In this episode of Planet A, Professor Michael E. Mann – a leading figure in climate research and a vocal participant in public discourse on global warming – brings his insights into what he describes as the “New Climate War”.
He outlines how powerful interests, including fossil fuel industries and certain political forces, have long obstructed substantial climate action to safeguard their profits. These actors have mastered the art of polluting public discourse with misinformation.
Mann paints a dystopian picture of what the United States—and by extension, the planet—could face if the forces opposing climate action succeed in their agendas.
In spite of this, Mann maintains his stance as a stubborn optimist. He calls on listeners to reject apathy and engage in collective actions that push for substantial and systemic changes in environmental policy and practice.
In this episode of Planet A, Professor Michael E. Mann – a leading figure in climate research and a vocal participant in public discourse on global warming – brings his insights into what he describes as the “New Climate War”.
He outlines how powerful interests, including fossil fuel industries and certain political forces, have long obstructed substantial climate action to safeguard their profits. These actors have mastered the art of polluting public discourse with misinformation.
Mann paints a dystopian picture of what the United States—and by extension, the planet—could face if the forces opposing climate action succeed in their agendas.
In spite of this, Mann maintains his stance as a stubborn optimist. He calls on listeners to reject apathy and engage in collective actions that push for substantial and systemic changes in environmental policy and practice.
Speaker B
[00:02 - 00:11] If Trump gets back in, they're not going to squander the opportunity this time. They are going to bulldoze that agenda. It is a worst nightmare.
[00:12 - 00:21] It's a dystopian vision of what the United States could look like. And if they gain control of both houses of Congress, then there's nothing to stop them.
[00:21 - 00:28] So, I mean, this upcoming election really is a make or break election for climate and for the planet.
Speaker A
[00:28 - 00:58] Welcome to Planet A, a podcast on climate change.
[00:58 - 01:09] My name is Dan Jørgensen. I'm Minister for Development, Cooperation and Global Climate Policy in Denmark. In a series of conversations, I ask some of the world's leading experts, policymakers,
[01:10 - 01:13] authors and activists how to stem climate change.
Speaker B
[01:14 - 01:23] We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency. For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear.
Other speaker
[01:23 - 01:33] The reason I believe we need to act now is because the facts are staring us in the face. The time to answer humankind's greatest challenge is now.
Speaker B
[01:33 - 01:42] This gives us the best possible shot to save the one planet we've got.
[01:42 - 01:46] There is no plan B because we do not have planet B.
Speaker A
[03:10 - 03:20] So, Michael, thank you so much for joining me here in this podcast. You're one of the most well-known and respected scientists in the world on the issue of climate change.
[03:21 - 03:25] And I guess it's fair to say, I don't know, would you consider yourself also an activist?
Speaker B
[03:26 - 03:35] I would call myself an advocate. Yeah. Rather than an activist, an advocate for climate action.
Speaker A
[03:35 - 03:43] I know for sure that you are an inspiration for many, many people across the planet, including me. So thank you so much for your work.
Speaker B
[03:43 - 03:44] Very kind of you.
Speaker A
[03:44 - 03:53] Thank you. Now, you've written extensively about the topic for decades. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And one recent book that I've read of yours is The New Climate War.
[03:54 - 04:07] And one point that I find extremely important and maybe a little bit overlooked in the debate on climate change is that, yes, we all need to do more, fly less, eat less meat, recycle and all that as individuals.
[04:07 - 04:20] But if you look at who are responsible for the big emissions, it's actually big, huge companies. And we need to deal with that. Is that a fair way of putting your point? And can you elaborate on it?
Speaker B
[04:21 - 04:32] Yeah, I think that's a very fair expression of my view on this. You know, there, of course, we should all do everything we can to minimize our environmental impact, our carbon footprint.
[04:33 - 04:42] And many of the things that we do to do that save us money. They make us healthier. They make us feel good. They set a good example for other people. So that's all important.
[04:42 - 04:50] But we can't allow that to become a substitute for the needed systemic changes. You know, and there have.
[04:51 - 05:14] Been, you know, bad actors, fossil fuel interests that have sort of tried to weaponize the discussion of individual action as a means of deflecting attention from the systemic changes that they don't want to see happen that will hurt their profits, but which are necessary for us to reduce carbon emissions by the amount that we need to.
[05:14 - 05:22] We need policies that will incentivize renewable energy. We need to stop funding. New infrastructure for fossil fuels.
[05:23 - 05:30] There are all these things that need to happen at a systemic level that we can't do ourselves. We need our politicians to support those actions.
[05:30 - 05:38] And so, yes, individual action is important, but it's no substitute for the systemic changes that are absolutely essential.
Speaker A
[05:39 - 05:49] Well, I 100 percent agree. And I would I would even add to that an argument that I would love to hear your opinion on, which is that.
[05:49 - 06:07] Even when you look at where at face value, it's individual actions that does a diff makes a difference very often if you investigate what then drives that individual action, it will also come down to a political framework, regulation, economic incentives.
[06:07 - 06:19] So whether or not people will buy an electric car, it's not only what they feel like, it's also what they can afford. If there's any specific regulation in. As.
[06:19 - 06:28] Is in place in some countries that gives them better possibilities of parking and so forth. And with regards to food. Okay. What? How do you eat?
[06:29 - 06:39] Well, that's also dependent on what's even available on the market, which is heavily dependent on regulation and so forth.
[06:39 - 06:47] So it's actually very rare that you can talk about any real action that's driven only by individual sentiment.
Speaker B
[06:48 - 06:56] Yeah, that's right. And it works both ways, of course, individual action contributes to collective action.
[06:56 - 07:05] If we all take actions, if we all vote, if we all participate in the larger conversation, then it puts pressure on policymakers.
[07:06 - 07:18] It puts pressure on companies, corporations. And so you need both. Yeah, you need individual action. And the most important individual action is participation in collective action.
[07:18 - 07:20] Because that's what's important. And I think that's the key to the change.
Speaker A
[07:21 - 07:27] Yes, I agree. And and by no means do I want to sound like I'm arguing against individual action.
[07:27 - 07:39] On the contrary, it's just getting the argument right is so important because we have very strong forces globally arguing against climate action.
[07:39 - 07:49] And this is, of course, something that you've studied and written about extensively. So maybe can you tell our listeners a little bit about how industrial actors and thereby.
[07:49 - 07:55] Also, as political forces often have been fighting a fight against climate action.
Speaker B
[07:55 - 07:57] Yeah, no question.
[07:57 - 08:11] There has been a decades long campaign by polluters, by fossil fuel companies, by conservative groups that sort of act on their behalf, by politicians who are in their pay or do their bidding.
[08:12 - 08:23] There has been this effort by these vested interests to block meaningful action on climate because it. Hurts their bottom line. We need to transition away from fossil fuel.
[08:23 - 08:31] Sure. Well, that's a threat to the fossil fuel industry that makes massive profits from our continued reliance on fossil fuels.
[08:31 - 08:41] And so they've fought tooth and nail to prevent any actions that will lead us away from fossil fuels towards clean energy and renewable energy.
[08:41 - 08:49] And one of the most pernicious efforts on their part has been to pollute our public discourse with misinformation and disinformation.
[08:49 - 08:56] And today it is extremely widespread on social media. And it isn't just the fossil fuel companies.
[08:56 - 09:12] It's what we might call Petro states, bad state actors, Russia and Saudi Arabia being two good examples who have meddled in the affairs of other countries who have waged cyber warfare in an effort.
[09:12 - 09:21] Once again, to prevent the actions. That are necessary for us to wean ourselves. Off fossil fuels now.
Speaker A
[09:21 - 09:30] So obviously there has been a lot of progress in this regard because the power of people arguing against climate action, climate deniers has declined.
[09:31 - 09:42] I mean, in a country like my own, I would struggle to even find one person arguing that climate change is not real and that we shouldn't do anything. And that wasn't the case just 10 or 15 years ago. How would you say globally?
[09:42 - 09:54] What is your overview on this? I mean, I know for a fact that in the US, for instance, we have. We have people, even one that is running for president currently that have a different opinion from you and I.
[09:54 - 10:03] So how is it looking on a global scale? Are we more or less where we want to be with regards to winning over the climate deniers?
Speaker B
[10:03 - 10:07] Yeah. And let's be explicit. I mean, Donald Trump is a climate denier.
[10:07 - 10:19] And the fact that he has even a chance of becoming president of the United States again is very disconcerting to those of us who care about climate or really any of the other major challenges that we face. This is civilization.
[10:20 - 10:26] And that that that that's that that's a matter that will play out over the next few months. But you're absolutely right.
[10:26 - 10:40] Aside from some prominent political voices, you know, and if you go on social media, you know, if you go on Twitter, you find yourself inundated with that climate change denialism.
[10:40 - 10:48] And much of that is from bots and troll farms, bot armies. It's part of an effort.
[10:48 - 11:16] To convince us that there is this groundswell of opposition to the basic science of climate change, when, in fact, aside from, again, these bot armies and a very motivated but small fraction of the public, according to the latest polling here in the United States by George Mason University and Yale University, the dismissives, you know, the outright climate deniers, they account for no more than about 10 percent.
[11:16 - 11:29] But they have this voice that is. Out of proportion with their numbers. And so we get this sense online or watching cable news that climate denialism is far more prevalent than it is.
[11:29 - 11:44] And there are some very influential, a minority of very influential politicians like Donald Trump who deny climate change because, you know, it's a position that is expected of them by their funders, by their supporters.
[11:44 - 11:53] So we have to recognize that's a small fringe. It's maybe 10. Percent of the public, by and large, people have moved on. And because of that.
[11:54 - 12:09] The tactics have really shifted mostly away from outright denial to these other tactics I describe in the new climate war to delay and division and distraction and deflection and even doom mongering.
[12:09 - 12:17] Because if they can convince us it's too late to do anything about the problem that potentially leads us down that path of inaction.
[12:17 - 12:25] That, you know, they want us on the sidelines, not the front lines and convincing us it's too late to do anything is one of the ways of doing that.
[12:25 - 12:40] So we have to recognize all of these tactics that are being used today that stop short of outright denial of the problem, but have the same intent to prevent us from moving on to pollute our public discourse and prevent the transition that needs to happen.
Speaker A
[12:40 - 12:47] So I will argue that hopefully in most European countries, it will be difficult for.
[12:47 - 12:56] Somebody to resume power, at least on a national level, as president, a prime minister or whatever, if you denied climate change being a huge problem.
[12:56 - 13:06] Having said that, there's a huge variation of how serious the topic is considered from country to country. But nonetheless, more more or less, I would say that we are past that problem.
[13:07 - 13:17] So for me, at least in Europe, the biggest problem is actually apathy. The fact that even though people know. Even though nobody contested. This is a huge challenge.
[13:19 - 13:21] Everybody more or less agree that we need to act.
[13:21 - 13:33] It seems like in many countries it's not still not enough to actually really make a difference with regards to where people put cast their vote, for instance. How do you see this?
[13:34 - 13:38] Do you first of all, do you agree? And if you agree, what what can we then do about it?
Speaker B
[13:38 - 13:47] Yeah, I mean, it's it's a problem in that we have so many immediate crises that we're facing right now. There is a global geopolitical crisis.
[13:47 - 14:11] There is a global political crisis with war and, you know, in Europe, in the Middle East, simultaneous wars that are destabilizing sort of geopolitics, of course, Russia playing a major factor in that, of course, Russia being one of those two petro states that doesn't want to see meaningful climate action and has engaged in efforts to prevent that from happening.
[14:11 - 14:17] So we can't even we can't entirely separate some of these conflicts from this. The underlying role.
[14:17 - 14:30] The whole that fossil fuels is playing in our global politics and the reliance on fossil fuels and the fact that countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia, their economy is largely driven by our addiction to fossil fuels.
[14:30 - 14:38] But we have these other crises that we're facing that make climate change somehow seem so distant and far off.
[14:38 - 14:47] It's it's this problem that's out there, but it's not, you know, at least in the way it's being framed by and large by our media. It's there.
[14:47 - 14:56] It's not sort of impacting us on a constant basis in the way that, for example, the war in the Middle East right now.
[14:56 - 15:02] Yet, ironically, if you look into it, if you look at the major conflicts in the world,
[15:02 - 15:09] one of the primary factors fueling is fossil fuel, the interest of fossil fuel states and
[15:09 - 15:18] the sort of the conflicts that are arising over the battle for resources in a world where
[15:18 - 15:27] there's less food and less water and less space, thanks in substantial part to the aggravating impacts of climate change.
[15:28 - 15:39] And in fact, there is a very credible sort of school of thought that conflict in the Middle East has ultimately historically been driven by the battle for water, a scarce resource.
[15:39 - 15:47] And the conflicts that arise from the battle for that resource. So the problem is we're not seeing things framed that way.
[15:47 - 15:57] Our media is not framing climate change as the real time crisis that it is. And it's not just the extreme weather events, devastating extreme weather events that we're
[15:57 - 16:09] experiencing here in the U.S. that you've experienced in Europe. It's there in the coastal inundation that we're seeing. It's the fact that.
[16:09 - 16:19] The other crises we face, climate is a major underlying factor and we need to see it treated that way. We need to see it heard that way by our media.
[16:19 - 16:30] And the fact that it isn't being covered that way means that it's denied the attention that it truly deserves. It is the defining challenge of our time, but it's not getting that treatment in our media.
[16:30 - 16:38] And to the extent that our media are not doing a good job in putting that front and center before the people, people don't.
[16:39 - 16:51] Understand the urgency as you talk about the apathy apathy is sort of the reverse of urgency. We need to communicate the urgency of action, the devastating impact that climate is already having.
Speaker A
[16:51 - 17:02] Michael, I totally agree with you in in that analysis. But I would also personally say that even when the media is actually depicting the problem
[17:02 - 17:09] as it is, even when the urgency is actually very clear, doesn't necessarily mean that people will. Then act on it.
[17:09 - 17:20] I think the science is also quite conclusive on this, that you will see people thinking that this is very important, but not acting by acting.
[17:20 - 17:25] I don't only mean doing something themselves also mean making it have influence on who they vote for.
Speaker B
[17:25 - 17:37] Yeah, it's interesting. We're actually doing some research on that with the center that I direct here at the University of Pennsylvania and Center for Science, Sustainability and Media. We study public opinion and sort of what drives it.
[17:37 - 17:49] And what sort of interventions can potentially motivate the actions that are necessary. And so there is this disconnect. In fact, one of the things that we're finding in our research is there's this disconnect
[17:50 - 18:03] between the actions that people think have the most impact on climate in the action that actually have the most impact. Part of the challenge is to align those two things.
[18:03 - 18:15] Okay. To align the actions that people are encouraged to do. To align the actions that people are encouraged to take with the actions that can actually make a difference. And so I think part of the problem, and you allude to this, maybe in some people it's
[18:15 - 18:23] apathy, but in other cases, they don't really know what to do. It's like it feels too big. It feels beyond them.
[18:23 - 18:35] And so we have to give them actionable targets, things that they can actually do in their everyday lives that make a difference. And so that's a messaging challenge.
[18:35 - 18:36] That's a communication challenge.
Speaker A
[18:36 - 18:47] Do you have some advice? Do you have some examples of that? That's very interesting. Do you have some examples of things that people believe is actually doing a big difference, but that doesn't really? Or other things that people don't think is important that is important?
Speaker B
[18:47 - 18:52] Yeah. Like I said before, individual action.
[18:53 - 19:06] Using recyclable bags or changing your light bulbs to compact or LED. I mean, there are all these little things that don't, in the end, don't add up to a whole lot.
[19:06 - 19:15] But people feel like, hey, it's something I can do and I'm part of the solution if I can take part in these actions.
[19:15 - 19:26] And so the things that really make a difference, I mean, you know, dietary changes can make a difference. Your consumer choices, prioritizing those products and services that are climate friendly,
[19:27 - 19:33] that puts pressure on producers. So that's really important. And again, those collective actions that we've talked about before.
Speaker A
[19:34 - 19:42] Well, I think you scientists. You have an expression called collective action problem, referring to the fact that it's difficult
[19:42 - 19:50] to get individuals to act because, rationally speaking, your own action will not make a difference unless everybody else makes a difference.
[19:50 - 20:01] So you have to trust that everybody else will make the same actions as you, and people don't trust people. Basically, this is a little bit of a caricature of the argument. But nonetheless, do we have a little bit of that problem here also, do you think?
Speaker B
[20:02 - 20:12] Yeah, I think that's right. I think. I think that's always been a problem with collective action, people being unable to see the forest for the trees.
[20:12 - 20:22] And so, you know, it's a minimal action. Voting is a minimal thing you can take part in. But there are all these other things that you can do to use your voice, to make climate
[20:22 - 20:34] part of the conversation, put pressure on politicians, policymakers. There are all these things that individuals can do and, you know, when you do feel like you're making a difference.
[20:34 - 20:46] There is something to be said for these small actions, because they set you down, sort of, they set you on a path of engagement. And the more things that you do, you feel better about yourself, so you do more and more.
[20:46 - 20:55] And pretty soon, you're really engaging in actions that are making a difference. And again, participating in some of those important collective actions, for example.
[20:56 - 21:08] You know, protests and demonstrations are a form of collective action that can change public opinion. Yeah. I think. I think it's important to say that Greta Thunberg is sort of the face of the youth climate movement, that that's really changed the conversation, right?
[21:08 - 21:21] And it isn't just Greta. It's all of the millions of young folks around the world who have sort of shifted the conversation and made it a, and re-centered it on the discussion of this moral imperative.
[21:21 - 21:32] You know, what sort of planet we want to leave for our children and grandchildren. So that all makes a difference. And you have to have optimism, right? There's so much doomism and pessimism out there right now.
[21:32 - 21:44] And some of it, as I said, is being weaponized by bad actors. They want you to give up. And they'll happily sort of fan the flames of doomism if that, you know, takes those
[21:44 - 21:56] who would most likely be on the front lines and moves them to the sidelines. So don't fall for that rhetoric. We can still make a difference, but there is urgency too.
[21:57 - 22:00] Don't become apathetic either, because there is greater urgency.
Speaker A
[22:00 - 22:02] Can I play the devil's advocate a little bit?
Speaker B
[22:02 - 22:02] No.
Speaker A
[22:03 - 22:15] No, but I, you know, I obviously agree with you. And I also try to practice that myself in my own communication that really we need to
[22:15 - 22:24] also speak about the opportunities and possibilities and why it makes sense to do these things. Not only to save the climate, because it's nicer to drive a electric car.
[22:25 - 22:37] If we transform our energy systems, we'll create more green jobs than we will lose in the fossil sector. All of these positive arguments. I agree. I think are useful, but I will also say one of the reasons why I think they're useful,
[22:38 - 22:44] and this is the unpleasant truth, in my opinion, is that we also just have to recognize that
[22:44 - 22:52] maybe not all people are that idealistic and altruistic, because fact of the matter is
[22:52 - 23:02] that it's not the countries and thereby individual in those countries that are causing the problem that are hit the hardest by the problem. So it's also something that...
[23:02 - 23:14] But we need to fight climate change also for, as an expression of solidarity. I'm also Minister for Development Corporation and I travel in Africa almost every month and I can tell you the effects there are devastating and we need to help them.
[23:15 - 23:23] That should actually, in my opinion, be argument enough. That will also be enough, by the way, to persuade many people to do more and have an influence
[23:23 - 23:35] in who they vote for, but for global change, for getting all aboard, we need these positive examples. And I can tell you in Denmark, when we started our green transformation, it was back in the
[23:35 - 23:44] 1970s. It wasn't because of climate and environment, but it was also because of that, but primarily, it was a security question, an energy security question following after the oil crisis, right?
[23:45 - 23:57] So maybe a part of the solution, and I'm getting to my question now, maybe a part of the solution is also becoming better at finding these arguments for a green transformation that's not only idealistic.
[23:58 - 24:08] That's also about the self-interest for nations. energy security. It's, by the way, also security. I mean, right now, I think a lot of European
[24:08 - 24:17] countries would have liked to be independent of fossil fuels from Russia, for instance. It's just a more modern, richer society if you do it right. Would you agree to that?
Speaker B
[24:18 - 24:28] Yeah, no, absolutely. And I mean, and these things are interrelated because obviously, you know, there's a moral argument. We talked about the intergenerational inequity, right?
[24:28 - 24:39] The fact that our children and grandchildren will inherit the worst consequences of carbon pollution today. But it's also true, you know, internationally with respect to, you know,
[24:39 - 24:49] the global north versus the global south, the developing world versus the industrial world. You know, ironically, it is, in fact, those in the global south, tropical nations, in particular
[24:49 - 25:01] Africa, who are being hit hard already by the impacts of climate change and stand to suffer the most. So there's a moral argument there, but there's also a pragmatic argument, which is
[25:01 - 25:11] we are suffering the consequences. The United States, you know, we are no longer the world's largest emitter. We have put more
[25:11 - 25:21] carbon pollution, cumulative carbon pollution into the atmosphere than any other country. But the industrial countries, carbon emissions are starting to come down. And the real threat now
[25:21 - 25:33] is that as other countries industrialize, if they, in fact, build their energy infrastructure on fossil fuels, then we will blow past all of those targets.
[25:33 - 25:44] That we talk about for keeping warming low catastrophic levels. So it's in our interest, right, to make sure that India and other developing countries leapfrog past the fossil
[25:44 - 25:57] fuel stage to directly to renewable distributed energy. We need Africa, for example, as they, you know, experience economic development. We need them to skip that fossil fuel stage.
[25:57 - 26:08] And we speak with very little authority if we're not doing everything we can. You know, those are the things that we need to do. And we need to do everything we can to make sure that And there's a little bit of good news there, as I'm sure you're aware.
[26:08 - 26:17] The G7 countries have now agreed to phase out coal by 2035. That was a huge development.
[26:17 - 26:26] That was a statement, in essence, by the major industrial countries of the world that we are committed to taking action.
[26:26 - 26:37] That's really important if we are to convince India that, hey, that it shouldn't get its turn at converting cheap, dirty energy into economic growth.
[26:37 - 26:50] We've got to make it economically in their interests to skip the fossil fuel stage. The decisions that these countries make are going to have a direct impact on us now and
[26:50 - 27:02] our quality of life. And that's why we need to work together. And that's why we need to be taking leadership. Because if the United States, the world's largest legacy carbon polluter, doesn't take leadership, then other countries say, well, why should we?
Speaker A
[27:02 - 27:14] Yeah, well, my experience when negotiating also in the COP process with both developing countries, the least developed countries, but in particular with the larger emerging
[27:14 - 27:23] economies, is that they will argue, and I can't really blame them. I understand exactly why they're arguing as they are.
[27:23 - 27:32] They will say, okay, so now maybe we are the biggest emitters on the planet China, for instance, right now, right? But historically...
[27:32 - 27:44] You're the ones pointing at us, pointing at the West, the US, Europe, others. You're the ones that have created this problem by burning too much fossil fuels for more
[27:44 - 27:55] than 100 years, for centuries. And now we want to have the same living standard as you. And by the way, we're not even close to being there, they will say. And you are now trying to prevent us from getting to the state that you are.
[27:55 - 28:01] You're not cutting your own living standard, but you want to prevent us because we need to help solve the problem that you created.
Speaker B
[28:01 - 28:13] Exactly. Where, you know, the loss and damage sort of agreement at COP27 was really critical in that regard. It's not yet being fully funded. That's part of the problem.
[28:13 - 28:18] We need a commitment from the industrial countries of the world, as I alluded to before, to these
[28:18 - 28:30] developing countries to provide the assistance and the support to make it in their interest, again, to skip past the fossil fuel stage, because that is in our interest.
Speaker A
[28:31 - 28:41] There's some good news. There's some good news here, which is that the technology has developed so that actually right now, in most cases, it will be cheaper to deploy renewable energy.
[28:42 - 28:49] Certainly, onshore wind and solar, but most often also offshore wind will be cheaper than even coal.
Speaker B
[28:49 - 28:58] But you have the fossil fuel companies going into places like Africa right now and trying to subsidize. I mean, they recognize that, right? They're trying to put their thumb on the scale.
Speaker A
[28:58 - 29:04] They're using their power to then make sure that they're necessary. Investment doesn't happen in these technologies.
[29:04 - 29:12] And one of the reasons is that in many countries, the cost of capital for these projects, renewable projects will be so high.
[29:12 - 29:21] So the interest will be extremely high because of insecurity in these countries and because of the lack of what they call enabling environments or capacity building, basically in many of these states.
[29:21 - 29:34] And again, I'm not actually even arguing against this trend because that's natural. That's how markets work. But the problem is the fossil fuel cost. And that's why we have a lot of companies like Germany and others like the European Union, which are very, very powerful fossil fuel companies. They have their own financing.
[29:34 - 29:52] So therefore, it becomes the job, I think, for countries like Denmark, countries like the US institutions like the World Bank, IMF and others to de-risk these investments, to make blended financing instruments, for instance, like we've just done with another handful of Nordic countries and the US, by the way.
[29:52 - 30:01] So that when we put in some ODAs, some public money from our countries, we use them to de-risk an investment. And thereby, we will mobilize much more private capital.
Speaker B
[30:02 - 30:13] some of the instruments that we can use. Yeah, you know, it's a great point, isn't it? Because there is this belief, especially among young folks, that market economics is the problem and
[30:13 - 30:19] that we can't solve this problem until we we basically eliminate, you know, global market
[30:19 - 30:28] economics, capitalism, when in fact, the problem is that capitalism, the levers of the system have
[30:28 - 30:40] been seized by bad actors. And if you have the right regulations and enforcement mechanisms, it is possible to solve these problems in the framework of a market economy. And by the way,
[30:40 - 30:49] even if you believe we have to move away from sort of this global capitalism-based system,
[30:49 - 30:54] even if you think that has to happen, it's not going to happen on the time frame necessary to
Speaker A
[30:54 - 31:06] make the changes we need to make. Exactly. And the paradox really is, today, because I also hear the voices that you are alluding to out there, the paradox is that
[31:06 - 31:18] they don't understand that really it's the market failures right now that's the problem, because subsidizing fossil fuels is obviously a market failure. You can also even argue that, I think
[31:18 - 31:28] Nicholas Stern, famous economist, said that the biggest market failure in history is carbon. If the market had worked perfectly, then the negative externalities of carbon would have been the biggest market failure in history. And so, I think that's
[31:29 - 31:31] emitting carbon would be integrated into the prices, right?
Speaker B
[31:32 - 31:42] Now I'm going to forget the exact quote, but it's basically the greatest subsidy that has ever been granted to industry is to allow fossil fuel companies to dump their pollution into our
Speaker A
[31:42 - 31:53] atmosphere at no cost. Oh, that's an excellent point. We would never allow, or at least I would hope that we would never allow for any industry to just dump their poison on the ground or in the
[31:53 - 31:58] water. Everybody understands we need to regulate that. There's a great Henrik Ibsen play,
Speaker B
[31:58 - 32:11] um, uh, that was made into a movie starring the great Steve McQueen back in the 1970s and the enemy of the people. It's remarkable. And again, it's based on an Ibsen play and it's about
[32:11 - 32:23] a tannery, uh, in the late 1800s that has been dumping its chemicals into the water supply. And, and of course I won't give it away, but the villain, of course, the person who gets vilified
[32:23 - 32:34] is the scientist and it, and it should have won Steve McQueen, um, an Oscar or, I mean, an Oscar. I mean, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't you won't recognize him. He put on weight. He had this beard. It's, it's absolutely worth
[32:34 - 32:40] watching the, the Ibsen play is worth reading. Of course, we're getting close to the end of
Speaker A
[32:40 - 32:53] this conversation, but I wanted to ask you now we've spoken a lot about the challenges that, that we face. Um, but I'm sure you will agree that there's also actually a lot of positive
[32:53 - 33:02] things happening in, in, in, in these years and months, uh, things that I would have not I would not have believed could happen just a few years ago. Could you maybe give us your evaluation? Where are we now?
[33:03 - 33:14] Still a far way to go, obviously, but which things are going in the right direction? And are you fundamentally an optimist that it's still possible for us to prevent catastrophic climate effect?
[33:14 - 33:19] In a way, you can argue that it's already here, but to stay below 1.5, let's put it like that.
Speaker B
[33:19 - 33:26] Yeah, you know, I call myself a stubborn optimist.
Speaker A
[33:26 - 33:27] Yeah, I like that.
Other speaker
[33:28 - 33:40] And, you know, you're absolutely right. The problem is that we fall for these sort of false binaries where either, you know, it's success or failure.
[33:41 - 33:53] It's all or nothing. If, you know, the perfect being the enemy of the good, if we're not seeing all of the actions we'd like to see, that somehow that means we're not making any progress.
[33:53 - 34:01] And we have to recognize, as you say, we are making progress. Carbon emissions globally have now peaked. They're not increasing. They're sort of at a plateau.
[34:02 - 34:15] They will probably come down a bit over this next year, or at least that's the forecast. So that's the good news, right? We're no longer climbing up the mountain, going up that emissions mountain. We've reached the plateau. That's the good news.
[34:15 - 34:27] Yeah, that's the glass is half full. The glass half empty version is that we've got to come down the other side of that mountain and we've got to do it quick. So we're making progress. We're not making enough progress.
[34:27 - 34:39] The top 26, you know, commitments are potentially enough to keep warming below two degrees Celsius. That's still too much warming. And those are promises made.
Speaker A
[34:39 - 34:43] They're not yet promises kept, which is an important distinction.
Speaker B
[34:43 - 34:55] And there is what some have referred to as an implementation gap between what you're saying they're going to do and what their actual domestic policies. A good example is this agreement just the other day of the G7.
[34:57 - 35:08] phase out coal by 2035. I think that's very important. I think that's a huge development, but it won't happen unless each of those countries can actually enact legislation
[35:08 - 35:21] within the confines of their own national boundaries to actualize that. And so that's the challenge. And then it comes back here in the United States, right? This next presidential
[35:21 - 35:34] election in November will determine the future course of climate action here in the United States, whether we remain on a path of engagement as we have been under Joe Biden, or we completely
[35:34 - 35:45] disengage and become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And without American leadership, as I said before, it's very difficult to see the rest of the world come together,
[35:45 - 35:54] again, because of the moral imperative of the world's largest legacy polluter, the United States, to take a leadership position.
[35:55 - 36:07] So what that comes down then to, again, individual action, people getting out, mobilizing, voting, the collective action necessary to make sure that we stay on the right path
[36:07 - 36:20] so that we can meet our commitments on the world stage and we can work with other partners. I'm optimistic, you might say stubbornly, again, optimistic that Americans will make the right choice.
[36:22 - 36:33] And, you know, and with continued American leadership, I think, you know, we will see China engage. And I think we will see India, you know, which has been reticent. Part of the problem
[36:33 - 36:42] is the instability. You talked earlier about the instability, right? The rest of the world is looking at the United States now and they're saying, you might reelect Donald Trump. How can
[36:42 - 36:51] we trust any commitment that you make when all it takes is one election cycle for you to elect a climate denier who you don't trust? And I think that's a big problem. And I think that's a big
[36:52 - 37:05] out of every agreement that you've made with the rest of it. That is why, again, it really falls upon us here in the United States to make sure that we make the right choice in this next election.
Speaker A
[37:06 - 37:16] Well, that refers back to when I was paraphrasing the arguments from some of the Chinese and Indian negotiators that I've met earlier, right? I mean, they say, well, if we are to do more,
[37:16 - 37:29] then you need to do even more because it's you guys, meaning the West, that's created the problem. So it's clear that if the US withdraws from the Paris Agreement, that will have very negative
[37:29 - 37:36] consequences. I have been engaged in climate negotiations for a long time now, so also under
[37:36 - 37:46] the last administration, under President Trump, where the US withdrew. And obviously, it means that progress is almost impossible. Yeah.
[37:46 - 37:56] Now, what I hear now as rumors, it hasn't been confirmed by the candidate, President Trump
[37:56 - 38:06] himself. But what I've heard from think tanks in Washington is that if Trump wins, not only will he withdraw from the Paris Agreement, again, he will probably also withdraw from the Climate
[38:06 - 38:16] Convention. And at least the last time they stayed in the convention, so that meant that the US did not stop everything. So it's not going to be without...
Speaker B
[38:17 - 38:27] Yeah, I mean, Donald Trump, we have to realize, he's sort of an oaf. His agenda is just self-interest.
[38:27 - 38:37] He doesn't have an agenda of fossil fuel. He is simply a figurehead, right? And what Republicans,
[38:37 - 38:45] what the actual sort of corporate Republican mainstream political community has a plan,
[38:46 - 38:55] this Project 2025, which is basically to hand over the reins of government to the carbon polluters.
[38:55 - 39:04] The Koch brothers, other plutocrats are behind this, the Federalist Society. So the sort of
[39:04 - 39:16] conservative funders of the Republican Party have gotten together, they've put together a plan. And this plan is for the US to disengage from every agreement, every climate agreement,
[39:16 - 39:23] that it has made, to eliminate the EPA, which is responsible for the enforcement of these mechanisms,
[39:23 - 39:32] to, you know, it is a worst nightmare. It's a dystopian vision of what the United States could look like.
[39:32 - 39:38] And that is their plan. If Trump gets back in, they're not going to squander the opportunity this time.
[39:38 - 39:46] They are going to bulldoze that agenda through the executive branch. And if they maintain, you know,
[39:46 - 39:51] control, if they gain control of both houses of Congress, then there's nothing to stop them.
[39:51 - 39:59] So, I mean, this upcoming election really is a make or break election for the climate and for the planet.
Speaker A
[39:59 - 40:06] The reason I was just looking, the listeners won't be able to notice, but you can see me because we are Skyping and there's camera.
[40:07 - 40:15] I was looking behind me because there's my desk and I have actually, I thought I had that plan on my desk because I've just been looking at it. More than 2000 pages, I think.
[40:15 - 40:25] It's a very, very thorough work through plan for what a Trump administration might look like, made by the Heritage Foundation and others in Washington.
[40:25 - 40:30] And it's pretty scary reading. I mean, the way that you depict it is 100% true.
[40:30 - 40:40] And one of the ways, for instance, that they're framing, trying to frame renewable energy is by saying, hmm, if you support renewable energy, you actually support China.
[40:41 - 40:45] It's ludicrous, but that is, so they will be using,
[40:45 - 40:57] back to your initial argument that the powers that have an interest in the fossil industry, they will always find new arguments of fighting against climate action, right?
Speaker B
[40:58 - 41:04] Oh, yeah, no, no question. In fact, it's funny you mention that because the book that I'm currently working on now is called Science Under Siege.
[41:04 - 41:15] My co-author is Peter Hotez, who is a public health scientist who's been under attack because of his work on vaccines. And it's interesting to see the alignment. Yeah. It drives me crazy.
[41:15 - 41:24] draws upon, you know, their tactics right now exploit sort of nativism and racism and xenophobia
[41:24 - 41:33] and this idea of China as the, you know, as the enemy behind the COVID-19 pandemic. And
[41:33 - 41:44] scientists who have engaged with China are, you know, part of this conspiracy, just as climate scientists are part of this conspiracy. So there's an effort right now
[41:44 - 41:53] to sort of draw upon the sort of, again, the nativism and the xenophobia that has run rampant
[41:53 - 42:02] within the Republican Party now to use that as sort of an organizing principle to motivate their
[42:02 - 42:14] forces against, you know, not just, you know, public health measures to deal with pandemics, but obviously the real, you know, the real prize for them,
[42:14 - 42:20] is putting an end to any meaningful climate action. And that's their agenda, no question about it.
Speaker A
[42:20 - 42:28] Okay, Michael, thank you so much for this fascinating conversation. I really enjoyed it. And thank you so much for your very, very important work.
Speaker B
[42:28 - 42:33] Thank you. Really enjoyed the conversation and I look forward to the next time.
Speaker A
[42:33 - 42:38] You've listened to Planet A, a podcast on climate change and what to do about it.