115: Turning Around In a Storm with David Shukman
Our struggle with the Climate Crisis begins with naming it, facing it, and engaging it.
About this episode
Last week, the latest NDC Synthesis Report published showed that global emissions are on track to rise by 16% by 2030. With science screaming at the top of its lungs to get us to cut emissions by 50% by 2030 to avoid catastrophic warming and climate tipping points, this tells us “we are headed in the wrong direction” as BBC Science Editor David Shukman tells us on today’s episode.
So that’s where we’re at. Where do we go from here? Tom dials up David to wrestle with how short our NDCs are of achieving the Paris Goals, and what mindset and ambition it will take to get our world’s biggest emitters to transparently confront this issue and reverse the course of rising emissions.
—
Links mentioned in the episode:
Climate change: UN warning over nations' climate plans - David Shukman
Young People's Voices on Climate Anxiety, Government Betrayal and Moral Injury: A Global Phenomenon
Full Transcript
Tom: [00:00:00] Hey, everyone, it's Tom here. So this week we have a fantastic episode of Outrage + Optimism for you, which is coming out on Thursday. It's an episode where we dig in detail into a specific issue. And what we do this week is we look at the food system summit, issues around agriculture, food commodities, how those things are coming together. It's a great conversation and that will be with you as normal on Thursday. But the reason I'm talking to you now is because a couple of other really consequential things have happened in the few days since we last published, and I wanted to just make this small additional episode to help us dig into it, because there's so much going on right now. One of these was around the attitudes of young people towards climate change. This is a really fascinating and alarming study. It was led by Bath University in collaboration with five other universities funded by our good friends at Avaaz. And it was across ten countries looking at people between the ages of 16 and 25. And they spoke in all to 10,000 people. Now the results demonstrate the severity of what we're facing. Nearly 60% of young people said they felt very worried or extremely worried about climate change, and 45% said that they had feelings about climate change and anxieties and concerns that profoundly affected their daily lives. 56% said they think that humanity is doomed and two thirds reported feeling sad, afraid and anxious. So this just demonstrates the enormous psychological impact that living with climate change is having on all of us, but in particular on young people who are, of course, the ones who are going to bear the brunt of this over their lifetimes.
Tom: [00:01:45] One other element of this report was that it demonstrated that people who live in countries whose political leaders have not really gotten on top of this issue aren't really doing what's necessary and are potentially denying the science feels significantly more anxious than young people who live in countries where their leadership is at least acknowledging the issue and doing something serious about it. What that shows is that actually facing the reality of our situation is one of the ways in which we can dig deep and begin to feel some degree of empowerment towards the situation. It's when it's a dark, unspoken reality that's out there that we know is coming at us and is menacing, but we don't quite name it. We don't quite know what it is, that it has the biggest impact on our psychology. Now, in light of that, today we are going to delve in detail into a really devastating report that was recently released from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. And it goes by the name of the Synthesis Report of the Nationally Determined Contributions. This is basically the adding up of all of the different commitments that national governments have made on the road to Glasgow. And it makes for some pretty stark reading. And to help us through that, we've invited an old friend onto the podcast.
Tom: [00:03:06] David Shukman is the Science Editor for the BBC. This is a position that he's held for years and years. He's one of the best explainers of complicated science of all kinds, but particularly climate change. Those people who live in the UK will know him well from his regular appearances on the flagship news programs, the 6 o'clock news, the 10pm news. He's really become a remarkable leader and a voice for communicating science to all of us to help us to understand it. I sat down and spoke with him yesterday, on Monday and asked him to help us unpack really what was going on in this Synthesis Report, what it meant, and where do we go from here. This is a great conversation. It's a tough one. It's a, let's look at the reality of this situation and not turn away type of episode, but that's part of what's required of us. We'll be back, as usual on Thursday. Paul and Christiana will be here then as well. And we will look at the Food System Summit. But for now, let's delve into the wild and concerning world of the UNFCCC Synthesis Report. Here's the conversation. David Shukman, what a pleasure to have you on Outrage + Optimism. Thank you so much for being willing to jump on at a moment's notice. We've been big fans for a long time, all the way back to Paris and before you've kind of guided generations of people through this complex minefield. So great to have you here with us today.
David Shukman: [00:04:28] Very kind of you to say that. Load More
Tom: [00:04:30] So something very consequential has happened in the last few days. I mean, of course, now world leaders are arriving in New York and we're beginning to get to a point where everyone's thinking about what can be done through to COP26. Can we really get our hands on this? And a really consequential report that was pretty devastating came out. So first of all, this is the UNFCCC Synthesis Report on NDCs. Can you tell us, first of all, before we get into the detail, what does it contain? It sounds exciting.
David Shukman: [00:04:58] Terrible mouthful, isn't it? An acronym from hell, isn't it? I mean, and I have to explain this to colleagues, and I need to occasionally pinch myself to remember what it is. But yes, of course, look, the NDC, I think, just translates into climate plan.
Tom: [00:05:15] National climate plan.
David Shukman: [00:05:15] I mean, technically nationally determined contribution, you know, under the under the sort of voluntary ethos of the Paris Agreement, each country comes up with its own its own targets, its own vision for what it wants to do with carbon emissions and determines those plans itself. So the nationally determined contribution, which as I say, I think in journalese, we have to we have to strip out, don't we, if we want to.
Tom: [00:05:43] Outrage + Optimism listeners can handle a little bit more of it but it's still we've still got to be kind. Exactly.
David Shukman: [00:05:48] Okay, okay. So the plans were under the Paris Agreement were meant to be submitted last year, but then, of course, Covid got in the way. So then the deadline slipped to this year. It was all meant to happen by July. And in theory, in a nice, orderly process, as I understand it, every government that's a signatory to the Paris Agreement would send in its plan and the the UN officials would essentially top them all up and see what they'd come to. And sort of on that level, it sounds quite straightforward, but of course, not every country has submitted a plan. I mean, slightly over half have, of the 190 odd and for various counting reasons, the total of countries in the world always changes according to how you measure them. But let's call it 190 odd. Something like just over 100 have submitted their plans. And so the officials in Bonn did the numbers, totted everything up and tried to work out kind of what that would mean. And, you know, I've got to confess, when I saw that this report, this Synthesis Report, this analysis of all of these plans was going to come out, I actually thought it wouldn't be a story. I mean, I'm just whispering that because it's quite embarrassing as a journalist because, well, I'd looked ahead and I'd seen in the small print on the UN website, they would put out an updated Synthesis Report, an updated assessment of everybody's carbon plans in late October, right before COP26.
David Shukman: [00:07:23] I thought, well, actually, in substantive terms, in news terms, that's the story to go big on. Obviously, because by then who knows, we might have had China, we might have had India and others, and that'll be a more realistic assessment of kind of where we stand with carbon ambition. But this thing dropped and we all went through it and there were briefings associated with it. And actually, you know the, but I don't want to sound too jaded and cynical and I've seen it all before, but I mean, you and I, you know, we've read these blunt, scary reports about the climate science and what the world is doing or not doing. And, you know, now and again, you can feel a little bit immune to the kind of the bad stuff, the horror of what these these little sentences contain. But, I mean, this one did take my breath away a bit, actually, because what hadn't been quite ready for was their assessment that rather than emissions going down, which all the science has been screaming is necessary for years now, and particularly recently, it's got to basically be halved global emissions by 2030.
Tom: [00:08:45] Decisive decade, halving emissions.
David Shukman: [00:08:46] Decisive decade, cut it down. And that first came out, I think, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a few years ago, reinforced the other day with their last major report that if you want any chance at all of heading off the really hairy warming later on, you've got to halve emissions by 2030. Well so this totting up this synthesis exercise of the the NDCs the climate plans, concludes that as things stand we're heading for a rise of 16% by 2030. And I don't know about you, but I kind of read that several times. And then I rang a colleague to say, I've got this right, haven't I? 16. Yeah, yeah, yeah. 16%. So rang the news desk and we had an extremely brief discussion which, which concluded with obviously that's a story. Got writing and the story was picked up very, very widely in various BBC outlets and programs and of course by media around the world because I think it's a combination of things. I mean, we're not that far from early August, when the IPCC report laid out more clearly than ever the unequivocal nature of the human contribution to rising temperatures and that pathway, that little table that says, you know, to have the best chance of keeping even slightly to 1.5 as a rise, you've really got to see a dramatic cut in emissions very, very soon, sort of through to COP26 starting kind of in not many weeks. And really, by the time you get to COP, you need to have got your emissions.
Tom: [00:10:38] It's got to be in the bag, right. Yeah.
David Shukman: [00:10:39] In the bag. It's not going to happen during COP. I mean, people often say, well, what are they what are they going to do about emissions and all of that at COP? And I said, well, you know, strictly it happens, it's meant to happen before. So the combination of getting this absolute body blow from the scientists about what's required and then the looming deadline of this mega conference and then halfway between the two, a report that says emissions are projected to go up, not down. Now, I mean, clearly the key thing to bring out is, is who hasn't reported?
Tom: [00:11:19] Well, that's the point. So is part of that number because there are key countries in there who should report and we think will report but haven't yet. And who are they and are they going to?
David Shukman: [00:11:31] I mean, that's $1 million question, isn't it? I mean, as an optimist, you will, of course, expect a wonderfully ambitious climate plan to be published by China, by India and others in the next few weeks, possibly even in the coming week, but certainly in good time for Glasgow and well, I mean, there is the odd hint that that's kind of not impossible.
Tom: [00:12:02] You know, I mean, China, of course, is very important and everyone always talks about 29% of global emissions. But to get from a projected 16% rise to a 50% reduction of global emissions, right, I mean, that's China plus, plus, plus, plus, plus.
David Shukman: [00:12:17] Plus, plus, plus. You need you need lots of big emitters. I mean you need the biggest emitter to act. You need many of the other big emitters to come out with plans. And this is where I think we have to shift from, well, I hesitate to do this with an with an optimistic podcast, but nevertheless, I mean let's.
Tom: [00:12:39] We're outraged too don't forget, yeah.
David Shukman: [00:12:39] Let's actually, that's right. So let's look at a sort of slightly less optimistic scenario but I mean analysts have studied the the NDCs produced by Brazil, Mexico, Russia, which all actually envisage increases in their emissions. So, you know, they're big players. And if they had come out with plans that were the opposite, that also would have been a cause of optimism. But the fact is that they haven't. So, yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right that there needs to be an enormous shift of government thinking and planning and operations in a number of key countries. And many have singled out the G20 group of countries in particular for this. The least developed countries said, look, if the G20 don't act on this very radically, we're not going to get anywhere. One of our radio presenters says, so just sum this up. And I said, well, actually, look, we're heading in the wrong direction. I mean, that's very blunt. And can the supertanker, which I suppose would carry oil, can the supertanker change course to such a degree very soon? Such a degree. So, you know, you one does hear particularly from people either in fossil fuel industries or various sectors associated with them, that kind of let's be realistic, let's be realistic, by which they mean 50% cut by 2030 isn't going to happen. So I think I think something that would be a terrific thought exercise is kind of what has to happen in key governments and economies and global markets. What would it look like actually for that to happen? I think we can all envisage kind of what our lives might be like post 2030, getting towards 2050 if I survive that long or whatever. But you know, what a zero carbon lifestyle might look like, but I think there's been less thinking about actually what it feels like and what's involved to get there.
Tom: [00:14:56] And you mean from a political perspective, the individual choices of the, yeah, yeah.
David Shukman: [00:15:00] Yes. What has to happen in different governments, which at the moment are very pro fossil fuel or sort of antithetical to this whole agenda. What needs to go on? Is it ever going to happen if, you know, there isn't a massive change of politics in some of these countries? I mean, and I think that's a question that needs to be explored because as I say, as things stand, I mean, look, I think there is a scenario where we'll get more NDCs. They may be substantive between now and COP26. I mean, I would err on the side of let's be realistic, you know, are they going to get us to a 50% cut? No. Would they signal in some way some kind of shift that might be positive in that direction? Arguably. But I mean, I think if Boris Johnson effectively hosting the great event in November puts the chances at six out of ten of getting movement on.
Tom: [00:16:00] Which is the news today, right?
David Shukman: [00:16:01] Emissions. News today, six out of ten chance he said on the plane to reporters and.
Tom: [00:16:04] And he's, I mean, he's sort of like recklessly optimistic most of the time. So if that's you know.
David Shukman: [00:16:09] He, yes that's right. I mean, you know, he's well known. He's popular for what's known in the UK as boosterism, I mean you know talking things up and likes to sort of dismiss people who are otherwise too pessimistic in his view. But yes if he's putting the chances at six out of ten for, you know, raising ambitions on emissions cuts and getting to the 100 billion a year target for aid for developing countries, that tells you, I think that there's a little bit of expectation management creeping in now.
Tom: [00:16:43] And so help me understand something there, because I think one thing that listeners struggle with is, is everything seems to be happening at the same time, right? The world seems to be getting better and falling apart at the same time in lots of ways. And we should talk about the politics briefly, but also, I mean, I was just looking at a panel that's coming out this week in the UN General Assembly from the World Economic Forum, and it starts off by saying 60% of the world economy is now covered by a net zero target, right. At the same time, emissions are projected to rise by 16% by 2030. How can those two things coexist? Is someone lying or what's happening?
David Shukman: [00:17:16] Well, I think it's lots of things. I mean, I think if you've got your target of net zero by 2050, in political terms, that's quite a handy 30 years away. I mean, what what do you really need to do between now and 2030. I mean.
Tom: [00:17:34] So it's being back ended is part of the issue.
David Shukman: [00:17:37] Well, I mean, that's likely to be it. And then I saw a great tweet the other day about saying what we need is when it comes to net zero, we need less net and more zero. I mean, you know, how much are people going to be banking on the ability to chuck money at forestry in the 2030's, 2040's or some other offsetting arrangement to to kind of squeak through a net zero target by 2050. I mean, in other words, how much will they offshore their problems or outsource them. And I think that's a whole debate to be had around that. So I think that one has to look closely at whether countries have which have a, and companies also, have a net zero by 2050 target and what they're actually saying by 2030 and then actually what they're doing now in terms of policies and operations and delivery to make 2030 possible and I think that's where you might get that disconnect. And of course if you've got key big players not really following the rules on this anyway in terms of timing, that adds another whole raft of problems.
Tom: [00:18:58] So I have one more question for you. This is really this is very helpful. And I think these things are very confusing for people. So that's part of what the challenge is, is to get through this terminology, to understand what's going on. But, I mean, you know, apart from being Science Editor at the BBC, you're a keen observer of what's happening from a geopolitical perspective. We've talked already about the road to COP. I mean, I was just looking this weekend at this announcement. It sounds to the side, but of this submarine deal that's happening with Australia, the US and the UK and the incandescent rage of the French and the Chinese. I mean, looking back to Paris, everything kind of felt like it was coalescing towards a moment of togetherness. And I looked at that and thought, oh my God, that's really bad. Because actually that brings another in a context where the Chinese have said, we're not dealing with climate change in isolation anymore. It's part of our overall relationship with the West. And then this happens a few weeks before we're trying to get China to make a big commitment on nationally determined contributions. How do you read that and do you see that as a bad sign as I do, or is there something else going on here?
David Shukman: [00:20:00] Look, I think you, it'd be hard to see it as other than a bad sign in terms of climate action. I mean, I always wondered what the Chinese would make of the British chairing COP 26 and and publicly pressing China for climate action while sending Britain's, the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier up through the South China Sea towards Taiwan. I mean, just on that level, how did that how would that play. And particularly, as you say, if China is no longer choosing to compartmentalize different arenas of international engagement, then that's, there's bound to be a connection. Add to that the submarine scenario, and it's got to take the strain in relations between Britain and America on one side and China on the other to a new level. I mean, I did see that a report yesterday, I think, or possibly this morning that, you know, the first hint from British officials, unnamed, that President Xi of China was unlikely to make it to COP26 in Glasgow. Obviously, they'd been hoping very much that he would come and I think many others as well. I mean, there'd been a hint over the last week or so that, well, he hasn't travelled outside China since Covid started, preparing the ground I think for him to say no, I mean, that's obviously got to be a blow. I think we are in a massively more complicated era. I mean, you mentioned Paris and it was very, very striking how in that long run up to the Paris Summit, you know, the sort of entirety of the French diplomatic machine was focused on this one issue. And then along came the unbelievably horrific terror attacks in Paris just ahead. And, you know, I remember an immediate thought amongst people was, well, is that going to derail the summit? Is it too dangerous to have a summit? What are the risks around that? And I think the French handled it so kind of well. And there was such a sort of outpouring of sympathy, I think, from so many people that I think in a sense, it gave a groundswell of support, I think, to the French hosting in Paris. Now we haven't got anything like that. I think there's a lot of bad blood by coincidence. And I know that the, well, you were intimately involved in the negotiations there in and around Paris. But I remember being very aware, even as an outsider, observing that Britain was providing the French with a lot of help in terms of engagement with many of the least developed countries, particularly members of the Commonwealth, and that all helped the negotiating process.
David Shukman: [00:22:48] Well, if you've got the French Foreign Minister saying it's not worth withdrawing, the French Ambassador from the UK because the UK is just a spare wheel on the carriage of this submarine deal driven by America and Australia. I mean, you're not in a space where our nearest neighbour is really going to be helping, one imagines. Unless there's a scenario, that despite everything, there's a recognition that climate has its own special, unique kind of dangers. Planetary dangers. And therefore there can be all kinds of drama and unpleasantness and ructions. And actually, at the end of the day, Macron, Biden, they'll kind of resume relations that actually in the end Johnson and Macron on whatever. And at the end there'll be enough of a dialogue with the Chinese that even if Xi doesn't come, you know, there's enough useful progress there. I mean, you could argue it that way, but it doesn't look promising. I mean, I think it's right to compare it with the French handling of Paris. And we're not in the same, we're not on the same page.
Tom: [00:24:08] And it's a different moment right. I think there's also something about coming off the failure of Copenhagen. Everyone was determined to make that one a success. And in a way, coming off a success. It's kind of hard to follow that in a way with what's next. So I think there's a bit of that going.
David Shukman: [00:24:21] Yeah, I mean, I guess, you know, Glasgow always had, if you like, a more awkward sort of set of agenda items, doesn't it? I mean with Paris there was, you know, can we get a document everybody.
Tom: [00:24:37] Big gavel moment.
David Shukman: [00:24:38] Yeah, big gavel moment. I mean, you know, I know there's talk of a Glasgow agreement and whatever, but I mean Glasgow has a different feel doesn't it. It's like, can it whip up the emissions reductions we've been talking about? Can it nail the 100 billion a year, can it sort out the awful, incredibly complicated article six, the carbon accounting and all of that, which the previous two summits have failed to. So it was never going to have a sort of a nice glide path. It's messier isn't it. And I think it's become and we haven't even talked about Covid. I mean the complications of a pandemic and raging numbers and variants and how you manage an in-person summit with representatives from every country on the planet, some of whom are on the British Covid red list and all the rest of it. I mean that remains to be seen.
Tom: [00:25:36] That's a whole other issue, yeah.
David Shukman: [00:25:36] Journalistic cliche.
Tom: [00:25:38] Well, I mean, we're going to find out a lot more this week, right? All the world leaders or many relevant ones are in New York. So if there's not big commitments this week, that takes us down a certain trajectory. But hopefully by Friday we'll see at least something from a range of countries that gives us a good indication. And we'd love to stay in touch with you in Glasgow and beyond and chat more about this. So thank you.
David Shukman: [00:25:58] Tom, it's terrific to have the opportunity and great questions and I hope I didn't waffle too much.
Tom: [00:26:03] No, no, it's fantastic.
David Shukman: [00:26:04] We're all stabbing in the dark to try to work out what's happening. And let's compare notes as this thing unfolds.
Tom: [00:26:10] Sounds good. Thanks, David.
David Shukman: [00:26:12] Cheers, Tom.
Clay: [00:26:20] Hey, it's Clay. Thank you so much for listening to this episode. Real quick before you go, thank you to David Shukman for jumping on the phone with Tom for this very timely and relevant conversation. I have put his Twitter in the show notes so you can follow his analysis and reporting on COP26 and beyond. And both of the studies mentioned in this episode, as well as David's article on the NDC Synthesis Report, are also in the show notes. They're clickable, readable right now, so go check them out. Okay, that is everything from us for today, but we'll see you on Thursday for our Future of Foods episode. See you then.
David Shukman: [00:04:58] Terrible mouthful, isn't it? An acronym from hell, isn't it? I mean, and I have to explain this to colleagues, and I need to occasionally pinch myself to remember what it is. But yes, of course, look, the NDC, I think, just translates into climate plan.
Tom: [00:05:15] National climate plan.
David Shukman: [00:05:15] I mean, technically nationally determined contribution, you know, under the under the sort of voluntary ethos of the Paris Agreement, each country comes up with its own its own targets, its own vision for what it wants to do with carbon emissions and determines those plans itself. So the nationally determined contribution, which as I say, I think in journalese, we have to we have to strip out, don't we, if we want to.
Tom: [00:05:43] Outrage + Optimism listeners can handle a little bit more of it but it's still we've still got to be kind. Exactly.
David Shukman: [00:05:48] Okay, okay. So the plans were under the Paris Agreement were meant to be submitted last year, but then, of course, Covid got in the way. So then the deadline slipped to this year. It was all meant to happen by July. And in theory, in a nice, orderly process, as I understand it, every government that's a signatory to the Paris Agreement would send in its plan and the the UN officials would essentially top them all up and see what they'd come to. And sort of on that level, it sounds quite straightforward, but of course, not every country has submitted a plan. I mean, slightly over half have, of the 190 odd and for various counting reasons, the total of countries in the world always changes according to how you measure them. But let's call it 190 odd. Something like just over 100 have submitted their plans. And so the officials in Bonn did the numbers, totted everything up and tried to work out kind of what that would mean. And, you know, I've got to confess, when I saw that this report, this Synthesis Report, this analysis of all of these plans was going to come out, I actually thought it wouldn't be a story. I mean, I'm just whispering that because it's quite embarrassing as a journalist because, well, I'd looked ahead and I'd seen in the small print on the UN website, they would put out an updated Synthesis Report, an updated assessment of everybody's carbon plans in late October, right before COP26.
David Shukman: [00:07:23] I thought, well, actually, in substantive terms, in news terms, that's the story to go big on. Obviously, because by then who knows, we might have had China, we might have had India and others, and that'll be a more realistic assessment of kind of where we stand with carbon ambition. But this thing dropped and we all went through it and there were briefings associated with it. And actually, you know the, but I don't want to sound too jaded and cynical and I've seen it all before, but I mean, you and I, you know, we've read these blunt, scary reports about the climate science and what the world is doing or not doing. And, you know, now and again, you can feel a little bit immune to the kind of the bad stuff, the horror of what these these little sentences contain. But, I mean, this one did take my breath away a bit, actually, because what hadn't been quite ready for was their assessment that rather than emissions going down, which all the science has been screaming is necessary for years now, and particularly recently, it's got to basically be halved global emissions by 2030.
Tom: [00:08:45] Decisive decade, halving emissions.
David Shukman: [00:08:46] Decisive decade, cut it down. And that first came out, I think, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a few years ago, reinforced the other day with their last major report that if you want any chance at all of heading off the really hairy warming later on, you've got to halve emissions by 2030. Well so this totting up this synthesis exercise of the the NDCs the climate plans, concludes that as things stand we're heading for a rise of 16% by 2030. And I don't know about you, but I kind of read that several times. And then I rang a colleague to say, I've got this right, haven't I? 16. Yeah, yeah, yeah. 16%. So rang the news desk and we had an extremely brief discussion which, which concluded with obviously that's a story. Got writing and the story was picked up very, very widely in various BBC outlets and programs and of course by media around the world because I think it's a combination of things. I mean, we're not that far from early August, when the IPCC report laid out more clearly than ever the unequivocal nature of the human contribution to rising temperatures and that pathway, that little table that says, you know, to have the best chance of keeping even slightly to 1.5 as a rise, you've really got to see a dramatic cut in emissions very, very soon, sort of through to COP26 starting kind of in not many weeks. And really, by the time you get to COP, you need to have got your emissions.
Tom: [00:10:38] It's got to be in the bag, right. Yeah.
David Shukman: [00:10:39] In the bag. It's not going to happen during COP. I mean, people often say, well, what are they what are they going to do about emissions and all of that at COP? And I said, well, you know, strictly it happens, it's meant to happen before. So the combination of getting this absolute body blow from the scientists about what's required and then the looming deadline of this mega conference and then halfway between the two, a report that says emissions are projected to go up, not down. Now, I mean, clearly the key thing to bring out is, is who hasn't reported?
Tom: [00:11:19] Well, that's the point. So is part of that number because there are key countries in there who should report and we think will report but haven't yet. And who are they and are they going to?
David Shukman: [00:11:31] I mean, that's $1 million question, isn't it? I mean, as an optimist, you will, of course, expect a wonderfully ambitious climate plan to be published by China, by India and others in the next few weeks, possibly even in the coming week, but certainly in good time for Glasgow and well, I mean, there is the odd hint that that's kind of not impossible.
Tom: [00:12:02] You know, I mean, China, of course, is very important and everyone always talks about 29% of global emissions. But to get from a projected 16% rise to a 50% reduction of global emissions, right, I mean, that's China plus, plus, plus, plus, plus.
David Shukman: [00:12:17] Plus, plus, plus. You need you need lots of big emitters. I mean you need the biggest emitter to act. You need many of the other big emitters to come out with plans. And this is where I think we have to shift from, well, I hesitate to do this with an with an optimistic podcast, but nevertheless, I mean let's.
Tom: [00:12:39] We're outraged too don't forget, yeah.
David Shukman: [00:12:39] Let's actually, that's right. So let's look at a sort of slightly less optimistic scenario but I mean analysts have studied the the NDCs produced by Brazil, Mexico, Russia, which all actually envisage increases in their emissions. So, you know, they're big players. And if they had come out with plans that were the opposite, that also would have been a cause of optimism. But the fact is that they haven't. So, yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right that there needs to be an enormous shift of government thinking and planning and operations in a number of key countries. And many have singled out the G20 group of countries in particular for this. The least developed countries said, look, if the G20 don't act on this very radically, we're not going to get anywhere. One of our radio presenters says, so just sum this up. And I said, well, actually, look, we're heading in the wrong direction. I mean, that's very blunt. And can the supertanker, which I suppose would carry oil, can the supertanker change course to such a degree very soon? Such a degree. So, you know, you one does hear particularly from people either in fossil fuel industries or various sectors associated with them, that kind of let's be realistic, let's be realistic, by which they mean 50% cut by 2030 isn't going to happen. So I think I think something that would be a terrific thought exercise is kind of what has to happen in key governments and economies and global markets. What would it look like actually for that to happen? I think we can all envisage kind of what our lives might be like post 2030, getting towards 2050 if I survive that long or whatever. But you know, what a zero carbon lifestyle might look like, but I think there's been less thinking about actually what it feels like and what's involved to get there.
Tom: [00:14:56] And you mean from a political perspective, the individual choices of the, yeah, yeah.
David Shukman: [00:15:00] Yes. What has to happen in different governments, which at the moment are very pro fossil fuel or sort of antithetical to this whole agenda. What needs to go on? Is it ever going to happen if, you know, there isn't a massive change of politics in some of these countries? I mean, and I think that's a question that needs to be explored because as I say, as things stand, I mean, look, I think there is a scenario where we'll get more NDCs. They may be substantive between now and COP26. I mean, I would err on the side of let's be realistic, you know, are they going to get us to a 50% cut? No. Would they signal in some way some kind of shift that might be positive in that direction? Arguably. But I mean, I think if Boris Johnson effectively hosting the great event in November puts the chances at six out of ten of getting movement on.
Tom: [00:16:00] Which is the news today, right?
David Shukman: [00:16:01] Emissions. News today, six out of ten chance he said on the plane to reporters and.
Tom: [00:16:04] And he's, I mean, he's sort of like recklessly optimistic most of the time. So if that's you know.
David Shukman: [00:16:09] He, yes that's right. I mean, you know, he's well known. He's popular for what's known in the UK as boosterism, I mean you know talking things up and likes to sort of dismiss people who are otherwise too pessimistic in his view. But yes if he's putting the chances at six out of ten for, you know, raising ambitions on emissions cuts and getting to the 100 billion a year target for aid for developing countries, that tells you, I think that there's a little bit of expectation management creeping in now.
Tom: [00:16:43] And so help me understand something there, because I think one thing that listeners struggle with is, is everything seems to be happening at the same time, right? The world seems to be getting better and falling apart at the same time in lots of ways. And we should talk about the politics briefly, but also, I mean, I was just looking at a panel that's coming out this week in the UN General Assembly from the World Economic Forum, and it starts off by saying 60% of the world economy is now covered by a net zero target, right. At the same time, emissions are projected to rise by 16% by 2030. How can those two things coexist? Is someone lying or what's happening?
David Shukman: [00:17:16] Well, I think it's lots of things. I mean, I think if you've got your target of net zero by 2050, in political terms, that's quite a handy 30 years away. I mean, what what do you really need to do between now and 2030. I mean.
Tom: [00:17:34] So it's being back ended is part of the issue.
David Shukman: [00:17:37] Well, I mean, that's likely to be it. And then I saw a great tweet the other day about saying what we need is when it comes to net zero, we need less net and more zero. I mean, you know, how much are people going to be banking on the ability to chuck money at forestry in the 2030's, 2040's or some other offsetting arrangement to to kind of squeak through a net zero target by 2050. I mean, in other words, how much will they offshore their problems or outsource them. And I think that's a whole debate to be had around that. So I think that one has to look closely at whether countries have which have a, and companies also, have a net zero by 2050 target and what they're actually saying by 2030 and then actually what they're doing now in terms of policies and operations and delivery to make 2030 possible and I think that's where you might get that disconnect. And of course if you've got key big players not really following the rules on this anyway in terms of timing, that adds another whole raft of problems.
Tom: [00:18:58] So I have one more question for you. This is really this is very helpful. And I think these things are very confusing for people. So that's part of what the challenge is, is to get through this terminology, to understand what's going on. But, I mean, you know, apart from being Science Editor at the BBC, you're a keen observer of what's happening from a geopolitical perspective. We've talked already about the road to COP. I mean, I was just looking this weekend at this announcement. It sounds to the side, but of this submarine deal that's happening with Australia, the US and the UK and the incandescent rage of the French and the Chinese. I mean, looking back to Paris, everything kind of felt like it was coalescing towards a moment of togetherness. And I looked at that and thought, oh my God, that's really bad. Because actually that brings another in a context where the Chinese have said, we're not dealing with climate change in isolation anymore. It's part of our overall relationship with the West. And then this happens a few weeks before we're trying to get China to make a big commitment on nationally determined contributions. How do you read that and do you see that as a bad sign as I do, or is there something else going on here?
David Shukman: [00:20:00] Look, I think you, it'd be hard to see it as other than a bad sign in terms of climate action. I mean, I always wondered what the Chinese would make of the British chairing COP 26 and and publicly pressing China for climate action while sending Britain's, the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier up through the South China Sea towards Taiwan. I mean, just on that level, how did that how would that play. And particularly, as you say, if China is no longer choosing to compartmentalize different arenas of international engagement, then that's, there's bound to be a connection. Add to that the submarine scenario, and it's got to take the strain in relations between Britain and America on one side and China on the other to a new level. I mean, I did see that a report yesterday, I think, or possibly this morning that, you know, the first hint from British officials, unnamed, that President Xi of China was unlikely to make it to COP26 in Glasgow. Obviously, they'd been hoping very much that he would come and I think many others as well. I mean, there'd been a hint over the last week or so that, well, he hasn't travelled outside China since Covid started, preparing the ground I think for him to say no, I mean, that's obviously got to be a blow. I think we are in a massively more complicated era. I mean, you mentioned Paris and it was very, very striking how in that long run up to the Paris Summit, you know, the sort of entirety of the French diplomatic machine was focused on this one issue. And then along came the unbelievably horrific terror attacks in Paris just ahead. And, you know, I remember an immediate thought amongst people was, well, is that going to derail the summit? Is it too dangerous to have a summit? What are the risks around that? And I think the French handled it so kind of well. And there was such a sort of outpouring of sympathy, I think, from so many people that I think in a sense, it gave a groundswell of support, I think, to the French hosting in Paris. Now we haven't got anything like that. I think there's a lot of bad blood by coincidence. And I know that the, well, you were intimately involved in the negotiations there in and around Paris. But I remember being very aware, even as an outsider, observing that Britain was providing the French with a lot of help in terms of engagement with many of the least developed countries, particularly members of the Commonwealth, and that all helped the negotiating process.
David Shukman: [00:22:48] Well, if you've got the French Foreign Minister saying it's not worth withdrawing, the French Ambassador from the UK because the UK is just a spare wheel on the carriage of this submarine deal driven by America and Australia. I mean, you're not in a space where our nearest neighbour is really going to be helping, one imagines. Unless there's a scenario, that despite everything, there's a recognition that climate has its own special, unique kind of dangers. Planetary dangers. And therefore there can be all kinds of drama and unpleasantness and ructions. And actually, at the end of the day, Macron, Biden, they'll kind of resume relations that actually in the end Johnson and Macron on whatever. And at the end there'll be enough of a dialogue with the Chinese that even if Xi doesn't come, you know, there's enough useful progress there. I mean, you could argue it that way, but it doesn't look promising. I mean, I think it's right to compare it with the French handling of Paris. And we're not in the same, we're not on the same page.
Tom: [00:24:08] And it's a different moment right. I think there's also something about coming off the failure of Copenhagen. Everyone was determined to make that one a success. And in a way, coming off a success. It's kind of hard to follow that in a way with what's next. So I think there's a bit of that going.
David Shukman: [00:24:21] Yeah, I mean, I guess, you know, Glasgow always had, if you like, a more awkward sort of set of agenda items, doesn't it? I mean with Paris there was, you know, can we get a document everybody.
Tom: [00:24:37] Big gavel moment.
David Shukman: [00:24:38] Yeah, big gavel moment. I mean, you know, I know there's talk of a Glasgow agreement and whatever, but I mean Glasgow has a different feel doesn't it. It's like, can it whip up the emissions reductions we've been talking about? Can it nail the 100 billion a year, can it sort out the awful, incredibly complicated article six, the carbon accounting and all of that, which the previous two summits have failed to. So it was never going to have a sort of a nice glide path. It's messier isn't it. And I think it's become and we haven't even talked about Covid. I mean the complications of a pandemic and raging numbers and variants and how you manage an in-person summit with representatives from every country on the planet, some of whom are on the British Covid red list and all the rest of it. I mean that remains to be seen.
Tom: [00:25:36] That's a whole other issue, yeah.
David Shukman: [00:25:36] Journalistic cliche.
Tom: [00:25:38] Well, I mean, we're going to find out a lot more this week, right? All the world leaders or many relevant ones are in New York. So if there's not big commitments this week, that takes us down a certain trajectory. But hopefully by Friday we'll see at least something from a range of countries that gives us a good indication. And we'd love to stay in touch with you in Glasgow and beyond and chat more about this. So thank you.
David Shukman: [00:25:58] Tom, it's terrific to have the opportunity and great questions and I hope I didn't waffle too much.
Tom: [00:26:03] No, no, it's fantastic.
David Shukman: [00:26:04] We're all stabbing in the dark to try to work out what's happening. And let's compare notes as this thing unfolds.
Tom: [00:26:10] Sounds good. Thanks, David.
David Shukman: [00:26:12] Cheers, Tom.
Clay: [00:26:20] Hey, it's Clay. Thank you so much for listening to this episode. Real quick before you go, thank you to David Shukman for jumping on the phone with Tom for this very timely and relevant conversation. I have put his Twitter in the show notes so you can follow his analysis and reporting on COP26 and beyond. And both of the studies mentioned in this episode, as well as David's article on the NDC Synthesis Report, are also in the show notes. They're clickable, readable right now, so go check them out. Okay, that is everything from us for today, but we'll see you on Thursday for our Future of Foods episode. See you then.
