Inside COP: The Final Hours of COP30 - and the road ahead

(upbeat music) - Hello and welcome to Inside Cop. I'm Tom Rificanec. - I'm Cristiana Fieris. - And I'm Paul Dickinson. - And sadly-- - We have lost Fii. - Yeah, well-- - To the airplane. She had to go home. - Come along technology. Let's work on how we can podcast from airplanes. It's the next step. - Heroic Fiona, after three weeks in Brazil, has made her way justifiably home. But we are gonna wrap up what happened in the final plenary and what it means, thanks for being here. (upbeat music) - Okay, so in this final episode of Inside Cop, we wanna do a few things. We wanna think about what happened today. There's been some pretty remarkable drama on the floor of the United Nations in Bel-Am. We wanna talk about what's in that package and what it means politically. And then we might also talk about a few of other up. Our other impressions over the course of the last few weeks. So that's our objective, to kind of wrap up the last two weeks of reporting on the ground that has been such a monumental effort by our amazing team, Ben and Caitlin, in particular, huge shout out, who have been working around the clock. - Persephoneka. - Persephoneka with a team in Australia and others, huge thank you to you both. And I'm sure we'll cover that again later. But let's first get into what happened today because there was quite a bit of high drama. There was an ambitious text that came out and then that was replaced by a de minimis text. We talked about that already. And then going into today, we had no text, but we knew the cop had to close. The cop presidency eventually released a text that was a little more ambitious, but not really much more ambitious. Do you think that's fair, Christiana, than the previous de minimis one? And then took it into plenary. Paul, you were there. Tell us how was this opened? - Yeah, well, so let's focus on that taking into plenary and the plenary, you know, as you start at 10 a.m. and then the plenary is due to start at 11 a.m. And then the plenary is due to start at 12 noon. And I think it was about 12.40 when the plenary did start. And as I think is a tradition, there were certain kind of procedural comments made by the president. And then the agreements were supported or passed or gaveled through as he kind of hit the hammer. - I have Columbia. - So then after that gaveling process, Columbia had an objection. - Thank you, Mr. President. And I have to express that Columbia is very concerned about the procedural issues happening in this plenary. Columbia raised a point of order before the mitigation work program was gaveled. And that point of order was ignored. The cop of the truth cannot support an outcome that ignores science. According to the IPCC, nearly 75% of global CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels. There is no mitigation if we cannot discuss transitioning away from fossil fuels with means of implementation in a just orderly. - After two interventions by Columbia, the proceedings ceased or halted and then followed a period of, you know, considerably more than an hour where the presidency was talking with presumably lawyers and other advisors about what to do and how to proceed. And then- - But Paul, do I understand correctly that the reason why this was such a huge issue is because Columbia had expressly asked for the floor before the gaveling and a few other countries as well. And the cop president gaveled without giving Columbia the floor. That is the issue. - That is exactly correct. And I had even assumed that, you know, he didn't seem to be kind of looking out at the floor. And therefore I had assumed that this was a kind of expected way to proceed, but apparently not from those countries. - And I think what was then happening when they were all on the stage looking at who was there is they were having a discussion to determine whether the gaveling still stood despite the objection being raised after the gaveling moment, albeit for an objection about what might have happened before the gaveling moment. And he came back and gave that conclusion together with a pretty remarkable sort of personal admission, didn't he, Paul? - I mean, maybe we'll hear it. - Had a deeply regret, I was not made aware of the request of the parties to take the floor. As many of you I have not slept and probably this has not helped as well as my advanced age. So-- - And he was apologetic and he took personal responsibility. Let's just pause. What a good guy. - What a gentleman because, you know, what he did when they were all huddling there is he consulted with all of his legal advisors and the secretariat's legal team. And they told him what we know that once it's gaveled, it has to stick. But he knew that Columbia for sure and maybe some other parties would be hugely upset. They were already hugely upset. So the fact that he had the magnanimous character to take the hit, to assume personal responsibility, to be humble and vulnerable and say, I was tired, I made a mistake, I am dealing with my age. I actually really admire him for that. I think it was the only way out for him because he couldn't go back on it. He was really stuck between a rock and a hard place. But the grace with which he did it, I thought was admirable. - Christiana, I totally take your point. And I think he behaved like a consummate gentleman as he's proved himself to be. Of course, the fact that as something as consequential and important as a UN negotiation and whether a country's desire to take the floor is seen by a chair is in any way left to chance, is I'm sure a source of enormous anger. And surely there should be procedures in place to ensure that these sorts of emissions don't happen because these have real world consequences for sovereignty and for all of us in the full climate change. - No, absolutely. And every state is sovereign and every state has the right to be heard when they request the floor. And it certainly brought back memories from previous cops that shall remain unnamed about similar situations. I just realized that having made the mistake, whether it was intended that he didn't look up because he wanted to gavel, we don't know, or maybe it was truly a mistake that he didn't see anyone. Either way, once he gaveled, he was really stuck with it. - Yeah, yeah, he was. And it's tricky, isn't it? 'Cause I mean, on the one hand, I totally hear that he had to do that. And on the other, those who wanted to have their points of order noted must have left that plenary hall really, really angry. - Huge. - Yeah. - Well, with anyone on the head, a strange statement from Russia, quite lengthy supporting the presidency and the agreement and criticizing as greedy children stealing sweets, people who it would object. - Comrades and colleagues from Latin America to launch and appeal to you to refrain from behaving like children who want to get your hands on all the sweets and aren't prepared to share them with everyone you want and then want to stuff the sweets down your throat until you make yourself thick. - I think, and my entire delegation thinks that our president, the gentleman leading us through COP 30, succeeded in threading the needle and succeeded in steering the boat of these difficult negotiations through this arduous and challenging process. - There was quite a firm statement from Saudi Arabia asking the president to confirm that the agreement had been gaveled. And there were other points made. - Yeah, I think in general, going beyond the specific grave situation there with Colombia, I think in general, developing countries feel like they did not get what they came to Belém to get. I believe Colombia asked for the floor and was not seen as a country, but Colombia is a very leading member of ILAC, which is the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean, which has been a negotiating group for many years and is typically the high-ambition group in Latin America that meets the ambition of the small island states, for example, and vulnerable countries and is always negotiating in terms of more protection for those countries that are being worst hit. So yes, Colombia was the one who requested the floor, but I think that there are, I know for a fact from all of the discussions last night that it was the developing countries that felt that they were not being heard, that their interests were not in the text. And there were quite a few Latin Americans and Europeans, in fact, also who seriously considered walking away because there was nothing in the text that represented their interest. And so the fact that they all worked through the night to crawl their way into the text and find the different articles and the different paragraphs where they could actually insert hooks, as they call it, hooks that represent their interest is unbelievable against all odds, against all exhaustion that they worked that in and then were grudgingly, I must say, willing to take the text that I think certainly last night more represented the interests of those who want to delay action rather than those who want more and faster action. - Oh, well, quite so. I mean, there were these other interventions, Panama or Uruguay or Sierra Leone. - Panama is deeply disappointed. You promised a transparent process and it's not what we're seeing. (speaking in foreign language) So my remarks, we refer to the decision regarding the GGA and supporting what Panama just said. - So we must ask ourselves, how are we helping the most vulnerable if this is the quality of the outcomes we call ambition? What message does it send when a process builds to elevate our needs, ends by diminishing expert work and overlooking the realities of those on the front lines? (upbeat music) - Here's the process of what happened on the final day and the drama was pretty high. I've got to say it was far higher than I anticipated 24 hours ago. The Closing Plenary, as you've ably described Paul was, was dramatic and emotionally charged. And Christiana, it would be great to now turn to you if you're willing, because this package is being met with quite a bit of ambiguity. You know, we know that there was an attempt to include something quite crunchy on fossil fuels and forests and a roadmap away from them. Those things weren't there, but there was some other elements that were replaced. How do you see the package that came out of the LEM? And how do you assess it? And what do you think, given where we are 10 years on from Paris, we just love to hear your thoughts. - Well, I'm going to go out on the LEM here because if I think forward when the dust settles and when everyone has finally gotten some sleep and when emotions begin to calm down, I think the question that is going to be on everybody's mind, both they who were there plus many people who weren't there was, was this a radical success or a dramatic failure? And the fact is it was neither of the two. And we've been saying this for quite a while that this is not a binary situation in which you can either identify a success or a failure. This is somewhere in between. Now, despite these very intense procedural arguments that we have noted for you in the last few hours, the gavel did go down. And I was quite moved that the countries decided to support multilateralism. That's what they did. They put the value of multilateralism above their country interests and above all the topics that they have been negotiating. And I thought that was a very meaningful and moving moment because I think there was a bell of mindfulness, if I can say it that way, that multilateralism has been having hits this year. Plastics treaty, I am all. And that it is ultimately the only process for federal governments to come together and decide things together. And so to put country interests aside and support multilateralism, I thought was a very important moment. Now, going into the content of what we finally have, listeners will remember that we've been saying right from the start that we have actually at this cop as a whole, in addition to the political agreement here that was gaveled, we have two buckets. And we're gonna talk to you about these two buckets because they actually were both on display and both interacting with each other. And I would argue that there was progress in both buckets, both in the economic reality, but also in the political reality. Now, I would also immediately say much more progress in the economic reality than in the political reality, but even the political reality. As I say, when the dust settles, I think you can find things in that well disputed text that are meaningful. I think the text as it stands achieved important markers that send out two political signals. The first is there is no retreat from previous cops. Sometimes these texts that come out from cops go back to renegotiate and go back to the process, the ongoing process of constant step forward of each cop. I would say that in general, this text holds the baseline of previous cops and it does so in several important ways. One is it recognizes science as the basis for all of these negotiations. And in a world of fake news and false information, the clear support for the IPCC and for the guidance of science, I thought was very important. Secondly, the 1.5 degree temperature ceiling was reiterated in a world in which there's so much discussion about we are now overshooting, we cannot do it. This text reiterates the need. Yes, it says we may overshoot, but it reiterates the need for the 1.5. And the third baseline that it is holding is the full implementation of the nationally determined contributions. Also, because so many countries have been saying, "Well, you know, we can't really do our NDCs." And they came forward and they said, "No, no, no, no." We have to continue doing the NDCs and we have to strive here for full implementation of the NDCs. So at least those three topics, I think, are important because they represent holding the baseline of the previous cops that we've had since the Paris Agreement up until now. Then there's a second category, a second signal, if you will, that was given out, which is can we also look forward toward greater progress after Berlin? And I would argue that if you really look into the text, you can find progress after Berlin. For one thing, a tripling of finance for adaptation, something very requested by developing countries, big step forward that it was tripled. Yes, five years later than they wanted, but tripling adaptation finance, big win. Secondly, they decided to develop something they called the Just Transition Mechanism because so many countries have been arguing, look, the transition, we get it, there has to be a transition, but it has to be just. And then the most fascinating for me was how the cop presidency dealt with the famous roadmaps that were requested by a more than 80 country, a road map on transitioning away from fossil fuels and a road map on deforestation. And as we know, those disappeared in the text that was put on the table yesterday morning and most developing countries were furious about that, absolutely furious. So the way that the presidency dealt with that is twofold. With creative ambiguity, they inserted something called the Global Implementation Accelerator. Now, well, what does that mean? We don't know, but it is one way of restating the need for the roadmaps. And it is now actually a package of processes or roadmaps because it's now a two-year process. Led by the presidencies to both close the gap to the 1.5 and have a process on transitioning away from fossil fuels and halt deforestation. So they put all of that into this Global Implementation Accelerator. It will soon be called the GIA. I am sure it's gonna be called. So you heard it here first. New acronym, new acronym coming in. G-A-G-I-A. - Need another A then it can be Gaia. - Yeah, yeah, yeah, that would be even better. So that was one way that they dealt with it. The other way, he did mention that he is going to release not as a negotiated text, but as he's under his own responsibility, not negotiated, not agreed to, and he's untitled to do that. Something that at least when he announced it, he was calling it the BLIM Transition Compass. I think what he's going to do there is he's going to announce the creation under his own responsibility of the two roadmaps that developing countries want. One for transitioning away from fossil fuels, which was supported by more than 80 countries, and the other one halting and reversing deforestation, supported by more than 90 countries. So I think those two inserting a new acronym into the negotiated texts, and then under his own responsibility, putting out something that speaks to what developing countries need. Now, amen, way too long, but before I turn over to you, Tom, I think it's also important to remember that that political bucket that I've just described in itself is divided into two realms, the international, which I've just described, which is basically what was possible to say at the international level and commit to at the international level, but then there is the domestic political bucket, which in many cases is quite different from what is being said at the international level. What is being done domestically is quite different. And listeners will remember the conversations we had with representatives from China and India as prime examples of the fact that these two countries who didn't want many of these ambitious elements in the text at the international level, actually at the domestic level, they're pushing forward more than anyone else. So amen, sorry, way too long, but difficult to-- - No, it's fascinating. - Difficult to summarize, but Tom, you and Paul were following much more the economic reality, which was also on display at the COP and where I think we know that there is much progress. So how did that bucket do? - Well, we'll definitely turn to that. And I like the concept that we've been following reality, although, you know, reality was in evidence in lots of different places. - It's quite hard around here, but we have. - Thank you for that overview. And thank you also for explaining. I have to say that the Global Implementation Accelerator is one of those hooks in the text that you look at and think, hmm, there's a whole backstory here about where this came from, what it's gonna turn into, what someone's plan is for it. And because I'm looking at this and I'm not actually inside the rooms where they're coming up with the strategy as to what this means. I don't know what all those plans are, but I think you've just peeked in a little bit into the integration of the Global Implementation Agenda. - Accelerator. - The Global Implementation Accelerator and the roadmaps and how those might come together. - Let's just call it. Okay, let's just call it. It's gonna be the GIA. - The GIA, the GIA, Paul. - Just one thing, Christiana there, you talked about like holding the line, holding the baseline, this extraordinary USA pushback, you know, from what a difference a year makes from, you know, President Biden with the Inflation Reduction Act through to, you know, the flat earth speech that Trump gave at the UN. And well, if I might quote you, Christiana, and the BBC quoted you say of the USA, if they don't want to be a part of the ElectroTech Revolution, God bless them, it's their loss. So yeah, good on, welcome me back at some point, USA, but there you are, not there. But my point being with all of that negativity, holding the line, that's good. - Yeah, yeah. - So to that, I wonder if we should then turn to the point that you made, Christiana, about the way in which reality has kind of unfolded and been made visible for us at the COP as well. - And on the-- - The economic reality. - Some big numbers being thrown around there, right? - Yeah. - On the first day I arrived, I started a couple of pages in my document in my notebook that I carry around with me. And I reopened it when I got back and I titled it "The Story I Wish They Would Tell". And I filled it with everything that I learned in the week and a bit that I was there in COP. Some of the data and some of the analysis were announcements that came out of the COP itself. And some were just this moment of reflection back to the world of the progress that we have made and how far we've come in this economic transition. So with your permission, I will tell you the story that I wish they would tell and it has four parts to it. So should we kick off in that direction? - We're inside COP. This is the story that we want to tell. This is the moment. You're on, Son. You're on. - All right, so the first story that I wish they would tell and that we are telling is that the economics have tipped decisively. We are now in a completely different world. Let me give you some data points. And these are things I learned when we were in the COP last week. Solar costs fell 12% last year. That is an astonishing number. Battery storage costs have dropped 93% since 2010. And here's a really big one. 94% of all renewable power installed last year was cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative. And the consequences of that are everywhere. For example, Spain's industry used to pay one third more for electricity than Europe's average. After a massive build out of solar and wind, it now pays 20% less. Pakistan has installed 20 times more solar in the last three years than Canada, France, New Zealand and the UK combined. When we think that this is a global North story rather than a global story, we should think about these statistics. Another one, Uruguay now gets 98% of its electricity from renewables. That has halved costs and created 50,000 jobs. And it's now exporting clean energy. And in California, batteries and a cleaner grid have made the rolling blackouts that we used to see all the time have basically disappeared. And the state hasn't issued emergency alerts for the last four years. This shift has made clean energy cheaper. Momentum has become self-reinforcing. The capital comes first and the policy catches up later. But I think we can call it that shift has decisively happened. Okay, that's the first story. The intersection between the political reality and the economic reality. If we had had an even stronger political signal from the political part of the COP, everything that you've said would likely accelerate more because accelerate is now the word that we're going to use over and over again. But the fact that the political signal is, oh, okay, it's there, but it's not a huge political signal doesn't stop anything that you've talked about. Totally, absolutely. And in fact, these things are unfolding at pace at a national level because it's in an economic interest. Okay, the second thing that blew my mind at COP that is the story I wish they would tell and that we are telling is that, yes, okay, I've talked about how the costs have come down. That's kind of theoretical and you see it in one way. But is it really happening on the ground? Actually, yes. The second point is that deployment of these technologies is accelerating at a pace that nobody has forecast. The IEA, who we know always underestimates the transition, expects renewable electricity generation to rise 60% by 2030. And here's just a few things I learned while we were at the COP. India's renewables have supplied more than half national electricity demand multiple times this year. The solar mini grids in places like Cameroon and Zambia are now bringing power to 30,000 rural homes and businesses. In Norway, 99% of new cars sold are now electric and globally, road transportation electrification is already displacing two million barrels of oil every day, equivalent to Germany's entire daily oil consumption. Now, that is an amazing statistic 'cause I know as the son of an oil man that if you destroy demand just a little bit below supply, it's not long 'til you get a price collapse. These things are quite finely balanced and that deployment is now reaching a point where it is completely transformative in world markets. - Time to get an oil person into the White House. That's the only way to try and defend against this. What's your third one? - The third one is that COP30 has showed a massive shift from pledges to mobilization and implementation. I know we've talked about this being the COP of implementation, but I genuinely think this is the first time we've really gathered and said, "This is not about what are we gonna do, "but it's about how are we really gonna make it happen?" And I think, you know, and that's not easy and some of the challenges that we've talked about today have represented that, but there's been some big numbers that have come out of this COP. Nine and a half billion pledge for forests, including nearly seven billion for the T-Triple-F, that's up from five and a half when we talk before, and two and a half billion for the Forest Climate Leadership Partnership. One and a half to secure, 1.8 billion to secure land rights for indigenous people. 15 governments came together to launch a global land tenure commitment covering an area the size of Mongolia, which is massive for those of you who don't have an image of that in your head. There was nearly 600 million for methane reduction. That's incredibly important for short-term warming. 82 billion committed every year for grids and storage. That's how we're gonna make this renewable system of the future work. 300 million for climate resilient health systems. This was a great announcement by different philanthropies. 20 billion catalyzed for ocean protection and sustainable economies, and this granary of solutions that've been pulled together has now had a six-fold increase over last year and has 700 case studies and a huge number of solution banks. This is all leading to real change. In the Brazilian Amazon, deforestation fell 11% just this year, and globally, deforestation is down 20% over the last decade compared to the previous one. And the final one. - Yeah, you have still more. Okay, go. - There's more. - Still more, yeah, one more. There's one more, which is very short. And this is a very short one, which is emissions just based on NDCs, which are, as we know, we're gonna overachieve them, show that emissions will drop by 12% in the next 10 years. I know it's not enough, and I know that's not yet getting us to the halving emissions in the decisive decade, but we are entering a completely different period of human history in which we are managing the decline of fossil fuels. That changes the economics, it changes the investment trajectory, and as we've said so many times, things take longer than you thought they could ever take, and then they change faster than you could have imagined. And even on the most conservative estimates, we are now over the peak and coming down the other side. And as we start racing ourselves down that other side of the peak, anything is possible, and I don't doubt for a second that we will go far faster than anyone would have imagined. So those are the fourth parts of the story I wish that they would tell from COP, and you've now told it. - Yeah, I know, it's so true. It is a little bit sad that all of that, which we've been putting out for a while now, thanks to our colleagues, that that is not the story. - It's not the story, that is the story. - That is so un-understandable to me, how something that is as exciting as what you've just, and that's a short list, Tom, because we could all add to that list, right? - It's a big world, big list, yeah. You can be grateful that I trimmed it for the purposes. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. Ben would kill us if we do the full list. But it is, I have yet to understand why we're not racing toward this new world with enthusiasm and with figure and with excitement, because it is a completely different way of thinking, doing, acting, everything. And the imperatives, the benefits are just so many, mutually reinforcing. So the fact that we're so stuck in the stories of the past, still our boots, our eyes can rise to the horizon and see this, but our boots are really, really stuck in the way we've been thinking and acting and doing for hundreds of years. And I don't know, sometimes I just really wanna chop our boots off. - Grab everyone and shake them. Well, maybe now's the time. You know, there's a famous phrase, which I love, which is, authority is taken not given. So the facts are with us. And I hope everyone listening to this will be buoyed, be empowered, will be enabled by this to move forward and tell the story, the important story, the good story about the fact that it can be done. It is being done. - So just one final thought I wanted to add is that, you know, this is sort of the end of our Inside Cop series. I think just on the note we've left here, I think that we have inevitably wanted to and had to tell the story of the cop as it's unfolded, both the two parts that you explained at the beginning, Christiana, that needed to be so well balanced. But I just really hope that journalists and others, and if there's anything we've gained out of this, is that we have moved a little bit into more of a balanced storytelling, which we have tried to represent here between the economics and the politics. Because most of what you hear in the news is the politics. And it's really depressing sometimes and it's hard, but it's only half the story. You're only being told half the story. - It's only half the story. - So we've got a dash off now, but just before we do, one other final point that we should make is around COP31. Of course, no ambiguity where COP32 will be. That'll be in Ethiopia, but COP31 remains in this slightly ambiguous split between Australia and Turkey. It will be hosted in Turkey, no ambiguity there. The COP president, I understand, will be from Turkey as well and appointed by the Turkish government, but the Australian climate minister will be president of the negotiations. So there is a little ambiguity around how that works. Did you know that, Christiana? - Yeah, I mean, how can you have a COP president distinct from president of the negotiations? - Well, we're going to find out next year in Antalya. - Okay, stay tuned. - Okay, stay tuned. I read this one thing where it says that in the event of an agreement, they will discuss it until it's resolved satisfactorily. - Okay. (laughing) - Yes, so, I mean, I do think that there are still some issues to be resolved there, but we did come out with a conclusion that will have, but it doesn't river to bond. So there was a decision made in the end of the compromise reach. And Christiana, you were saying before we recorded that you thought the Pacific Islanders actually in the end, of course, who will host the pre-COP may have done rather well out of this arrangement. - I think so too, because A, they will host the pre-COP, plus there is already an agreement to support them in many different ways in their decarbonization and in their adaptation. So that is not even up to all countries to agree to that it has already been offered to them. So. - Okay, so that wraps us up before we go. Just some thank yous that we really want to share before we finish this little mini series. - First of all, we should thank Fiona, who's not usually a co-host and was willing to be with us the whole two weeks of the COP. The only one of the three of us who was there the whole two weeks, plus a week before, so thank you, thank you, thank you. - Completely brilliant human who's been teaching me an awful lot about a lot of things. - Yeah, so, so fantastic. And then obviously the Persephoneka team on the ground, Ben and Caitlin, thank you so much. And remotely, Ellie, who has been our godmother remotely. - Miles, our editor in Australia, who's been working the 24 hour magic. Thank you, Miles. - Yeah, so good to have somebody in a different time zone. Thank you for that. - Yeah, absolutely. And can I just add in Tais Bilenki, who has been our Brazilian journalist friend and colleague who has steered us right on how things are being seen in Brazil. - And then of course, all the guests who were willing to take time and thought to share with all of you listeners. - Lindsay Levin, who let us record at TED. - Indeed. - Oh wow, yeah, what a great venue. - Jonathan Malo, I mean, amazing. Thank you so much for that. Arlo Brady, likewise at Gold's House, and we were there several times and we did a bit of recording. The team at Amazon, Megan McLeafarty particular, who helped us with promoting the podcast on Amazon. Juanita Silva, who joined us for the first week to help with socials and other things. - And Liam and Rosie, who have been extraordinary helping us with socials. - And others that we've no doubt forgotten because there's so many people involved in all of this. Many, many people in the global optimism team who helped me in times of crisis. - And yeah, including Net, you know who you are. - Oh yes, and oh my gosh, who does the biggest thank you go to? Our listeners themselves. - Everyone for listening. - And the tens of thousands of people who've engaged with us on social media. So thank you so much for that. It's been huge. - So that's a wrap. - Bye, speak to you next week. (upbeat music)