Indonesia export instead of palm oil and oil and gas? I mean, that is really the question. Alone. One thing I remember learning again, a long time ago, and economics was this concept of externalities, which most you know, if you're, if you're polluting you pay for it, if you're causing damage to the environment, pay for a boiler is far too cheap. Shouldn't I mean, I know in business, people are talking about tracking carbon emissions, ESG is a big thing, and so on. So as you can see, cool damage has been done all the way along the supply the supply chain, and we've talked about carbon taxes over and over again, over Australia, it was a big thing, what 10 years ago or so, and it never actually went through, but it shouldn't be some kind of mechanism where where something what are the problems with palm oil is it's so cheap, right? That we actually pay for the damage that we're causing. That's right. But that's kind of again, it's up to the food companies and us as consumers as to it's not just the food companies per mile is in household cleaning products. Cosmetics, it's supermarket production, chips taxes, taxes, things that are damaging whether taxes Dhaka, for example, come to But one interesting notice when it comes to fossil fuels, like if you look at the US economy, and like the stock markets, I mean, the stock market growth has been totally decoupled from the energy sector, which is largely fossil fuel based, a long time ago, already to the point that Exxon Mobil was kicked out of the the key indices. So I would say it is possible for economies to grow and prosper without being, you know, fossil fuel dependent. Palm oil is a is a different topic as well. But I would go on and say that it's possible to grow without power, but just have to be inventive otherwise. And we also need to look at solving the jobs like how the countries survive, if we say no to these industries. And the other, the other huge issue we've got to deal with is corruption. You know, it's a massive problem for many, many countries in this region. And lack of transparency. Yeah. Agreed. You know, and I think I think another big issue is ignorance. For the people on the ground working, who aren't necessarily connected like we are, they don't, they're just doing what they're doing to survive. I mean, we've seen a lot of backward steps in Africa, with wildlife since the pandemic began, because a lot of what we created the sustainable tourism, which attracted money and, and good jobs sort of disappeared overnight. So what do people do, they go back to what they had to do to survive. So we've got it, it's all about sort of approaching it holistically. But the deforestation deal, the pledge, sorry, was signed by Canada, Brazil, Russia, China, Indonesia, we know that they walked back the next day. But there was some young people criticizing their ministers on social media for doing that, by the way, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the US and UK. And so that basically covers about 85% of the world's forests. So, you know, it is seen as a significant step forward, but I think all of us have to have to really stand up and speak up. And we need to demand the companies that we buy from, have deforestation free products, you know, so that's the palm oil, cocoa. I mean, there's so many soy, you know, there's rubber. So, and of course, that to do that, how do we get to them, we've got this other whole layer of the supply chain. So the companies that you buy work with a supply chain, so there hasn't traditionally been responsibility for the total supply chain. So companies are wiping their hands of what goes on further down the road, right. And so they first of all, they've got to take total responsibility for the supply chain. And I think we need to and we can do that. And we've seen great examples of companies brands that have been destroyed, because they've shown that they've got products or, you know, like Egyptian cotton, that isn't Egyptian cotton, so it completely destroys the brand. So I think we're gonna see forensics supply chain specialists. That's going to be a new career, and it's going to be a huge, huge industry. Probably a dangerous one, who will basically be out there monitoring the supply chain for companies are right across industry. So I think that's something that's going to have to have to happen. Technology will be a big part of that as well. So I think the supply chain is a big part of the story to a lot of businesses are talking about Amina, I just happened to catch, I think it was the, you know, the UK Managing Director of Accenture, talking about how, you know, they're working towards finding ways of, of measuring carbon footprints throughout their supply chain. So I think it's something that a lot of a lot of organizations are certainly onto. And it's not, it's not, again, they see money, and it is not just because it's, you know, they're not just doing it to be will be wonderful people, they see there's some benefit, they can they can gain out of it. So it doesn't, sorry, it's just saying sap the German software company, they have recently announced a carbon footprint product, carbon footprint management software that would allow corporate buyers to actually know what's, what's the carbon footprint of the products. They're buying, I think quite early stage steel for that product. But you know, something like this is a company with 88% penetration in the global supply chains can pull this off, I can actually have a very big impact, I think, yeah, I was like things like the fashion industry. You know, it's such a dirty industry, the consumer goods industry, you know, that it's it's deep and complex. But I think I feel I mean, I've been talking about the supply chain responsibility for a very long time, but I feel that that it's finally the lens is starting to go that way. And the businesses are starting to recognize that they, I think Disney got a really bad had a brand image problematic after the Bangladesh building collapsed, you remember that when they left the country, rather than staying and fixing the problem and working conditions for women. So they left the country. So then a whole bunch of brands said, right, we're gonna we're gonna do more, we're gonna do better. And the fashion industry still still terrible, but don't buy fast fashion. But yeah, I think I think the lens is finally there. And people are starting to get business perspectives. And we talked a bit of in technology, we talked about these paradigm shifts, but I think a lot of companies recognize that there is a, you know, a move, it's slower than it should be, but a move towards towards renewables. And they want to be part of that. Yeah. It's also protecting, it's going to be about protecting the brand. Because if you get linked into one of these stories, you can destroy your brand overnight. So and if you're younger consumers more so I always feel Andre, after we see some scandal around one of the big oil companies, they still doesn't seem to impact them significantly. They got to find that, you know, seems a huge amount of global. Yeah, I think it's more on the consumer industry. Yeah. I think that's where it's gonna matter more shame, shame will be part of the story as well. So just moving on, like, so we talked about like India, they've made a commitment to of 2017, which seems like an incredibly long way off, but it's the first time they've made a commitment. And so if they get the investment, so they've demanded$1 trillion in climate finance, to invest in the infrastructure that they need, so that number could significantly come down. China's also say 2060, and Nigeria has pledged 2016. So I don't know if you guys know this, Nigeria is going to be the third most populous nation on earth soon. So that's an important one. But one of the complications we've got with all of this country, pledges is the rising nationalism. We, we got to we got to we're all in this together. You know, we've all got to do it together. So but the other industry that's really, really important to this conversation is the financial industry. So Suzanna, what have you been reading there? As far as obligations from the finance industry? Because it's been a fairly feisty week on that front? Yeah, so Carney so the former regulator from UK has been making quite a lot of noise of our sustainable finance announced that 450 firms representing 130 3 billion USD of assets on our part of the so called Glasgow financial alliance for net zero, and so more companies have have joined this pledge, as part of which the signatories commit to sign a science based guidelines to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Or actually, they say mid century not 2050. And to also have 2030 interim goals. So I think one thing, first of all to note about this is that some media outlets have put out the headline as $133 million. We're now earmarked for sustainable development. But unfortunately, that is not the case. So this really is the 100 and 30 trillion covers the assets on the management of the signatories, although there are also some double counting questions and so on. Unless, yes, this is another blanch, it's, you know, it gives direction, but obviously, you know, the financial industry plays a pivotal role, but to today has quite questionable track record in actually taking climate action, in my view. So if you look at pension funds, also big, big names in the financial industry, in average, I read that 7% of all pensions would still be invested in fossil fuels. And, you know, we talked about the stranded assets risk. So I think this is a significant one, for actors overly. And, and obviously, you know, financial institutions are at great risk of all physical climate risks. You know, for instance, if you fund agricultural operations or trading, and the yields are destroyed, whether it's by hurricanes or drought, or rising sea levels, you know, this is risks, we'll come back to the bank. So on one hand, I'm quite pleased with the with the development in the financial industry to actually start credit scrutinizing their risk positions better, and also develop their their policies and policies. But it's still a long way to go. I think this week, also, some NGOs, announced the winners of the fossil fuel funding banks. I can't remember which one was it HSBC, or Barclays, and they made quite some noise around that giving them awards about, you know, despite all this talk, and, you know, policies, you know, banks effectively it was most I think it was industry, right. There was the one where they were showing there was a dance group, I think they had VP signs, was that the one you were talking about? Do you remember which ones it was? The protests have been interesting, but the other, but the other thing that keeps coming up, and Greta, Greta went off to county over is offsetting, right? So offsetting is one of those things that just drives me nuts, because we, you know, so for most people who don't get it, so rich countries go to poor countries, and they pay for the offsets. So those countries aren't doing bad things. So they don't have to that like they can offset against them. But then you've got a country like Russia, which is has this huge forest. And because they have a huge forest set off, it offsets all of their all the bad stuff that's coming out. So basically, we just every, every country on earth just needs to bring it down, we just need to bring it down. So offsetting isn't isn't the answer. And it's actually looking like in a market that's going to explode. And it's actually it's actually what we don't need right now. Because because it means you continue that behavior, and you just offset it against somebody else who's doing it. Yeah, I mean, there's obviously, first of all, there are two kinds of carbon credits, which are associated with offsetting. So for instance, the European Union has the coupling and create a carbon carbon emissions trading scheme, the et Cie. So the European Union mandates that certain industries are only allowed to emit so and so much and per tonne of emissions that they allowed to image they need to pay a price and it's it's a traded price. So it's there's a market for this kind of carbon credits. And and so, countries that can effectively you know, sequester carbon or avoid emissions can actually sell such credits to such schemes as as well. And then on the other hand, we have the so called voluntary carbon markets where, you know, countries or regulations do not mandate companies to buy these carbon offsets, but they do so voluntarily, mostly in the interest of improving the image or pushing the guild to the consumers for for flying driving. What Not. So if we look at the efficacy of such mechanisms, from historical data, we actually do see that in those mandatory carbon markets such as the European FC, there's actually be been emission reductions have been achieved, somewhat order it because of low prices in the past. But now those carbon prices are at a record high since months. So a ton of a carbon credit, offsetting credit on them compliance market in Europe is around 60 euro per tonne. Whereas if we look at the voluntary carbon offsets that are sold, those start at like five Euro USD per tonne aren't necessary have very high quality. And this is where, you know, companies justify their business as usual, saying, hey, you know, by trying this kilometer, you paid one cent euro per liter. And now, you know, we've offset it with the forestry conservation project in I don't know, look under somewhere. And indeed, kureta Tom Burke is criticizing this very heavily Korean bees as well. And and to the degree rightly so, because fact is, we're putting over 40 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions co2 equivalent emissions into the atmosphere a year, and the capacity to actually reduce carbon emissions or sequester more carbon. It's far less than that. So if you look at the IPCC scientists work, they're saying that at maximum under very favorable conditions with good funding, and you know, when everything goes right, by 2050, we might be able to offset 20 gigatons. Yeah. And steel, we're putting over 40 into the atmosphere. So I think what everyone really needs to understand that the capacity, at least with the technologies and types of things that we know today is very limited. I mean, even the 20 gigatons includes carbon capture and storage and stuff like that. That's not proven yet. So the to think that we can offset our way to carbon neutrality is wrong. Yeah. Yeah. Totally agree. All right. So any, any other thoughts of the week? I mean, let's, I think what we should be doing is leaving everyone with a bit of hope. What do you guys think? I was just thinking that same thing. I'm not sure. We were finding it, but good idea. I mean, I It's so to me, to me, it was like people are great, two things that they haven't agreed to before the world or what the world has woken up younger people. They're angry. They're out there. I mean, even even Greta, Greta tunberg was swearing, did you see that she's using fallen word say stage. She's a big girl. And please don't criticize. She's an 18 year old in public. I, if I was an 18 year old republic, I would have sworn a long time ago. But yeah, so I, you know, I think you know, that the energy of the youth and then I was talking earlier about the demographics, like the, the younger people have got more power now. So they've got to vote. We've got to get out there, we've got to keep pressure on, we've got to not believe what we're reading, we've got to look between the lines, we've got to you know, and we've got to make sure that the cut, we hold the companies and and the government's accountable. If we work for a business, you've got to get in there and make sure that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. Become an environment champion within the business. But I think, you know, the, the energy is rising. We we more people are aware now. I mean, we well, in surely past the tipping point of awareness. So I have hoping that you know, and even though there's a lot of old, you know, I don't think anyone over 60 should be allowed to be in politics anymore. It should be everybody should only be under 60 Because they're the people who are going to be impacted by this. But but so that Boris Johnson would still get in, right, he's under 60. But yeah, I think I think we're just gonna we're just going to put all our energy and focus and, and contribute ourselves to what we can do. You know, every single one of us has got to change our way of life. We maybe I'm being an optimist, but I think there will be, you know, mentioned earlier a tipping point because the cost of renewables is going down and down and the storage technology we're talking about is maturing super fast. So I think hopefully, we'll get to a stage where those that are just feel they need to use this very old technology that you know, feel they have to go through the same processes. These European companies when they will just start looking like economic insanity because it'll be more expensive as well as, as dirtier So that's that's a kind of hope that I have from puppet. And I think that that's feasible, just the amount of money that's going into renewables at the moment. I think it's not enough. But it's increasing. So I think there's a very strong chance that that might happen. And there's a lot of individuals that are billionaires. Yeah. Right around the world who, who are putting all of their focus into the give that trillion dollars to India? Yeah. But actually, over a period of time, you probably could. Yeah, but this is obviously a lot. And there's a guy in Australia, who was one of the he got rich off coal, but he's now turning it all around and turning them into I can't remember what it is. But it was really, really promising. So there's lots of really good stuff like that. So, Suzanna, to me, I think what I'm taking away from cop 26, so far as is that these conversations are mainstream now. You may not feel like that in certain countries. But in most countries, you know, these are the dinner table conversations. You know, these are the conversations happening happening at at at workplaces. The pressure is is mounting. And yeah, we're not quite there yet. But we just have to keep going. And if if anyone that young people keep pushing us. We have to keep going. Yep, we will. Yep. We will. And I let I am always an optimist. But and I would say that for me, young people are so inspiring. I'm so glad. There's there's a big shift a huge shift, and how they're looking at things. And I'm originally from the US. I've lived in Singapore for 23 years. I'm not sure I'm going back to the US in a couple of weeks. I'm not sure if there's a tipping point of information there that people enough people have gotten. I'm not sure how many conversations around the dinner table. They're having however, I'm I'm going to get a sense when I go there. But I do know that yes, this information is getting out in mainstream media. And there aren't our climate events happening there that I think have been shocking in the last few years. And it will continue. And I think at some point, you know, as I was saying, Bring the outhouse and it's not quite the same metaphor. But when you are actually experiencing it, then it's it. I'm guessing it'll seem more real. So that's my dad in young people totally there. And I have to report back and, and hopefully, Murdoch's change of focus in Australia will be translated out to his other media assets, especially in the US, which I think would be significant. It hasn't happened yet. Would be we need the advertisers in the US to demand it. Yeah, that Yeah. I mean, if Fox, Fox News had a turnaround on climate, that would be a significant contributor. Right? And then the media, the media is huge responsibility in this makes huge. No, anyway, so keep the hope alive, make sure you vote for people that actually care. And, you know, we've go and solve what you can solve, if you've got a if you've got a solution to a problem, get out there and, and get active. I've been reading a lot of very successful people are actually leaving their jobs and basically moving full time into to work to save the planet. And I think that that's pretty much what I've been doing this year as well, right. Let's get out there. We, you know, we've got no time to lose. And it's an opportunity to step up and, you know, make make a difference. We can all do it. We shouldn't just rely on the young paper to do it. You shouldn't. It's not right. All right. All right. Get over here. We should go to the final bit, which is anything keeping you distracted at the moment other than the climate crisis, because it's been a really busy week of trying to keep up with everything that's been coming out. So if you guys been paying attention, have you looked at anything else? Podcast book? Anything? Yeah. Edie? So I used to live in the state of Virginia, you may remember and resize to what basically Washington DC so I live just over the over the river. So I do you take a keen interest in politics Exodus 20 years ago, when I saw a change taking place that used to be traditionally very much a Republican state, but as the DC suburbs kind of expanded, it became more of a Democrat leaning state. And you know, that much change has gone on I think, in some of the other urban areas became more Democrat leaning, so I was fascinated by the gubernatorial race taking place this week. I'm sure some of you other folks But watching it. And obviously, to me, there were some obviously some kind of unpleasant, depressing sides. But I tried to put as positive spin as I possibly could on it, which is that I think it may be the start of a movement by the Republican Party to detach itself from Donald Trump. Because the guy Pro that was a big turnout, you could argue they couldn't, they couldn't talk about vote rigging or anything like that. So they got a big, big turnout. And this is a moderate is not a Trump hype. Right, which I guess by Republican standards these days means you are right. So yeah, so this guy managed managed to win by conventional means with a with a with a huge turnout and detached himself from Donald Trump. I mean, I don't agree with his politics. But nevertheless, I think it's, I don't know, I tried to put a positive spin on it. I was hoping he wouldn't. But I knew if he didn't they just be, yeah, they make the vote, they were cheating, etc, etc. And that all went quiet. So I was fascinated by that. Because I think that might be the start of a change. I certainly hope it is. But I think it might be the start of a change in Republican politics in the United States. Yeah. I believe the Democrats wake up, they just, they just don't see the fire. That was a problem there, too. Yeah. But if you can beat them and policies, and you don't need to play these, these Trumpian games. Yeah. Same thing. So I was following that to Andrew. And that's the only ray of sunshine I saw, and that he's stepping away from Trump. And hopefully, others will see that they can win if they do that as well. The other thing I just sort of was looking at this week as it's not new, but it's in Afghanistan. Families selling daughters, like nine year old daughters have to be married to 50 plus year old men, so that the family can eat. And it's, it's, it's a distressing turn of events, not that it's new, but still. Anyway, I've just been following. And to be expected, right? Especially, I mean, the man of origin young girls that have been sold in the last couple of years around the world. And we it's hard for us to understand but yeah, yeah. Alright, Susanna. Yeah, I have a totally different kind of distraction. It's a thing called SurfSki. No, yeah, I kind of figure it's, it's been invented in South Africa also. So if you think of surfing, kayaking, and kind of mix that something like that I've I'm getting myself into quite interesting. Yeah. Yeah, this risk of No. Great. Yeah, to get away from it for a little while. So yes, ska sounds like a surfboard with a sail on it. Right. It's, it's actually more like, what used to be called kayak, but you don't call it kayak anymore, but then you can kind of surf waves with that. Yeah, looking at images. Yes. Yeah. Well, so I finally got myself into Tesla. So have you guys watched it yet? Hmm. I guess I didn't watch it as I couldn't find it. Anyway, it's on Apple TV. And it's just a really beautiful, meaningful. He's, he's one of these people who's a realist, and he's positive. And he walks through the world, making people's lives better. But this, but there's deep complexity to his character as well. And, you know, just love to, and if you want to have a break, and you just want to watch, and it's really funny. It's very British. It's very, it's Ted leso. And it's based around two female characters in absolutely sensational. Potty mouths abound, which I love. So yeah, if you're looking for a good distraction, and you just want to sort of take your mind away, that's what I need to do sometimes. Yeah, it's really really good. Alright, so I'm gonna walk. Oh, he definitely should. Huh? All right, we haven't got Tim and Joe here. So we're keeping it tight today, which is awesome. Only an hour and a half. Look guys, thanks so much for coming. Suzanne is going to join me next Friday where we're going to we're going to do another wrap up with some other people because you too unavailable but really talking about what everything else that's going to happen between now and next Friday. But thanks so much for joining us because I know that you're all really paying attention to what's going on and Susanna especially but Randy and Kathy, I really I vote I've always admired the way you guys pay attention to what's going on in the world. And so I really appreciate you being here and coming back as well. So thanks, guys. Great. Thank you. Yeah. We'll see you next week. Come and join us. And I'm going to upload this on the podcast on common carriage as soon as I can. So if you prefer to listen to it on audio, it'll be there. And yeah, come and join us every Friday. We're just having a chinwag about what matters, and hopefully it helps people sort of get up to date. So we'll see you next week. All right. Thank you guys. Bye