313: Beyond the Bad News: Evidence for Climate Optimism
It's been a bleak few weeks for climate news. So this week we ask: are there still reasons to be optimistic? And what will it take to turn urgency into real change?
About this episode
From stalled UN plastics treaty talks, to the hottest summer on record across much of the northern hemisphere - it’s been a bleak few weeks for climate news. So this week, against a backdrop of worsening headlines, we ask: are there still reasons to be optimistic? And what will it take to turn urgency into real change?
Christiana Figueres, Tom Rivett-Carnac and Paul Dickinson are joined by Ani Dasgupta, President & CEO of the World Resources Institute. His new book, The New Global Possible: Rebuilding Optimism in the Age of Climate Crisis, argues that while we know what needs to be done, the real challenge lies in how to orchestrate transformation at scale.
Ani shares stories of progress from cities, nations, and communities around the world, making the case that optimism isn’t about ignoring reality, but about mobilising the political, economic, and social will to act.
But does a hopeful outlook risk minimising the seriousness of the crisis? And how can we close the gap between lofty pledges and meaningful action?
Learn more:
📖 Check out Ani Dasgupta’s The New Global Possible - currently available internationally in ebook and in print editions from many retailers
🌍 Read about the background and latest developments on the UN Global Plastics Treaty
🌡️ Dive into this roundup of the record-breaking extreme weather that hit the northern hemisphere this summer
🎤 Leave us your voice notes and questions for upcoming episodes on SpeakPipe
Follow us on social media for behind the scenes moments and to watch our videos:
Instagram @outrageoptimism
LinkedIn @outrageoptimism
Or get in touch with us via this form.
Producer: Ben Weaver-Hincks
Video Producer: Caitlin Hanrahan
Assistant Producer: Eve Jones
Exec Producer: Ellie Clifford
Commissioning Editor: Sarah Thomas
This is a Persephonica production for Global Optimism and is part of the Acast Creator Network.
Full Transcript
Transcript generated by AI. While we aim for accuracy, errors may still occur. Please refer to the episode’s audio for the definitive version
Paul: [00:00:00] It's difficult lightning to catch that Christiana.Christiana: [00:00:02] Will hang around me and you'll get the lightning.
Paul: [00:00:06] Oh, I think I just got one down the back of my spine.
Tom : [00:00:10] Hi friends. How nice to see both of you. Listeners may not realize this, but we have not been getting together every week recently because we pre-recorded a bunch of episodes. But today we're back. It's the beginning of September. It's the beginning of what we have come to realize is the most intense period of the year for those who work on climate. So are you both ready for it? How are you feeling?
Paul: [00:00:28] I'm fascinated by the potential of being the Inside Cop, official podcast of the extraordinary global gathering in Berlin, so that feels like a huge opportunity and exciting duty. And yeah, I'm sort of watching. Well, I don't know what the television equivalent of Doomscrolling is, but watching the Oval Office get painted with more and more gold is increasingly bizarre. Watching troops on the streets of various cities is increasingly bizarre. Watching targeted attacks on the renewables industry. Poor old Orsted build a wind farm and then they're not allowed to open it. And then, unbelievably, Ice agents go and invade a massive battery car manufacturer, Hyundai, LG. It all seems a bit like sort of desperate efforts to try and get in the way of the energy transformation. And then at the other end of the scale, the whole world seems to be united around the energy transformation. And I'm going to give my last word of huge excitement and optimism to Heather Cox Richardson. We don't normally big up other podcasts, but there's a brilliant interview with her on Pod Save America. And if you look at the historical context of what's happening, I do believe our oppositional forces in the United States are much more brittle than we realize. And that's a cause for optimism in my heart.
Tom : [00:01:40] So, Christiana, that was a bit of a tour de force there from Paul, covering everything from sort of like podcast recommendations to a bit of a, you know, walk through the book of revelations in terms of what's happening in the US. But, um, how do you see what's happened over this northern summer? I mean, it's been it's been a lot of problems. It feels like to me. We've had heat waves. We've had breakdowns of international treaties on plastics where we thought we were going to meet agreements. There's been there's been a lot of headwinds, it feels to me. Is that how you see it?
Christiana: [00:02:05] In addition to the US administration? Yes.
Tom : [00:02:07] In addition.
Christiana: [00:02:08] Gets worse every day. But I did want to get in just a little bit into the Global Plastics Treaty, because it really is such a crime that this did not go through. It is the treaty that up until then had advanced quicker than any other environmental treaty. I think that's not a scientific statement. It's just my impression from observing the advance of the treaty and the fact that it was impossible to get to the adoption of a treaty is just it's just a crime. And I say it's a crime because I live on the beach, directly on the beach, and I walk through mountains of plastics every day just to go and get my daily exercise on the beach. And two reasons I would say that we really have to take note of here. One is country interests and the other one is procedural country interests. Those countries, a vast majority of countries that wanted the treaty to be based on both consumption, waste management, recycling all of these consumption measures to be much more careful about the multiple use of plastics, but also have the treaty begin to clamp down on production. Because you can't just clamp down on consumption, you have to do both production and consumption. And just a few oil producing countries supported by the United States to say that, no, they were not going to include any production measures. I mean, it just yeah, it is very, very frustrating. And to my second point, which is actually directly linked to this procedural voting, if we could have both. The Unfcc does not have voting, but the other treaties should be able to get to voting. Had they been able to vote, it would have been carried. So it just a reminder of how important procedural issues are. Although most people go like, oh my God, here we go with procedure again and roll their eyes, but we would have had a very different outcome.
Tom : [00:04:19] So everyone joins our optimism for an international procedural rules. But no, I think you're exactly right. I always think watching the plastics treaty breakdown as well, it always strikes me as so weird the way like the US was closely allied with Russia when it came to this plastics treaty in trying to prevent, exactly, as you say, any rules that came into force on production. So Russia, the US and Saudi Arabia were the ones Saudi.
Christiana: [00:04:43] Arabia.
Tom : [00:04:44] Pushing to try to Russia, the US and.
Paul: [00:04:45] Saudi Arabia between the three of them producing 44% of the world's oil. This is not an accident.
Tom : [00:04:50] It's not an accident. And, you know, I mean, the US has been playing this very, very poisonous game on the international stage. I think this summer you can also look at the International Maritime Organization, where they also nix the treaty to try to introduce limits on shipping as well as the roles they played with plastics. So I think this really bodes badly.
Christiana: [00:05:10] Well, they didn't nix the treaty. I mean on on IMO. They left the conversation and then it was voted on and the IMO agreement went through without the United States. What they're doing now is pressuring countries to not put it in effect, because if they do put it in effect, then they will join the tariff war, right? Yeah. I mean, this is the war. This is the US administration. War is tariffs.
Tom : [00:05:36] But if you say that the US will use tariffs to stop countries introducing domestic legislation to protect the environment, that is an incredibly invasive and brutal use of their influence around the world.
Christiana: [00:05:50] It's intrusion into domestic policy.
Paul: [00:05:53] Yeah, the whole thing's sort of beyond crazy. I mean, Trump got to the white House by just lying to the American people. I'm going to stop the war in Ukraine on day one or in one day. This is, of course, rubbish that things are getting worse in Ukraine. You've managed to reunite practically the entire world, president Putin all meeting up in China and sort of celebrating this new global alliance. Now, look, I don't approve of the political systems, but you can understand it. The degree to which the Trump administration is managing to make enemies across the world is absolutely extraordinary. The good news, however, I think we have to recognise that nature finds a way and that there are broad alliances growing up. The rest of the world is an important unit and it's not going to be forgotten.
Tom : [00:06:40] You know, Christiana, every time I look at the plastics issue, I think about this one moment that you and I shared in the front porch of your house about two years ago. I wonder if you know already the moment I'm going to refer to where we were sitting there, we were having some retreat with colleagues, and you were looking down at the beach and you went, oh my God. Turtle.
Christiana: [00:07:00] Oh, yeah.
Tom : [00:07:01] And you got up and you started running down the beach, and we all came running down the beach behind you. And we got there just in time to see this turtle die. Yeah. And it had its flippers were were covered all around plastic. It had like a bit of plastic hanging out of its mouth. And it was just this immediate, like, visceral, piercing, heartbreaking moment of seeing the reality that, you know, goes on around the world, but just witnessing the struggle of this creature that it feels such a privilege to see anyway, but to see it in that situation, it's this mixture of guilt and shame and anger. I think about it every time.
Paul: [00:07:37] Yeah.
Christiana: [00:07:38] Oh.
Tom : [00:07:39] Now, shall we quickly talk about another happy topic, which is the incidence of extreme weather around the world over this summer. I mean, this has really been a summer. We keep saying this, but it's sort of been a summer, kind of like no other. There has been wildfires. Sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic and North Pacific reached record highs in August. Europe was just scorched. Wildfires burned a million hectares, which is the highest, I think, ever, or certainly for many decades. The U.K. had this ridiculous summer. We're not used to the concept of summer in the U.K., but this is like the highest on record since the middle of the 1800s. And China, massively unreported, also experienced its hottest ever summer with an unusually long monsoon season now. Listeners might get, you know, tired of us talking about this, but it just every year it's so hard to keep seeing the red light flashing as it keeps flashing brighter and brighter. But this summer should be one that wakes us up more than it is, because we feel very apathetic in the face of what is not normal.
Paul: [00:08:42] I mean, you know, this is what we've got to get used to. It's just, you know, in that brilliant interview we had with the farmers in, in Umbria, They said the same thing. You know, we've got to prepare for these higher temperatures. They're here, you know, all this stuff that we've been expecting. It's here. Climate scientists predicted it. It's not unexpected. It's the new reality. And I just the last thing I'll say is my lawns out here. You know, I have a big shared communal garden and all the grass is yellow. And that's how it is in the summer. Now, you don't have green grass. We have yellow grass.
Christiana: [00:09:09] Yeah, but hold on, Paul, on the one hand. Yes. Okay. We have to go. I don't think it's get used to. We have to gulp the new reality that we are heading toward warmer and warmer temperatures. But it's not just passively sitting back and getting used to it. It's. God damn it. That's why we have to do something about this.
Paul: [00:09:30] Yes, Christiana, I was I was using the sort of inappropriate, you know, ghastly human nature of falling in with it. But it will steal me and all of us, I guess, in different ways. But it's it's difficult lightning to catch that Christiana and to deploy.
Christiana: [00:09:49] Well, We'll hang around me and you'll get the lightning.
Paul: [00:09:52] Oh, I think I just got one down the back of my spine. Now, this.
Tom : [00:09:57] This has been a somewhat challenging episode with all the topics, but we have a great interview, which will be a perfect antidote to it, because our good friend Ani Dasgupta, the president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, an organization of more than 2000 staff working in 60 countries on issues of climate and food and energy, has written a book and it's called The New Global Possible Rebuilding Optimism in the age of the Climate Crisis. Christiana, I believe you wrote the foreword for this book, which speaks very highly of it already. It's an excellent book. I think we've all read it, and the two of you are going to go and interview Ani. So come back after the break and you'll hear from Ani.
Christiana: [00:10:37] Ani Dasgupta, thank you so much for joining us here on Outrage and Optimism in particular, because you're willing to talk about your new exciting book, The New Global possible. Obviously, I very much believe in your message here, but I wondered if you're up for a little experiment today. What do you think I am?
Ani Dasgupta: [00:10:58] Tell me what the experiment is. Thank you for having me here.
Christiana: [00:11:01] No, we're delighted to have you. So the experiment. Maybe it's more of an experiment for me than for you. Could we, Paul and myself, play devil's advocate? Because this is an incredibly optimistic book, as the title already says. And with all the examples and the six categories that you have. But I wonder if, given the context, the geopolitical context that we have right now, if out of total love and respect. Paul and I could act as maybe a loving thorn in your side, because I really wonder how on earth can anyone write a book about optimism when the geopolitics is just so terrible, and when our news feeds are just so terrible every single day. So would you be up to me being a contrarian?
Ani Dasgupta: [00:11:52] I'm totally up for it. And I'm sure there'll be many thorns and won't be as loving as yours.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:11:58] Uh, in the next few months of my life. So I'm totally up for it. And I think it will be an interesting conversation.
Christiana: [00:12:06] Okay, great. Well, Paula, are you up for that experiment?
Paul: [00:12:09] I'm very much looking forward. I've never heard anyone be so nasty with so much nice upfront preparation for being nasty.
Christiana: [00:12:16] Oh, I'm not gonna be nasty. Well, we'll see. We'll see where we go. But let's just start with the intent of the book. Here you are, having put, as I know, because I witnessed this writing process so much thought, energy, time, research, evidence, so much into a book that wants to give the message that we're actually doing a pretty good job on climate change and Put out the pebbles of the path for how we can do better. Across six categories that you have. So why did you feel compelled to write an optimistic book that brings hope and direction to our climate action? When the world and our news is actually so much more dominated by doom and gloom.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:13:13] When I started writing the book a few years back, I was surrounded by people who were disappointed with the pace of progress. I feel today, you know, we kind of timed the book at 10th year anniversary of the Paris Agreement. It's I feel even more relevant.
Christiana: [00:13:29] I noticed, I noticed.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:13:32] Look, you're absolutely right. It is a very peculiarly daunting moment right now across the world. I feel even with that, I feel optimistic. And I just want to say that I don't want to have just a message of Messages. Optimism. My book, my work is to demonstrate the evidence for optimism. And I want to share with you three things that jump out to me. There are many evidences. One is, you know, this wasn't true when we. When you architected the Paris Agreement that I write about in the first chapter, that wasn't true even then, ten years back, right now we are seeing the technological possibilities that is possible not only in clean energy that everyone talks about or even storage, but even things we few years back said was a hard to abate sector. The progress we're making on cement and steel. So what I'm saying is, once you let the economy actually understand the economic transition, the technological pieces that we are putting together should give you hope. But I write very clearly and I believe it. The technology itself is not enough. We actually have to take the technology and build the ecosystem.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:14:37] So actual outcome happens. The orchestration of change takes place. And my message over the 60 stories that I have in the book is, this is the orchestration that we need to learn about, focus on, and not just the technology. We have focused too long on technological solutions and orchestration. And third, when we're able to bring technology and orchestration skills together and do things that are good for people, people benefit from them. The book documents numerous changes that are taking place across the board. Not fast enough, not in the scale we want. But if we bring these things together, things are happening. So look, I think it is it is a difficult moment, but I don't think, Christiana, you know, this. We don't have the luxury of disappointment. We know what we need to do. What the way to do it. We have to change the way we have to do it and move away from just solutions to orchestration. The change that is good for people, I think a much, much different future is possible. That's the purpose of putting this together.
Christiana: [00:15:38] So fair enough, fair enough. Now, I would argue from my devil's advocate corner over here, your main message, but correct me if I'm wrong, is about orchestrating a multi-stakeholder coordination. Now, I would argue, yes, that is absolutely necessary and critical, and it takes a lot of time to do that. It takes a lot of energy to do that. And if there is one thing that we are really scarce on in addressing climate change is time. And you pointed out to the fact that ten years ago, we had no clue that technologies would ramp up as exponentially as they have the solution technologies. But we also did not know that the scientific evidence for runaway climate would be continuing to escalate and to send more and more shivers down our back. So we're sort of here with two curves competing each other, right? One is the solutions, the multi-stakeholders, etc. and the other is the evidence of impacts that is getting worse and worse. So why do you feel and why do you make a case for something that is as critical as multi-stakeholder coordination? But that takes so much time.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:17:05] Because I think we need to focus on what is actually happening. So you talked about that. It is a very difficult moment. It is a very difficult moment everywhere. But the United States where I live, it's a peculiarly difficult moment.
Christiana: [00:17:17] Indeed.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:17:18] Even in the United States, in the middle of the United States, in the state of Kentucky right now, there's a transition going on of school district after school district, embracing electric buses. Transportation for United States, as you know very well, is one of the biggest change that needs to take place. Heavy transport is even more harder. But in Kentucky, in the middle of the country. Why is that? Because kids are actually better off. They're not breathing diesel fumes. They are not actually. They are peaceful. Even drivers are telling us that they don't have headaches. So parents and drivers actually supporting this change. The best part of the story is in Kentucky school to save money, because electricity costs less than gasoline and increase the teacher salary with that, save money. So when you build the ecosystem of change, when you orchestrate, not buy a single electric bus, this is great. But actually bring the mothers, the manufacturers, the school districts, the bus drivers associations together. You actually see change even where you would think it's not happening. And you talk about climate impacts. We are I think we are seeing a systematic climate destruction across the world. And I write a whole chapter about how climate change is like the poster child of injustice, because people who suffer from it have very little to do with it. You and I or Paul you're not going to suffer from it that much, because when it gets hard, we will have air conditioning. If it's our house gets flooded, we'll cut plumber or we'll move. We have resources to do so. Everyone doesn't.
Christiana: [00:18:48] Exactly.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:18:49] And there's a story in the book that I'm in Bangladesh 20 years back, there was a category five storm. 100,000 plus people died. Bangladesh then had a public pressure to do something about it. Shelters. So they over 20 years built shelters together, put volunteers, women, mother volunteers about announcements. And they created an ecosystem that actually supposed to they had a category five storm recently, 2003. Three people died on secondary conditions. Think about the change that took place. Bangladesh spends 10% of the annual budget on adaptation. No other country does that. If you do things that is good for people and that is the trick. We cannot talk about 20 years from now, your life will be better.
Christiana: [00:19:36] Correct.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:19:37] We have to do things to bring people with us. And once you do that, you create the political space for adaptation investment. I'm pointing out Bangladesh because Bangladesh is not a very rich country, but they are actually allocating money because they have done something that is good for people. That is the orchestration of change that I'm talking about that actually helps people and that creates the political space to act. And that's not happening everywhere. Load More
Christiana: [00:20:02] You in the book, you look at these issues through six lenses, right, that are really critical multilateralism, technology, business, justice, economics and cities. And I'm wondering if you can go a little bit more into the cities and justice piece, how those two interact with each other, why cities, I am assuming because it impacts citizens directly. But I also would love to hear some more stories than you already told us. Some about how the change in cities is actually part of protecting citizens. Do you notice how I've already gotten into Christiana the Optimist? I'm going to have to get back into my contrarian terms. But let's go with that for the time being
Ani Dasgupta: [00:20:49] And then Paul is going to keep you straight.
Paul: [00:20:53] I've got I've got a tough one for you in a moment.
Christiana: [00:20:55] Okay.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:20:57] I very much wanted to use the six chapters, as I feel six avenues or six vehicles for exponential change, and they will all work together with each other. They're like portal of entry. Multilateralism is one of them. Economics is one of them, cities is one of them. So that's how I saw those chapters. And I because I did not want to write a book at all about specific solution. I wanted to write a book about how, not what. And that's what I felt those chapters were, because I think, how is what we need to focus on, not just what we need to do, but how we get done, how we bring change. I do want to talk about the justice chapter, which people have pointed out. That's an odd chapter. You know, I understand the other five. Why do you have a chapter on justice? And I feel justice will be a central theme, whether we like it or not, in the forward discussion of climate, for two reasons. One is the moral case, right? People who are suffering did not did not create this. We all know the moral case among countries, but also inside countries because inside countries climate change creates scarcity, scarcity of water, scarcity of land.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:22:02] You can build a house on your land, you can till a scarcity of clean air anytime. There's scarcity. Who suffer most? This is our 10,000 years of unfortunate history of our our kind. So we have to look at what's happening inside the country, what's happening among countries. But the case I made in the chapter is not just the moral case, it is our self-interest. If we are a richer country, to actually make sure there is water, there is land. Otherwise, the food and water related wars already happening. Food and water related migration is already taking place. Even cities, for example. If citizens don't benefit from the actions they're taking, cities don't work. You ask me about cities. There's a very good example that I'm fond of. 20 years ago in Mexico City that you're familiar with was the one of the most polluted cities in the world, air pollution. I mean, and they started a metro bus system that still is going on that created rapid transit for people. People were spending two hours to get to work, clean the air, raise the land value. But the best thing it did the way it did it, is the drivers of the minibuses that existed before the Metrobus were trained and incorporated that opposition.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:23:11] The people who will lose out from this change were part of this change. And that is the kind of way we need to actually think about how to bring change. So we think about who is the winner, who's the loser, and how can we get a political process going. I think cities for me, and I've worked for cities for many years, we should look at it as a factory for innovation, innovation about transformation, social and economic and behavioural transformation. And there's so many stories. I have a story from London that I really like that mayor 2000. When Ken Livingstone got elected three years later, he started congestion pricing. Everyone thought it was a crazy idea. Even in UK is very famous for betting on everything. So the bookies bet at 4 to 1 that he won't succeed today in 2025, Sadiq Khan actually is expanded Boris Johnson, a conservative mayor, expanded the low emission zone. Once you do things that benefits people and you can demonstrate the benefit, there is a political process that's durable and that durability of change is what we need, and that's what orchestration, I feel is important.
Christiana: [00:24:14] Stickiness is what I call that stickiness.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:24:17] Absolutely, absolutely.
Christiana: [00:24:18] Please help me out because I have to get back to my contrarian. So please help me out.
Paul: [00:24:23] We we want to believe you, Ani, and thank you for the amazing things WRC has done. The the GHG protocol. You know, we've we've all spent a quarter of a century with corporations and everyone have been implementing this. But the problem, the problem, of course, is that now all the low hanging fruit have been gathered, all the no regrets reductions have been made. And unfortunately, now we're entirely dependent upon policy. That's the next phase. And of course, that's all going horribly wrong. Climate change is driving the migrants. The migrants are driving the populists. You have this kind of populist pro-fossil fuel government in the US. We have one tapping on the door of ten Downing Street here in the UK. So unfortunately, we seem to have lost the the political leadership and unfortunately the climate leadership falls with it. It's very unfortunate. How would you respond?
Christiana: [00:25:10] Pretty good. Paul Dickinson I didn't know you were up for that. That's pretty good.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:25:15] And he kept a very straight face when he.
Speaker7: [00:25:16] Was doing that.
Paul: [00:25:18] I can only do it in a role playing one of these awful right wing people. Not. No, I don't.
Paul: [00:25:23] Mean I don't mean awful right wing, actually, I mean awful.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:25:26] I think this is a very good question.
Paul: [00:25:28] Not left wing, not right wing. It's pro-fossil fuel.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:25:31] My answer my thinking is not anything any read or write. And what is the evidence telling us? Let me say two things about what you said. You're absolutely right about the opposition to climate policy we're seeing across the world. It is not just the United States. United States is an extreme version of it. Look at the election that took place in Germany. Look at the election that took place in Netherlands. These two countries consistently, consistently public opinion shows that four out of five people are pro climate. Why did they elect in Netherlands a government that is not pro-climate? Actually, last year, 2024, more than half the world's population went to elections. It was the world's biggest election year. Only one country, which is UK, actually had a winner that talked about climate and one one country. That doesn't mean countries across the world are not doing climate action, but they are unable to speak about it in a way that is politically viable for them to think about it. So I just want to say two things to your question. One is we actually today, all of us are in a economy that is based on hydrocarbon that is 200 years old. Those 200 years has been the most successful 200 years for the human civilization in welfare gains in average, not evenly distributed, not at all evenly.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:26:48] But it has actually been a very successful 200 years of growth, actually directly connected with availability of affordable distributable energy. That system that we have today, the hydrocarbon economy is actually everywhere. It's not just on transport, it's not just on energy production, it's on shampoo that we use this morning. It's in everything. So what I'm arguing that we are actually in a beginning of a economic transition. It is not when we sign players. And Christiana, I hope, would agree with me. We thought we were signing a climate agreement, but what we actually signed is an economic transition goal, which only later people actually focused on it, which requires every part of the economy to work. It's a much bigger enterprise than we thought, and we are just the beginning of it. We don't have that much time, but we are in the beginning of the transition, that successful economy. Paul. They are incumbents in it. The oil and gas sector is a $7 trillion business, $7 trillion business. Then I think to expect that they will just go on and move away. It's not a reasonable expectation, right? I mean, we have to face the fact they are immensely successful.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:28:01] They are very well run. They're very profitable. They have enormous financial resources and enormous technical resource. All that I hope can be changed for good. But we have to we have to face the fact that this is where it is. So I think we should be disappointed at the pace of change, but I don't think we should be surprised with the opposition. I think we have to be ready for the opposition. What I think has happened, Paul, if I can simplify, It took us more than ten years to actually get the science out. Not because the scientists weren't good, because there was immense opposition, concerted opposition to get the science out by the petroleum industry. But then it took us another ten years, and Christiana was very much central to it to convert the science to actual commitment. But then we are in the second phase now is getting the commitment to outcome, to understanding. It's not a commitment on climate, it's commitment for economic transition. You can't do economic transition without political support. And what I think we are learning is that the politics of it is in the nascency. Our understanding of how to bring political support for this transition is in the early stages of it.
Paul: [00:29:10] Mhm. Do you know.
Speaker3: [00:29:12] Honestly behind my cruel question was, was was originally a compliment about your policy. Centre for Energy Transition. You're focusing on policy innovation. We have these patents in the renewable energy. But we we almost want to have not patents but we want to have an explosion of innovation in the policy realm. And I think I do know you lead that. So my question was really a veiled compliment.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:29:34] I think that's where we are. And I think what my biggest plea to my, my peers and my people in the movement is to recognize where we are and not be just be disappointed. Absolutely. But don't be surprised and be ready for the fight ahead. And I think there are things to do. I don't I really don't think we have a luxury to be disappointed for too long.
Christiana: [00:29:54] Amen to that, Ani. We're we're all getting ready for cop 30. What role do you see to two interlinked but separable forces? One is multilateralism, which you address in your book and which basically is, let's call it international politics or international geopolitics and domestic policy, which you and Paul have been talking about. Now, where do you think we should be pushing most? Is it multilateralism and international agreements, or is it domestic policy?
Ani Dasgupta: [00:30:35] I think this recognition that there are two layers to it is the first, the best starting point that there is. Countries have a domestic policy that has different directions often than when the same country actually goes to international. You have seen this many times, Christiana, and we have seen this. So without the fear of oversimplifying it, I am going to oversimplify it. Most countries domestic policy is driven towards growth and employment. If they are unable to do something that doesn't create jobs. I mean, South Africa right now is 30% unemployment. And what public policy are they going to do that doesn't address that? And international discussions have too long. Climate discussion has been focused on ambition. How can we do more? I think what I'm arguing is that if you keep doing these two things separately, we will never have a real agreement with people implement, right? Because they will go and sign things that they actually would not do because they don't actually figure out how to do those in a way that creates jobs. What we need to do. This is why I think the central, central departure I'm arguing for is that we have to stop thinking about as a climate action and think about the economic transition towards a lower carbon, nature, positive, people centric economy. And if politicians are able to paint a very vivid picture, which I don't think we there are that what is the transition for for a better world that is actually has abundant, affordable energy, that has food, that is nature and nature, that has clean air for our children, clean water that is the future.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:32:07] But what we have right now is a narrative of sacrifice that we have to do less of this or less of that. Take shorter baths, don't eat meat. So I'm not a political expert, but we need a political process to support this economic transition that we are facing. And only then, only then we will actually be able to get the momentum and the political savviness that we need. We cannot have a more of a science discussion anymore because as you all, both of you know, science is changing, but it is just a very good place. But we have created a body of knowledge that only us can talk to each other. We need to get everyone involved. Economic transition doesn't take place without everyone getting involved. Every ministries. And unfortunately and I've argued UNF triple C not when you were there much later that we still are having conversations with environment ministers. We need to bring the finance and planning ministers there, and we are seeing a little more of that. Right, Christiana? I mean, more of them are coming.
Christiana: [00:33:03] We are, we are.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:33:04] But coalition for Finance Minister, which the world Bank have put together, comes and meets here in Washington. And, you know, that is such a good body that could be connected to this, right, for future planning. And that's the kind of stuff we need to be thinking more about.
Christiana: [00:33:17] Okay, putting my contrarian cloak on again, because I keep on trying to remind myself that that's my role here today. I would I would agree with the picture that you paint, honey, but you live and work in Washington, DC because that's where your eye is headquartered. And the picture that you paint of an economic transition is exactly what the Trump administration is trying to kill through a myriad different measures, of which we have seen some and very likely not all poison darts that they're throwing at that economic transition. So the question would be, do they have the capacity to stop that? Or what is the ultimate effect of the Trump's administration, War on the economic transition.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:34:08] I don't think they can stop, but they definitely can be harmful and slow down. And we're already seeing I mean, we have ourselves estimated that the renewable energy production might be halved by what we are estimated that would happen otherwise. So yes, it will have a daunting effect. But the economics of renewable energy, there is economics out there that will continue to go forward. Even in the United States. Oil and gas are publicly traded commodities. You can't change the price by just drilling more. But, Christina, I just want to take a step back because I think it's very important because I think what's happening in the United States takes up all the air space right now. And I think the United States is a very, very important country. And it has been a very important leader in climate movement for a long time. But I just want to say that, you know, oil and gas is concentrated reserves is only three regions in the world North America, the Middle East and Russia. The rest of the world actually doesn't have long term reserves of oil and gas. The countries I work in, the countries I think is the future of the planet, are large middle income countries where most people live. Most of the carbon may come from from now till 2020 to 2050. This is, you know, China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Kenya, the large middle country, those countries, none of them actually have long term fossil fuel.
Christiana: [00:35:31] They have to import fossil fuels.
Paul: [00:35:33] And pay for it in the in the international currencies in dollars which they can't print.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:35:37] They have coal. They're not very good quality except Australia. But all these countries, Christiana, are actually focused on getting renewable energy because that's what they think their energy security is. All these countries I was in a meeting in Vietnam earlier this year where ten leaders of countries have come. And they're they were just talking about how can we do more? How can you help us do more? We need to do more renewables. It's a completely different world. So we see a world that is dichotomous right now. And one country will not define the future of this planet, though it's a very important country.
Christiana: [00:36:10] Amen I love it, I love it. Arnie, thank you so, so much. It's been a difficult conversation for me to don my contrarian cloak because we here on the podcast, we so agree with your arguments, and it's just so wonderful to see your particular layout of these arguments and how you've woven them together, not just as arguments that are fundamentally based on reasoning, but with so many illustrations, with so much evidence to support what you're saying. So thank you very much. I know this has been I don't know, how many years have you been working on this well-researched book?
Ani Dasgupta: [00:36:51] Many. More than three years. But I just want to say, Christiana, first of all, thank you to you and Paul. But it's a team effort. You know, a lot of people in WRI are supported, and otherwise it would be impossible for me to do this.
Christiana: [00:37:01] So you orchestrated a team effort.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:37:04] I see you're very much a team effort. What you want to see is very much a team effort. Yeah, but, Paul.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:37:10] I just want to say one thing I learned from Christiana when I was talking to her about this book is that orchestration. If you talk about the world, it has to start within you. You have to live it. You have to change yourself. And which I have taken so much, Christiana, that that inspiration I keep talking about always mentioned that. So thank you.
Christiana: [00:37:29] Absolutely. No thank you. Thank you, Ani, for all of this effort to you and your whole orchestrated team. And they're doing a great job in getting the book out there. So good timing to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Paris and just in the lead up to Cop 30. And it is, I think, the nascent story that is really beginning to emerge, which is there is a new economy rising and independently, in fact, even of politics and almost of policy, although policy has much more effect. But independently of politics, this new economy is rising, will continue to rise. Cannot. You can't send the waters of a river back up. And I think you will find that your book will be echoed very, very well this year because it is at the heart of the story that is coming out. So thank you so much. Thank you for coming on. Thank you for writing the book. Thank you for distributing the book as much as possible.
Paul: [00:38:31] Just to my own opportunity to say thank you also. Yeah, this this kind of thinking follow the example of the UK. I would say to politicians around the world, read the book, make the policy, get elected.
Christiana: [00:38:42] There you go.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:38:44] That's that's well said Paul thank you.
Christiana: [00:38:47] Super, super. Ani, thank you so much.
Tom : [00:38:54] So great to hear from Ani. What an excellent way to start what I regard as sort of the beginning of the year, but the beginning of the rest of the year and an intense period to look at some of the opportunities, the reasons for optimism. You were both sitting there with him. What did you take from the conversation?
Christiana: [00:39:07] Well, as we know by now, as listeners will know by now, I really tried to be contrarian in this conversation because tried.
Paul: [00:39:14] Tried and failed.
Christiana: [00:39:15] Tried and failed. Yes. Thank you Paul. I did try and fail and I tried because it is important to push on this so that it doesn't come across as naive optimism. As, you know, greenwashing the reality. Et cetera. Et cetera. So that's why it is important. But also I failed because, well, I agree with him. We agree with him. It is just so compelling. All of the arguments that have to do with this transition toward a better economy, safer, healthier, more just economy are just so compelling. So it's very difficult not to agree.
Paul: [00:39:57] Yeah. And, you know, it would be silly to try and disagree with him in a certain sense. But one thing I really want to pick up on that I think is incredibly significant is he's talking about how the economic transition away from fossil fuels is going to reduce the expenditure. Most countries, the majority of countries are spending importing sometimes coal, oil and definitely gas. Now when countries import less oil and gas, they part with less internationally denominated currency. You know, one of the reasons it's difficult for countries to borrow or to issue debt in euros or dollars or something is because they haven't got a printing press that can print euros and dollars. So that's an extremely rare commodity. The credit worthiness of any country that imports less oil and gas is going to improve. So governments can kind of begin to issue debt with more confidence when they're decarbonizing, because they're going to be better able to repay that debt in internationally recognized currencies. You know, the borrowing currencies, the denominations of dollars or euros or whatever it is, because they're spending less money importing oil and gas. And, you know, you don't know how big these numbers are. In 2022, the UK spent £112 £12 billion importing oil and gas in one year, and we even drill the stuff. So for many countries, this is an incredibly brilliant way to change the the balance of payments surplus and to improve your economic strength, you know?
Christiana: [00:41:26] Lord Nicholas Stern has been making this argument since 2006, when he put his stern review out. He was, as far as I remember. But please correct me if I'm wrong. The first one that argued it is just better for the economy to transition to cleaner technologies than it is to continue to buttress the technologies that are by now obsolete. And he laid out all of the economic reasons why it was a better choice for countries. So, you know, the fact that we now know a that he was right. B that we have so much more detail and facts around this is is great and frustrating, frankly.
Tom : [00:42:10] I mean, I'm amazed that Nick isn't more angry these days, to be honest with you. He came out with all of that in 2006 and made the case. And it's been so frustrating to see the world's governments not take account for that and continue to proceed with policy making, as if that wasn't the case, when it clearly is. I thought your conversation with Arnie was excellent. I think he was very compelling. The book's very good. I think that, you know, one of the things that I'm most pleased about, about what's happening at the moment in the climate movement, is I do think that there is finally a sort of substantive movement away from talking all the time about what we need to stop people doing and more towards what we really want to embrace. And I think that the fact that we spent decades saying, you can't do this, you can't do that, you can't do that is partly now baked into the underlying DNA of what people think of when they think of the environmental movement or people who care about climate. But where we need to get to is, you know, how do we say yes to things? How do we build the things of the future? How do we tell the better story about the world that we're creating, that we want to step into? And I thought Arnie's book did a really good job of balancing that out, and I thought it came out in the interview. So I think we can always do more in Overindexing that way. I think the narrative that we just go around telling people what they can't do anymore is basically completely discredited as a way of getting more people involved in climate and nature. But his book is a big part of that shift as well.
Paul: [00:43:32] Great bottle, the lightning. That's my advice.
Tom : [00:43:35] Bottle the lightning. Oh, we've got one more week till before New York Climate Week, where some combination of us will be there. Obviously, we're now going to start engaging much more in this Inside Cop series that hopefully listeners know about where we'll be partnering with the Cop presidency of Brazil to bring you the inside stories on the road from here to the Cop. So there'll be lots more of that to come in the next few weeks. It's going to be a consequential and important lead in to the time in Belem. Please stay with us. We'll bring you all the best stories. It was nice to be back. We'll see you next week.
Christiana: [00:44:03] Bye.
Paul: [00:44:03] Bye, Tom. Bye, Christiana. See you all next week.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:20:49] And then Paul is going to keep you straight.
Paul: [00:20:53] I've got I've got a tough one for you in a moment.
Christiana: [00:20:55] Okay.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:20:57] I very much wanted to use the six chapters, as I feel six avenues or six vehicles for exponential change, and they will all work together with each other. They're like portal of entry. Multilateralism is one of them. Economics is one of them, cities is one of them. So that's how I saw those chapters. And I because I did not want to write a book at all about specific solution. I wanted to write a book about how, not what. And that's what I felt those chapters were, because I think, how is what we need to focus on, not just what we need to do, but how we get done, how we bring change. I do want to talk about the justice chapter, which people have pointed out. That's an odd chapter. You know, I understand the other five. Why do you have a chapter on justice? And I feel justice will be a central theme, whether we like it or not, in the forward discussion of climate, for two reasons. One is the moral case, right? People who are suffering did not did not create this. We all know the moral case among countries, but also inside countries because inside countries climate change creates scarcity, scarcity of water, scarcity of land.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:22:02] You can build a house on your land, you can till a scarcity of clean air anytime. There's scarcity. Who suffer most? This is our 10,000 years of unfortunate history of our our kind. So we have to look at what's happening inside the country, what's happening among countries. But the case I made in the chapter is not just the moral case, it is our self-interest. If we are a richer country, to actually make sure there is water, there is land. Otherwise, the food and water related wars already happening. Food and water related migration is already taking place. Even cities, for example. If citizens don't benefit from the actions they're taking, cities don't work. You ask me about cities. There's a very good example that I'm fond of. 20 years ago in Mexico City that you're familiar with was the one of the most polluted cities in the world, air pollution. I mean, and they started a metro bus system that still is going on that created rapid transit for people. People were spending two hours to get to work, clean the air, raise the land value. But the best thing it did the way it did it, is the drivers of the minibuses that existed before the Metrobus were trained and incorporated that opposition.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:23:11] The people who will lose out from this change were part of this change. And that is the kind of way we need to actually think about how to bring change. So we think about who is the winner, who's the loser, and how can we get a political process going. I think cities for me, and I've worked for cities for many years, we should look at it as a factory for innovation, innovation about transformation, social and economic and behavioural transformation. And there's so many stories. I have a story from London that I really like that mayor 2000. When Ken Livingstone got elected three years later, he started congestion pricing. Everyone thought it was a crazy idea. Even in UK is very famous for betting on everything. So the bookies bet at 4 to 1 that he won't succeed today in 2025, Sadiq Khan actually is expanded Boris Johnson, a conservative mayor, expanded the low emission zone. Once you do things that benefits people and you can demonstrate the benefit, there is a political process that's durable and that durability of change is what we need, and that's what orchestration, I feel is important.
Christiana: [00:24:14] Stickiness is what I call that stickiness.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:24:17] Absolutely, absolutely.
Christiana: [00:24:18] Please help me out because I have to get back to my contrarian. So please help me out.
Paul: [00:24:23] We we want to believe you, Ani, and thank you for the amazing things WRC has done. The the GHG protocol. You know, we've we've all spent a quarter of a century with corporations and everyone have been implementing this. But the problem, the problem, of course, is that now all the low hanging fruit have been gathered, all the no regrets reductions have been made. And unfortunately, now we're entirely dependent upon policy. That's the next phase. And of course, that's all going horribly wrong. Climate change is driving the migrants. The migrants are driving the populists. You have this kind of populist pro-fossil fuel government in the US. We have one tapping on the door of ten Downing Street here in the UK. So unfortunately, we seem to have lost the the political leadership and unfortunately the climate leadership falls with it. It's very unfortunate. How would you respond?
Christiana: [00:25:10] Pretty good. Paul Dickinson I didn't know you were up for that. That's pretty good.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:25:15] And he kept a very straight face when he.
Speaker7: [00:25:16] Was doing that.
Paul: [00:25:18] I can only do it in a role playing one of these awful right wing people. Not. No, I don't.
Paul: [00:25:23] Mean I don't mean awful right wing, actually, I mean awful.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:25:26] I think this is a very good question.
Paul: [00:25:28] Not left wing, not right wing. It's pro-fossil fuel.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:25:31] My answer my thinking is not anything any read or write. And what is the evidence telling us? Let me say two things about what you said. You're absolutely right about the opposition to climate policy we're seeing across the world. It is not just the United States. United States is an extreme version of it. Look at the election that took place in Germany. Look at the election that took place in Netherlands. These two countries consistently, consistently public opinion shows that four out of five people are pro climate. Why did they elect in Netherlands a government that is not pro-climate? Actually, last year, 2024, more than half the world's population went to elections. It was the world's biggest election year. Only one country, which is UK, actually had a winner that talked about climate and one one country. That doesn't mean countries across the world are not doing climate action, but they are unable to speak about it in a way that is politically viable for them to think about it. So I just want to say two things to your question. One is we actually today, all of us are in a economy that is based on hydrocarbon that is 200 years old. Those 200 years has been the most successful 200 years for the human civilization in welfare gains in average, not evenly distributed, not at all evenly.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:26:48] But it has actually been a very successful 200 years of growth, actually directly connected with availability of affordable distributable energy. That system that we have today, the hydrocarbon economy is actually everywhere. It's not just on transport, it's not just on energy production, it's on shampoo that we use this morning. It's in everything. So what I'm arguing that we are actually in a beginning of a economic transition. It is not when we sign players. And Christiana, I hope, would agree with me. We thought we were signing a climate agreement, but what we actually signed is an economic transition goal, which only later people actually focused on it, which requires every part of the economy to work. It's a much bigger enterprise than we thought, and we are just the beginning of it. We don't have that much time, but we are in the beginning of the transition, that successful economy. Paul. They are incumbents in it. The oil and gas sector is a $7 trillion business, $7 trillion business. Then I think to expect that they will just go on and move away. It's not a reasonable expectation, right? I mean, we have to face the fact they are immensely successful.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:28:01] They are very well run. They're very profitable. They have enormous financial resources and enormous technical resource. All that I hope can be changed for good. But we have to we have to face the fact that this is where it is. So I think we should be disappointed at the pace of change, but I don't think we should be surprised with the opposition. I think we have to be ready for the opposition. What I think has happened, Paul, if I can simplify, It took us more than ten years to actually get the science out. Not because the scientists weren't good, because there was immense opposition, concerted opposition to get the science out by the petroleum industry. But then it took us another ten years, and Christiana was very much central to it to convert the science to actual commitment. But then we are in the second phase now is getting the commitment to outcome, to understanding. It's not a commitment on climate, it's commitment for economic transition. You can't do economic transition without political support. And what I think we are learning is that the politics of it is in the nascency. Our understanding of how to bring political support for this transition is in the early stages of it.
Paul: [00:29:10] Mhm. Do you know.
Speaker3: [00:29:12] Honestly behind my cruel question was, was was originally a compliment about your policy. Centre for Energy Transition. You're focusing on policy innovation. We have these patents in the renewable energy. But we we almost want to have not patents but we want to have an explosion of innovation in the policy realm. And I think I do know you lead that. So my question was really a veiled compliment.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:29:34] I think that's where we are. And I think what my biggest plea to my, my peers and my people in the movement is to recognize where we are and not be just be disappointed. Absolutely. But don't be surprised and be ready for the fight ahead. And I think there are things to do. I don't I really don't think we have a luxury to be disappointed for too long.
Christiana: [00:29:54] Amen to that, Ani. We're we're all getting ready for cop 30. What role do you see to two interlinked but separable forces? One is multilateralism, which you address in your book and which basically is, let's call it international politics or international geopolitics and domestic policy, which you and Paul have been talking about. Now, where do you think we should be pushing most? Is it multilateralism and international agreements, or is it domestic policy?
Ani Dasgupta: [00:30:35] I think this recognition that there are two layers to it is the first, the best starting point that there is. Countries have a domestic policy that has different directions often than when the same country actually goes to international. You have seen this many times, Christiana, and we have seen this. So without the fear of oversimplifying it, I am going to oversimplify it. Most countries domestic policy is driven towards growth and employment. If they are unable to do something that doesn't create jobs. I mean, South Africa right now is 30% unemployment. And what public policy are they going to do that doesn't address that? And international discussions have too long. Climate discussion has been focused on ambition. How can we do more? I think what I'm arguing is that if you keep doing these two things separately, we will never have a real agreement with people implement, right? Because they will go and sign things that they actually would not do because they don't actually figure out how to do those in a way that creates jobs. What we need to do. This is why I think the central, central departure I'm arguing for is that we have to stop thinking about as a climate action and think about the economic transition towards a lower carbon, nature, positive, people centric economy. And if politicians are able to paint a very vivid picture, which I don't think we there are that what is the transition for for a better world that is actually has abundant, affordable energy, that has food, that is nature and nature, that has clean air for our children, clean water that is the future.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:32:07] But what we have right now is a narrative of sacrifice that we have to do less of this or less of that. Take shorter baths, don't eat meat. So I'm not a political expert, but we need a political process to support this economic transition that we are facing. And only then, only then we will actually be able to get the momentum and the political savviness that we need. We cannot have a more of a science discussion anymore because as you all, both of you know, science is changing, but it is just a very good place. But we have created a body of knowledge that only us can talk to each other. We need to get everyone involved. Economic transition doesn't take place without everyone getting involved. Every ministries. And unfortunately and I've argued UNF triple C not when you were there much later that we still are having conversations with environment ministers. We need to bring the finance and planning ministers there, and we are seeing a little more of that. Right, Christiana? I mean, more of them are coming.
Christiana: [00:33:03] We are, we are.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:33:04] But coalition for Finance Minister, which the world Bank have put together, comes and meets here in Washington. And, you know, that is such a good body that could be connected to this, right, for future planning. And that's the kind of stuff we need to be thinking more about.
Christiana: [00:33:17] Okay, putting my contrarian cloak on again, because I keep on trying to remind myself that that's my role here today. I would I would agree with the picture that you paint, honey, but you live and work in Washington, DC because that's where your eye is headquartered. And the picture that you paint of an economic transition is exactly what the Trump administration is trying to kill through a myriad different measures, of which we have seen some and very likely not all poison darts that they're throwing at that economic transition. So the question would be, do they have the capacity to stop that? Or what is the ultimate effect of the Trump's administration, War on the economic transition.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:34:08] I don't think they can stop, but they definitely can be harmful and slow down. And we're already seeing I mean, we have ourselves estimated that the renewable energy production might be halved by what we are estimated that would happen otherwise. So yes, it will have a daunting effect. But the economics of renewable energy, there is economics out there that will continue to go forward. Even in the United States. Oil and gas are publicly traded commodities. You can't change the price by just drilling more. But, Christina, I just want to take a step back because I think it's very important because I think what's happening in the United States takes up all the air space right now. And I think the United States is a very, very important country. And it has been a very important leader in climate movement for a long time. But I just want to say that, you know, oil and gas is concentrated reserves is only three regions in the world North America, the Middle East and Russia. The rest of the world actually doesn't have long term reserves of oil and gas. The countries I work in, the countries I think is the future of the planet, are large middle income countries where most people live. Most of the carbon may come from from now till 2020 to 2050. This is, you know, China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Kenya, the large middle country, those countries, none of them actually have long term fossil fuel.
Christiana: [00:35:31] They have to import fossil fuels.
Paul: [00:35:33] And pay for it in the in the international currencies in dollars which they can't print.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:35:37] They have coal. They're not very good quality except Australia. But all these countries, Christiana, are actually focused on getting renewable energy because that's what they think their energy security is. All these countries I was in a meeting in Vietnam earlier this year where ten leaders of countries have come. And they're they were just talking about how can we do more? How can you help us do more? We need to do more renewables. It's a completely different world. So we see a world that is dichotomous right now. And one country will not define the future of this planet, though it's a very important country.
Christiana: [00:36:10] Amen I love it, I love it. Arnie, thank you so, so much. It's been a difficult conversation for me to don my contrarian cloak because we here on the podcast, we so agree with your arguments, and it's just so wonderful to see your particular layout of these arguments and how you've woven them together, not just as arguments that are fundamentally based on reasoning, but with so many illustrations, with so much evidence to support what you're saying. So thank you very much. I know this has been I don't know, how many years have you been working on this well-researched book?
Ani Dasgupta: [00:36:51] Many. More than three years. But I just want to say, Christiana, first of all, thank you to you and Paul. But it's a team effort. You know, a lot of people in WRI are supported, and otherwise it would be impossible for me to do this.
Christiana: [00:37:01] So you orchestrated a team effort.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:37:04] I see you're very much a team effort. What you want to see is very much a team effort. Yeah, but, Paul.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:37:10] I just want to say one thing I learned from Christiana when I was talking to her about this book is that orchestration. If you talk about the world, it has to start within you. You have to live it. You have to change yourself. And which I have taken so much, Christiana, that that inspiration I keep talking about always mentioned that. So thank you.
Christiana: [00:37:29] Absolutely. No thank you. Thank you, Ani, for all of this effort to you and your whole orchestrated team. And they're doing a great job in getting the book out there. So good timing to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Paris and just in the lead up to Cop 30. And it is, I think, the nascent story that is really beginning to emerge, which is there is a new economy rising and independently, in fact, even of politics and almost of policy, although policy has much more effect. But independently of politics, this new economy is rising, will continue to rise. Cannot. You can't send the waters of a river back up. And I think you will find that your book will be echoed very, very well this year because it is at the heart of the story that is coming out. So thank you so much. Thank you for coming on. Thank you for writing the book. Thank you for distributing the book as much as possible.
Paul: [00:38:31] Just to my own opportunity to say thank you also. Yeah, this this kind of thinking follow the example of the UK. I would say to politicians around the world, read the book, make the policy, get elected.
Christiana: [00:38:42] There you go.
Ani Dasgupta: [00:38:44] That's that's well said Paul thank you.
Christiana: [00:38:47] Super, super. Ani, thank you so much.
Tom : [00:38:54] So great to hear from Ani. What an excellent way to start what I regard as sort of the beginning of the year, but the beginning of the rest of the year and an intense period to look at some of the opportunities, the reasons for optimism. You were both sitting there with him. What did you take from the conversation?
Christiana: [00:39:07] Well, as we know by now, as listeners will know by now, I really tried to be contrarian in this conversation because tried.
Paul: [00:39:14] Tried and failed.
Christiana: [00:39:15] Tried and failed. Yes. Thank you Paul. I did try and fail and I tried because it is important to push on this so that it doesn't come across as naive optimism. As, you know, greenwashing the reality. Et cetera. Et cetera. So that's why it is important. But also I failed because, well, I agree with him. We agree with him. It is just so compelling. All of the arguments that have to do with this transition toward a better economy, safer, healthier, more just economy are just so compelling. So it's very difficult not to agree.
Paul: [00:39:57] Yeah. And, you know, it would be silly to try and disagree with him in a certain sense. But one thing I really want to pick up on that I think is incredibly significant is he's talking about how the economic transition away from fossil fuels is going to reduce the expenditure. Most countries, the majority of countries are spending importing sometimes coal, oil and definitely gas. Now when countries import less oil and gas, they part with less internationally denominated currency. You know, one of the reasons it's difficult for countries to borrow or to issue debt in euros or dollars or something is because they haven't got a printing press that can print euros and dollars. So that's an extremely rare commodity. The credit worthiness of any country that imports less oil and gas is going to improve. So governments can kind of begin to issue debt with more confidence when they're decarbonizing, because they're going to be better able to repay that debt in internationally recognized currencies. You know, the borrowing currencies, the denominations of dollars or euros or whatever it is, because they're spending less money importing oil and gas. And, you know, you don't know how big these numbers are. In 2022, the UK spent £112 £12 billion importing oil and gas in one year, and we even drill the stuff. So for many countries, this is an incredibly brilliant way to change the the balance of payments surplus and to improve your economic strength, you know?
Christiana: [00:41:26] Lord Nicholas Stern has been making this argument since 2006, when he put his stern review out. He was, as far as I remember. But please correct me if I'm wrong. The first one that argued it is just better for the economy to transition to cleaner technologies than it is to continue to buttress the technologies that are by now obsolete. And he laid out all of the economic reasons why it was a better choice for countries. So, you know, the fact that we now know a that he was right. B that we have so much more detail and facts around this is is great and frustrating, frankly.
Tom : [00:42:10] I mean, I'm amazed that Nick isn't more angry these days, to be honest with you. He came out with all of that in 2006 and made the case. And it's been so frustrating to see the world's governments not take account for that and continue to proceed with policy making, as if that wasn't the case, when it clearly is. I thought your conversation with Arnie was excellent. I think he was very compelling. The book's very good. I think that, you know, one of the things that I'm most pleased about, about what's happening at the moment in the climate movement, is I do think that there is finally a sort of substantive movement away from talking all the time about what we need to stop people doing and more towards what we really want to embrace. And I think that the fact that we spent decades saying, you can't do this, you can't do that, you can't do that is partly now baked into the underlying DNA of what people think of when they think of the environmental movement or people who care about climate. But where we need to get to is, you know, how do we say yes to things? How do we build the things of the future? How do we tell the better story about the world that we're creating, that we want to step into? And I thought Arnie's book did a really good job of balancing that out, and I thought it came out in the interview. So I think we can always do more in Overindexing that way. I think the narrative that we just go around telling people what they can't do anymore is basically completely discredited as a way of getting more people involved in climate and nature. But his book is a big part of that shift as well.
Paul: [00:43:32] Great bottle, the lightning. That's my advice.
Tom : [00:43:35] Bottle the lightning. Oh, we've got one more week till before New York Climate Week, where some combination of us will be there. Obviously, we're now going to start engaging much more in this Inside Cop series that hopefully listeners know about where we'll be partnering with the Cop presidency of Brazil to bring you the inside stories on the road from here to the Cop. So there'll be lots more of that to come in the next few weeks. It's going to be a consequential and important lead in to the time in Belem. Please stay with us. We'll bring you all the best stories. It was nice to be back. We'll see you next week.
Christiana: [00:44:03] Bye.
Paul: [00:44:03] Bye, Tom. Bye, Christiana. See you all next week.
