283: Beyond Trump: The new frontlines for climate action

Tom : [00:22:36] That we should get into. But anything from your own business and finance before we talk about citizens.

Christiana: [00:22:40] I think business and finance right now with the US administration and the popular support that then has finds themselves in a very difficult position because I think they have been decarbonizing their investments, their products, their services long enough so that they know now for sure that it is in their interest and that decarbonizing is the long term trend. But to your point, Paul, they're also afraid of what could happen to them whose head is going to be chopped off and whose reputation is going to be ruined, and which legal department is going to go through the roof because of vacuous accusations? Et cetera. Et cetera. So it's not all that easy For any financial institution or any corporation right now in the political context that we're observing, it's not all that easy for them to pursue what they know is in their absolutely compelling interest.

Tom : [00:23:52] Well, should we talk about how that can change then? Because that is obviously an incredibly powerful lever of change. And these two that we've talked about outside multilateralism, technology and business and finance, these are the places where the decarbonization is actually going to occur, but they don't exist in a vacuum. They exist in the context created by governments and also the context that's created culturally. I mean, there I think one really powerful lever of change that we have only pulled on partially successfully in the entire history of the climate movement is mass engagement from citizens in this issue who are pushing consistently for real transformation and engagement from governments and from corporations. Operations. I mean, a statistic I saw the other day, and this is only in the UK, and I think it's even higher in the US, is that 45% of people, just general public, don't feel that the climate movement is welcoming to people like them. That is a terrifying statistic to me, because it suggests that one of the biggest issues of our time is exclusionary, and as a result of that, it's seen as partial. It's seen as something for activists, for people who might glue themselves to whatever else it might be, rather than a collective approach that requires all of us. And I think one of the things that we have not done well is to integrate the climate narrative into culture, to make it relevant to farmers, relevant to blue collar workers, relevant to everybody in their own language that doesn't require them to become a climate activist with the left of centre connotations that that contains. But they can remain themselves, and they can engage in this issue and be passionately wanting action and change. And that, I think, would unlock real transformation and doesn't require multilateral support.

Christiana: [00:25:33] There is the need now in this context, as you're so well described to, I think do two things. One is to encourage bottom up action, because in many, but not all, in many countries, there's not going to be top down policy and action. And the only way to turn that around is, as you say, to encourage and motivate. You said massive engagement. Now, mass engagement could be either activism on the streets, which is necessary for sure, and has certainly raised the level of attention to the topic, but hasn't really contributed constructively to solutions. The other mass engagement that would contribute is to have all of us become much more aware of the choices that we make about products and services, and where we invest our savings if we have them, so that we become much more responsible participants in the bigger decarbonisation process. But we don't have yet a reach out to farmers to pick up your example winemakers. They're right. They don't know what to do because they cannot produce the quality wine that they used to. Because of changes in the climate in Costa Rica, coffee producers, citrus producers, sugar producers, I mean, you name any product and all farmers are having huge problems because of drought, excess heat, too much rain, because the products that we have developed over hundreds of years need the predictability of environmental conditions that we have had. And now we have moved out of that sweet spot for sure.

Tom : [00:27:21] Yeah. And those people who are experiencing those change should be the biggest political alliance in history, and we're going to explain why that will be the case when we come back. Okay, Paul. So you are going to pick up why or how rather this group of individuals who are suffering with these terrible changes in the climate can become the biggest political force in history. Go for it.

Paul: [00:27:53] There is a famous saying that reputations cannot be announced. So I'm not going to say that an organization that is just forming called Flooded people, is necessarily going to be the next biggest thing in the whole world. But I absolutely love the vision behind it. And I've heard them speak at events where flooded people get together in the UK, for example, and talk about the fact that they've been flooded and it's no fun and they're from all walks of life, rich and poor, left and right. They get flooded.

Tom : [00:28:19] As has recently been experienced in California, of course. I mean, not flooded, but just unbelievable.

Paul: [00:28:24] So I think that the reason I really wanted to mention them also was to pick up on your point about farmers Christiana, because I think the political skill, the activist skill that the community organizing skill of the 21st century is bringing together groups with their direct, visceral experience of climate change impacts and turning them into an effective political force. I think that's the huge opportunity of the 21st century, and we all want to focus on it, which is why I give a shout out to my buddies at Flooded People and just one other one we've had Richard Curtis on before from Make My Money Matter. You heard me talking a minute ago about like, pension funds investing in renewable energy. That makes a lot of sense for your long term. Now, sometimes the pension fund trustees will say, well, I don't know if the pensions want me to invest in luxury goods or computers or something. So actually, if you communicate to your pension fund, say, I want this in renewable energy, it'll happen.

Tom : [00:29:11] I mean, I think that what this leaves open in both of these arguments around, you know, political force and taking real action is the fact that we have not yet cracked. And Ben Rhodes talked about this the end of last year. What is the populist narrative on climate that can engage people. And I thought he made a really interesting point, he said. Actually, climate change lends itself really well to a populist narrative. I remember we talked to John Marshall from Potential Energy a while ago, and he said, you know what? One of the narratives that really works is they knew they lied. Make them pay. We have not yet found a way to turn that spirit into a populist narrative that just sweeps through and says, you cannot do this to us anymore. This is an injustice, and people need to rise up and make sure that the future is not compromised by these sectional, narrow interests.

Paul: [00:29:55] I am told that about like 99.999% of the US electorate will vote one way or another based on gasoline prices. Well, I got a great idea. Don't buy any gasoline. Get an electric vehicle and you're free of the curse of the gasoline prices. So there could be a movement built around this, for sure.

Tom : [00:30:09] I mean, we're not saying any of these levers are easy to pull, but it's interesting that they're present and we're trying to identify them, whether it is the business and finance, it's technology, it's citizen engagement and the real.

Christiana: [00:30:19] And none of them is a magic wand.

Tom : [00:30:20] Now there's a magic wand, but also none of them needs multilateral engagement. So we've got plenty of work to do while the multilateral world is in a tough spot. Christiana. Anything else you want to toss in here in terms of levers of change?

Christiana: [00:30:30] Definitely have to talk about climate litigation.

Paul: [00:30:32] Litigation about climate litigation? Yeah, 100%.

Christiana: [00:30:35] I am so excited about climate litigation. I just cannot tell you. I mean, the fact that when the Paris Agreement was agreed to in 2015, we barely had any climate litigation cases. Two years after 2017, we had 800 climate litigation cases around the world. Today we have well over 2000. That is incredibly exciting now. One has to say most of them are not yet successful. Right? Right. We have a handful that have been successful. That's not the point. The point is that all of them are actually building the jurisprudence to be able to be a very effective lever of change and the multiplicity of actors that is involved in climate litigation is actually quite impressive, because you have a lot of young people bringing cases against their governments or against companies. You have states like California. This is one of Paul's favorite topics. States like California bringing cases against fossil fuel companies. And then you have two different types of climate litigation cases. Some have to do with human rights being denied, and the other type has to do with non-compliance of already accepted commitments. And both of them are actually growing exponentially to use our.

Tom : [00:32:00] Very.

Christiana: [00:32:01] Good favorite word. And as I said before, not all of them are being successful, but we're building that muscle. We have now more and more climate informed lawyers than we ever had. In fact, our colleague Sue has told us that there's actually already a pretty formal group of climate lawyer.

Tom : [00:32:24] Lawyers for net zero.

Christiana: [00:32:25] Yeah. God bless.

Tom : [00:32:26] So I have the great privilege of sitting on the board of Clientearth, which is one of the things I started doing last year. And of course, there are many entities out there, as you said, thank God, who are now bringing this litigation. But I have been deeply impressed by Client Earth and the team and the way that they approach this. And to just bring listeners in, they try to pursue what they call strategic litigation, where the case itself is of course, consequential, but it's providing the example of if they are successful or even if they bring it, then it will create an enormous impact in the rest of the world, because you can't win this case by case. So one example that I was learning about was a listing of an energy company on the London Stock Exchange. There was a realization that the valuation that was given to that company was based on the idea that they would develop fossil fuels that would be sufficient to really push us past 1.5 degrees. So there's a discrepancy there between the valuation of that company and the stated legal objectives of the UK. So Clientearth. Sued the London Stock Exchange. They did not win that case, but some months later the London Stock Exchange came out with that. If anyone is going to list on the Stock exchange, their valuation has to be consistent with meeting climate goals. Now, that is a revolution when it comes to how companies are valued and the amount of money that that management would make as a result of it. So I mean, that's just one example.

Paul: [00:33:47] Yeah. I mean, there are some sort of pretty scary people trying to litigate oil and gas companies. There's an oil and gas company activist litigator who said they are the polluted heart of this climate crisis. They've been lying and deceiving us for decades and decades and decades. It's finally, finally time to hold Big Oil accountable. Now, who do you think that climate litigation activist is?

Tom : [00:34:12] Oh, Greta.

Paul: [00:34:13] No, it's Governor Gavin Newsom of the fifth largest economy in the world, California, with $3.9 trillion of GDP. And my point is, he and others in California are rather sick of having to pay for adaptation costs, seawalls, these terrible fires, and all the rest of it, and they're not putting it up with it anymore. They're saying that and you've got to read their lawsuit. It's absolutely brilliant. They're saying that for decades, the oil and gas companies have stopped us having a proper debate and limiting the emissions of greenhouse gas emissions. So they're not trying to get them for the emissions of the greenhouse gas emissions. They're trying to get them for subverting the political process, for lying.

Christiana: [00:34:53] Exactly. Lying, lying.

Paul: [00:34:55] It's true that the big wounded animal, the oil and gas industry is playing all sorts of terribly dangerous tricks, but they're also these incredibly big examples of powerful organizations fighting that. It's not just kind of like they're doing this to us and we're completely passive. It's going to be a challenge. But there are huge forces on both sides. And we can, we must and we will win.

Tom : [00:35:16] So there's something else I'd like to bring in terms of a lever of change, because, I mean, all of these we've talked about are kind of other actors that continue to move us forward in the path where we need to go in the absence of meaningful multilateral breakthroughs. But something else I would point to is the rise of plural lateral agreements. Basically, this is a subset of multilateralism. So it might be two, three, four different entities. Often they are just governments, but sometimes it can also be a partnership between governments and other types of entities like countries and the state of California, or other subnational governments or investors or corporations coming together to try to achieve specific outcomes. There's been lots of examples of this in the last few years the so-called jet P's, the just energy transition partnerships, where countries come together and say, we're going to provide comprehensive financing packages for an individual country to make a meaningful energy transition, whether that's South Africa or Vietnam or a range of others where these have been put together.

Paul: [00:36:14] Indonesia.

Tom : [00:36:15] Yeah. Indonesia. These have been much easier politically to achieve, because you haven't got to try and bring along the intransigent rogue states like the United States under Donald Trump or Saudi Arabia that don't want to agree to anything. You bring those who want to participate.

Christiana: [00:36:29] Coalition of the willing.

Tom : [00:36:30] Coalition of the willing. Those who want to participate in a regenerative, supportive future that can create something positive and they stream ahead of the rest of the group because they're able to actually capture the advantage for themselves. And I think the emergence of these plurality arrangements says to me that we've reached a really new point in our transition to a low carbon future where we're not trying to avoid participation, we're trying to step in and say, we want to be part of this because it's in our own national self-interest.

Christiana: [00:36:58] I want to add another one. Yeah, I really want to celebrate young people who are having just extraordinary impact on corporations.

Tom : [00:37:08] Yeah, that's so true.

Christiana: [00:37:09] You know, the example that comes to mind is Ikea that under the current CEO, Jesper Brodin. He put together an advisory board of young people, and he makes it very clear that management does need to sit and listen to the opinion of these young people before they take big corporate decisions. And these young people are doing the work. They are doing the analysis. They don't go there with any irresponsible opinions. They are very well versed. They can argue their their points and they are making a difference in big corporations. Of course, you have other young people who take to the streets and that's also necessary.

Tom : [00:37:59] Bless them too.

Christiana: [00:38:00] God bless them too. We also need non-violent civil disobedience, but those who choose to move over and are involved in huge conferences, I mean, you tell me one conference that occurs now. That does not have a young person is just politically unacceptable to have a conference without a youth voice. Of course. Then they say, well, we can't you know, I can't represent the opinion of all young people. I get it, I get it. But it is an important step forward that we are recognizing that what we do today is sort of affecting us, but it's more than anything affecting next generations. Yeah, that's an important recognition. And the fact that those next generations are already at some, not all, but at some decision tables and doing a great job at it is brilliant.

Paul: [00:38:56] Yeah, it reminds us of that absolute primary human instinct to protect your children. And if we can't motivate that instinct, we're doing something wrong and children are coming forward. Younger people sort of demonstrates the sort of wisdom and the truth of that. And we've all got a thousand anecdotes of senior executives, government ministers, and all the rest of it being changed by their offspring. So it's super exciting.

Tom : [00:39:23] It's interesting, isn't it? I mean, we've talked about this before, but if you look back at history, it's always when the individuals who are most targeted by a particular injustice take the power to step up and say, I'm going to throw off this oppression, whether it's women with the suffragette movement, whether it's people in the civil rights movement saying that they're going to replace.

Christiana: [00:39:44] Slavery.

Tom : [00:39:44] The slavery and the US anti-colonial oppression at the end of the colonial era. And the truth is that in climate change, it's young people, of course, and that's why it pierces that sense of injustice that you've so clearly pointed out.

Paul: [00:39:58] You've heard me say it before. The best people to break the chains are those who wear them.

Speaker9: [00:40:01] There you go.

Christiana: [00:40:05] So, guys, we had that conversation and we recorded it while we were together in Costa Rica before the storm hit. And I'm just really curious about your feelings. Now, let's just fast forward to where we are this week. Do you still feel that those levers of change are available to us despite the storm?

Paul: [00:40:30] Absolutely, 100%. And and I'll tell you what I mean. Like 99.8%. It's true that everything we've discussed and everyone's aware of this kind of slightly overwhelming behavior by this very peculiar, um, US administration. The underlying point is that all of this is driven by the the atmospheric reality of climate change. The world is getting hotter, there is more extreme weather. There are major concerns in the property industry from the increasing cost of insurance, the fires, the floods, etc., etc., etc. so and alongside that, there are all these amazing industries, you know, that are now kind of double the size of the fossil fuel industry in terms of investment. Let's not forget that some people say things are going to move slower, but they're still.

Paul: [00:41:16] Going to move.

Paul: [00:41:17] So I think it's important we just don't get confused that some very weird political events in the United States mean that the world has forgotten about climate change. They haven't. A lot of people who wanted to go slower on climate change think, oh, this is my moment to slow down. But there's nothing that fundamentally changes because of the chemical reality of this problem.

Tom : [00:41:40] Yeah, I don't know if I'd be quite as bullish as that, I think. I mean, I think that the world still has multiple levers and many of them are still available, but some of them have gotten a lot harder to pull. I mean, you know, the technology lever is there and technology costs are cheaper. The solutions are cheaper than the incumbents. But if you can't permit a wind farm and you're getting a tax break for permitting fossil fuels, you'll lever for technology. Your window narrows a bit. Same thing, you know, mass engagement. Yes, that's still a very powerful lever. But in the UK we've seen quite draconian legislation over the last few years preventing people from being able to organize and people like Just Stop Oil. I mean, you can think what you like about them, but they shouldn't get several years in jail for disrupting a road, in my opinion. So these levers of change don't exist in a vacuum. They exist in a complicated system that can create a chilling effect, and they're still there, but they're just not quite as powerful as they were before. So I stand behind everything in the episode, and I think these are the places where we need to put the blocks in place to build our way towards getting back on track and dealing with this issue, but I wouldn't pretend that they're not harder to lever.

Christiana: [00:42:48] Yeah, I agree with with Tom's chilling effect arguments, and it actually takes me back to another episode that we had with Greg, where he actually put out how we have actually made a mistake in how we argue, how we argue the benefits and the rationale for climate action, and points out the need to change the arguments that we use to make them much, I would say more hard nosed, if you will, much more about the economic benefits than about the morality of the issue, because the sad situation right now is that morality, at least as we know it, is out the door. Morality is still there. They're not going to erase it. But in the meantime, how do we actually move the whole climate logic over to one of its main strengths, which is the economic benefits. And so it really for me, this really squarely puts the onus back into our laps about, okay, how do we go about this? We cannot go about this from a point of view that sounds esoteric, aloof, academic, moral based. We have to really change that.

Tom : [00:44:16] Yeah. It's about nuts and bolts and practical steps and moving things forward in this really difficult context. Then I think probably many people who are listening to this podcast feel that their jobs just got a lot harder, whether their funding is drying up or whether they're senior leadership in their company is now starting to waver about this, or whether they're in a government that's trying to drive forward real action. The possibility for progress is still there. But I think it's, you know, it's going to be a headwind in terms of getting governments back on track to where they need to be. We know that most countries have already missed their nationally determined commitment target that was supposed to be in earlier this week. We know the US is not going to step forward. Other countries probably will. Whether it will be sufficient remains to be seen, but I suspect it may not be so. These other levers have changed to get us back on track to where we need to be, are going to be so crucial this year, and for us to be realistic about what we're facing, but also optimistic about the possibility. So we are going to delve into that throughout the year by looking at some of these different areas which are most promising, how we can build coalitions and how we can move forward. So I think that is probably it for this week's episode. Thank you everybody for listening. We will, as I say, be digging deeper into these levers. And thank you also for your comments. So far this season, we've had so many people step forward, including one helpful person, ask if they can assist us in making a list of all the acronyms we listed. Yes, please do make that list and we will put it out on social media and we will find a way to amplify what you've done. Remember, you can check out all the videos from our show on our socials. You have to go and see Chris Charnas reaction to an old video of her in Paris in 2015. That really took me back.

Paul: [00:45:50] Watching Christiana responding to Christiana, which I enjoyed.

Tom : [00:45:53] We had a great time looking at that, so thank you. Please follow us on socials, please subscribe to the podcast and we will see you next week.

Christiana: [00:46:00] Bye bye!