275: COP29 Conclusions

Christiana: [00:02:32] Yeah, top line reflections first, that multilateralism is very messy, very complicated, and needs to continue existing despite the fact that it has not been as productive as needed in the past few years, so we'll get into that at the end, why it is important to be able to differentiate between the structure that has been set up, or the process that has been set up, and how it is managed and how it is implemented. So let's just keep that in mind and and come back to that. But I think that's the top line. And bottom line, I think we're all very concerned, very, very concerned that the damages from yet still unabated climate change are accelerating as fast as they are and that our response, our structural political financial response is so far behind. So we've often said, you know, that we have two curves here that are in competition with each other. And right now the curve of destruction is definitely ahead of the curve of solutions.

Paul: [00:04:08] And, what a great summary Christiana. The only thing I would add to this is that people are clearly, I'm, you know, we're all concerned about the, you know the incoming US administration, you know just you know not not not being so concerned about climate change. Now the the COP has ended up with this justificationly, you know, some people are very upset by its failure to deliver in some regards. But I also do think, you know, the COPs are a the UN itself is a sort of court of public opinion. There is a global conversation. A lot of people have heard about it and are thinking about it. This does raise awareness of the climate change issue. And there there have always been nations as the as the most important significant political unit and the nations of the world, you know, they don't really get together on things, you know. They didn't get together entirely on the pandemic. You know, the world has different, you know, security groupings. There isn't an area where the UN sort of solves things for us, except apart from air traffic control. But apart from that, where there's a very strong reason for international agreement, essentially, the UN has never had the capacity to to provide the solutions for us. But I do think that we need to sort of recognize that there are all these other actors, the non-state actors that we endlessly talk about, you know, business and cities and all the rest of it. And they'll be reconfigurations around this COP, and it is what it is. And we move on, we move on.

Christiana: [00:05:34] So so, Tom, should we go into just a little bit more detail of what was achieved before we?

Tom: [00:05:42] I think we should do that. But I just want to ask one quick question before we do, which is just prompted by what Paul said. So I think we're all feeling quite bruised by quite a rough multilateral process, which was really tough on those who were there late night negotiating and and many people left feeling, you know, tricked or undersold or all these painful things that can happen. Are we getting worse at dealing with long term issues on a multilateral basis? If you, if you're notwithstanding what you just said, Paul, about how the UN can't solve our problems, if you look back, I mean, Bretton Woods institutions, nuclear disarmament, it feels like countries were previously able to think long term and create multilateral solutions that would make the world better over decades. And it seems now that we can only find multilateral solutions if they provide benefit over the next few years. Do you think that's true? And then we should get I don't want to distract us too much with this, then we should get into the specifics of this COP.

Paul: [00:06:42] Well, I mean, just a very first response is that up until sort of say, from 1945 to about 1990, the world was in two massively opposed blocks. You know, the kind of communist system and the democracies, the Warsaw Pact, as it was called, and communist China, even we called it a Cold war. There were three times as many hydrogen bombs pointed to each other on missiles, and we were on a hair trigger, things like the Cuban Missile Crisis could have kind of wiped out humanity. So in some regards, actually, I think things have got a lot better. And also the interesting part of your sentences, have we got worse at, I think to some degrees international negotiations perhaps have got worse. But I you know, I will go back to those other audiences, other organizations maybe getting better at this. So it's who's we in that sentence.

Christiana: [00:07:29] That's that's an interesting response, Paul. To that, to that I would add to your good question, Tom, that and maybe this is, you know, yet yet another example of when you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but my sense is that over the past, I don't know, 10, 15 years, we have become more aware of the complexities of the issues that we deal with. And with that, I mean, the interconnected nature of all of these issues, the fact that you cannot separate one issue. I mean, right now, we already know, thank already. It's about time that we understood that you cannot separate climate change from biodiversity, from desertification. We've had that conversation here. But even if you just take climate change chapter, we know that that has to do with agriculture. We know it has to do with human health. We know that it has to do with the health of the rest of nature. We know that it has to do with finance. We know that it has to do with rising sea levels. We know that it has to do with the health of the oceans. I mean, on and on and on. And so I think, that's always been the case, but we're more aware of the of the interconnections or as, more young people are using the word intersectionalities. And I think that makes it more complicated, more complicated because we, you know, if you wrap your arms around, one issue and either pretend that it is unrelated or you just cut very clearly one issue out of everything else and focus on that, then it makes it a little bit easier. There are, of course, the knock on effects on everything else, but I think that that's the way that we used to proceed. And now, because we have realized that everything is interconnected, it makes it more complicated.

Tom: [00:09:58] Yeah. And it's such a good point. And those knock on effects can be devastating, right. They can make it far worse than the original situation. So this is such an interesting question as to whether the multilateralism and the institutions can deal with the complexity that we now understand the world inhabits. But this is maybe getting a little bit towards a philosophical discussion. So perhaps we should move back to the actual practicalities of what was agreed. Now, anybody who has listened to this podcast the last couple of weeks, or indeed read the news, will know that this was a finance COP and that at basis we had to agree the future of the financing deal that sat inside the UNFCCC, the UN Climate Convention, in order to provide support to the most vulnerable countries and also extend the basis of trust on which we can go forward and make more national commitments next year. Now, that was on some level agreed. And we can have a discussion about how successful it was. The COP outcome includes a commitment that developed countries will take the lead in raising 300 billion a year for developing countries by 2035. This new target is similar in type to the previous target of 100 billion a year, which was agreed in Copenhagen in 2009 to be delivered by 2020. This 300 billion a year should be delivered, as I said, by 2035.

Tom: [00:11:17] It can come from a wide variety of sources like public funds, development bank loans, private finance mobilised by governments. Now there's a broader piece here that's in the second part of the agreement that says developing countries were very clear they needed 1.3 trillion a year. And as you can see, these numbers are very far apart exclusively from developed countries. But the text calls on all actors to scale up funds from all public and private sources to at least 1.3 trillion by 2035, so 300 billion developed to developing, 1.3 trillion, really without much definition around it. This led many people from developing countries to feel like they had been tricked. A text had been pulled on them in the last minute and at the worst analysis, some people have said that developing countries were placed in a difficult position between either seeing the failure of the process they rely on, or accepting a deal that they felt did not provide sufficient finance to meet their basic needs to deal with this challenge. So let's kick off, Christiana, you were deeply involved in the 100 billion all those years ago in Copenhagen. What do you think about this new arrangement, first of all, on the substance and then we'll get to the process?

Christiana: [00:12:38] Yeah, I mean, it honestly, it's difficult to find words for this because of the huge gap between what is now on the table and as you say, it is three times as much as what we had from 2009 so.

Tom: [00:13:00] But inflation adjusted a lot less than that, right?

Christiana: [00:13:04] A lot less. And and the needs, we have really, really grown in understanding of the needs since 2009.

Tom: [00:13:14] Yeah.

Christiana: [00:13:14] So, so I would say paltry at best, very, very, very difficult for developing countries to swallow this because let's just remember, it is the industrialized countries that benefited from the industrial revolution that have actually polluted the atmosphere. And it is the developing countries that bear no historical responsibility. Some the emerging countries are now getting into the chapter of having current responsibility and certainly future. But developing countries bear no historical responsibility. And that is such an important principle in the UN convention. So to offer or to agree to 300 billion forgetting about the one that the number one that needs to be in front of the three, to put it up to 1.3 trillion. It's, I'm even struggling to find an adjective for this. And that's the reason why the most vulnerable countries, the island states, walked out at the end of the second week and then stayed in a different place to hoping that there would be a better deal, because the first deal that was offered to them was 250. And then, you know, magnanimously, magnanimously, it was brought to 300 billion. Guys, this doesn't even begin to answer the pain and the destruction that developing countries, especially the most vulnerable, are already experiencing doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Paul: [00:15:19] I mean, that historical responsibility is an issue that at the heart of this and, you know, certainly in terms of kind of reparations for those damages, I couldn't add a single word to what you say, Christiana. It is true that globally last year, clean investment, clean energy investment was about 1.7 trillion. Now that has to three x at least. But there are substantial.

Christiana: [00:15:47] But most of that into developed countries Paul.

Paul: [00:15:49] Correct, correct, correct. But I suppose I'm, I'm just trying to to draw out the fact that there are there's actually a process from the, you know, let's simplify it, so there's the Paris Agreement and then there's, there's extreme weather actually propelling all of this. And then there's very substantial funds moving, but not in this particular, and critical area of equity.

Tom: [00:16:12] Yeah. So I mean, first of all, I certainly agree with the hurt. And we've seen this expressed in statement after statement from lots and lots of different countries in terms of the massive gap between what was agreed here and what is necessary. Let's not forget, this only starts in 2035. So that's another ten years of damage from what we're seeing now. And yet the number would be insufficient even today. I mean, it's it's interesting to note that of the 196 countries that are part of the UN, only 24 are responsible for providing finance to developing countries. That includes the EU, Japan and the US, and one of those 24 in the form of the US is clearly not going to be providing any additional funding where they are now, and probably no funding at all. So one of the things when I look even at that 300 billion and the state of public finances in in developed countries, I would feel and this was part of the discussion I had with Mia Mottley on stage in COP, we're still never going to get even to that paltry number by just passing a hat around every year and expecting countries to be able to step into that. And there wasn't really substantive discussions around new ways to raise that revenue. So even though it's small, it still feels like there's actually no plan to deliver it.

Christiana: [00:17:26] Well, and I would also argue that a climate COP that brings together at the highest political level, ministers of environment, is not the place to figure this deal out, right. Typically, ministers of environment or climate change are the Cinderellas in their home cabinets. They are typically the ones that have the least budget and perhaps even the least authority among their colleagues, and they don't understand how to structure finance. So in addition to the management of this issue that we can get to the very wanting, management at the COP, this really is something for ministers of finance to grapple with, not ministers of environment. They just have no idea what they're talking about.

Tom: [00:18:39] And no authority.

Christiana: [00:18:40] Because it's not in their remit.

Tom: [00:18:41] Yeah.

Paul: [00:18:42] But but just to say, you know, there has there was discussion at the COP as there usually is of revenues from the emissions from the aviation sector, revenues from the shipping sector. There's real scope for governments that need money to do something that we've, we've always done, which is to tax a pollutant. It's this is hardly rocket science. So, you know, it may well be that that mechanism, you know, unsurprisingly, is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by essentially taxing or otherwise regulating. But, but, but drawing income from encouraging the emissions reductions, or at least making the users of, for example, airplanes pay a fair price for the damage created.

Tom: [00:19:30] Yeah, I think this is such a good point, Paul. And I think that this is partly the point of long term multilateralism, right. If we can agree mechanisms, I mean, $5 on a barrel of oil. Additional cost on airline trips. You know, find some way to raise revenue from those who are combusting and creating the problem. Actually, there are plenty of mechanisms there that would be more than enough to provide the finance that's necessary in this instance. But we're not yet demonstrating the multilateral muscle to really come together and create some of those and implement some of those innovative mechanisms that would move us forward, one other thing.

Christiana: [00:20:06] How do environment ministers know anything about that.

Tom: [00:20:09] Or or even if they do, how do they have the authority to make it happen.

Christiana: [00:20:12] How do they have the authority to make it happen. I mean, in in the wildest of dreams right, how could this be approached if we were able to get the finance ministers of the parties to the convention, to sit down and have a Marshall plan type conversation about how do we put this together. What are all of the innovative financial mechanisms and structures that can be pulled together, it's not going to be from one source. It's not going to be one type of finance. This really is a very, very complex financial architecture that needs to be built. So for years there has been a conversation about the need for a Marshall plan type of commitment from the global North toward the global South now, not because of the ravages and destruction of world war, but because of the ravages and destruction due to climate change. So, yes, historical responsibility is on the shoulders of the global north, no doubt about that. But if mending that historical responsibility is the only reason for financial support for developing countries, we're never going to get anywhere, as evidenced yet again in Baku. So the Marshall Plan has been the subject of much debate over the years, and no one is suggesting a carbon copy at all, because there were advantages and also unintended negative consequences of that.

Christiana: [00:21:56] That is not the point. There is, however, a parallel in the then realization that the recovery of Europe was essential for the recovery of all nations involved in the world war. In fact, of all nations. Now fast forward and of course, mutatis mutandis, because there are many differences right now. But there is no doubt that the resilience of developing countries to climate change and their transformation to a clean economy domestically is essential to the resilience of the entire world and to a global, clean and safe economy. So what would not be wrong now is to consider that an appropriate level of financial flows into the global South of all types, and from all sources of finance. But an appropriate level would be an investment, an investment into a stronger global economy. Most people are still focused on the cost of financial support to developing countries, which can actually be quickly moving over to consider the cost of insufficient financial support, the cost to the global economy, of insufficient financial support and financial investment into developing countries, and the cost not only to developing countries, but to the world economy, as I say, in terms of instability, rising instability, high risk, and, yes, accelerated conflict. So bottom line, enlightened self-interest.

Tom: [00:23:50] Now, one other element that I think we need to bring in here, which is just around a little bit around the process, is obviously the presidencies of the COP play a very important role in driving the agenda. They have to have a lot of trust. We've talked about this a lot, both this year and last year with the the the Emirati presidency, two big fossil fuel producing countries. This year, the Azerbaijanis were, to put it mildly, a bit controversial, having come out, the president of the country and saying fossil fuels are a gift from God at the beginning. And there was then a lot of criticism around how the Azerbaijanis themselves, led by COP President Mukhtar Babayev, were actually running their consultations and Mukhtar Babayev came out with a remarkable, op ed in the Guardian on the 25th of November, that's yesterday, in which he sort of lays the blame at everyone else's door other than the Azerbaijanis. And he talks about the fact that Western countries made a mistake by not allowing the draft financial deal to be revealed until the last moment, positions the Azerbaijani COP presidency as having played a role of trying to cut a middle ground between everyone, and yet defending what they walked away from as better than nothing. Now, I do understand that everyone tries to spin any experience to a certain degree, to paint themselves in the best possible light, but I'm just curious, we don't need to get too stuck on this, Christiana, is this unprecedented in your experience that a COP presidency would come out laying bare the dynamics of a negotiation after a COP has finished explaining who they thought was at fault and trying to defend their own negotiating tactic, have you ever seen that happen before?

Christiana: [00:25:31] I mean, honestly, I read that article this morning and I was aghast. I was aghast. It is such a betrayal of the role of a COP president that needs to hold the information of what is going on very tightly and, and, and use it for common, for common benefit to, to come out and say, this country did that and that country did whatever, and basically tried to lay blame at the feet of different countries for something that should have been managed very differently. I'm really aghast. I've never seen this. To answer your question, I've never seen this before, and we shouldn't see it, that's the point.

Tom: [00:26:29] We shouldn't see it, as a, as a way of undermining trust in the ability of countries to go behind closed doors and negotiate, this is a kind of outrageous thing to do. Correct?

Christiana: [00:26:37] Absolutely. And, Tom, I mean, you started this conversation saying this was the finance COP. Let's just go back to that. It was the finance COP. Everybody knew that. We've known it for a year right, and everyone knows that a complicated, a very, very complicated agreement can never be reached in the last moment. It has to be put on the table and matured throughout the year, not throughout the COP, which is only last two weeks, throughout the year. The responsibility of the presidency should have been to begin to mature the landing ground throughout the entire year during which they were COP presidencies. Not to expect a miraculous solution to evolve during the two weeks. But not only that, they actually, according to what he published in The Guardian, they actually curtailed to the request of some countries of not even beginning to put the the the amount or the characteristics on the table at the beginning of the week and hold it to the very end of the week. Are you kidding me. So they actually did that. You can't do that.

Paul: [00:28:21] Listeners can't see, but Christiana's screen sort of changes when she becomes intense. It becomes almost like purple. I think there's something in the software. Christiana, what I'm learning from this is you've always had an acute understanding for various reasons of protocol, but I, I know that you have you probably have a small person you want to help look after. But actually, if you get a chance to write a small guide to, to process and protocol for international negotiations, I think it would be a great gift to the world because mistakes may be able to be avoided in future.

Christiana: [00:28:53] Well, I certainly don't pretend to know what has to happen, Paul, but but there are certain principles of multilateralism that cannot be ignored.

Tom: [00:29:05] Yeah.

Christiana: [00:29:06] And and and and that's the point, right. It's it's not about the specifics, but there's principles of multilateralism. There's principles about how you reach agreements that just cannot be ignored. And if you do, then you have to accept responsibility for it and not put the responsibility at the feet of the different governments.

Tom: [00:29:34] This leads to, I just want to ask you something different, which is I mean, I remember when we were at the UN and in the COPs that I was with you for, which was not all of them, there would often be a moment where Minister Xie Zhenhua from China would come and deliver a soft knock at the door late at night and provide ways forward through difficult moments. And it would then often be you would manage, I remember you traipsing back and forth across COPs with kind of messages to kind of try and do shuttle diplomacy between the US and China that would then move us towards a place where we could then begin to build consensus across all of the different countries. It strikes me now, in this much more multipolar world with a retrenched US, the Trump coming in, that actually it's going to be a lot harder for us to get to agreement without a few countries playing that very important role. Do you think that's an accurate assessment of what's happening here, or is there something else?

Christiana: [00:30:31] A few countries playing which role Tom?

Tom: [00:30:33] Well, a role where they will say, you know, we will partner to bring others along. I mean, China and the US played very powerful roles under Obama, and when Xie Zhenhua was there to find language that they thought would work for different countries. And then they would come to you, they would find middle grounds, and then they would go and work their various different groups of countries and bring different parties into their perspective, so that there were common there was common ground to create an agreement. But now it doesn't seem like they're playing the same role as that. I'm trying to talk around the issue, tell me if it's making sense?

Christiana: [00:31:08] Yeah, yeah. What comes up for me there, Tom, is and I don't know whether this is happening or not, but many of the conversations that led to the preparatory agreements that matured the ground for the Paris Agreement because it was a multi-year process. Many of those conversations were based on trust and on a relationship of trust that was very intentionally nourished for years. And that is trust between individuals. I mean, that's the amazing thing here. Yes, we're talking about a huge, complex thing that seems like it's far away from us. But trust needs to be built between individuals and between those individuals that are speaking for their country or for their institution. I don't know who is now investing into building trust across years, from one COP to the next, to the next, to be able to bring countries, yes, Minister Xie did come to my office quite often at ungodly hours with potential solutions. Why, because there was a relationship of trust and he knew that we wanted to move forward. I knew that he wanted to move forward. He, you know, was in a trusted relationship with, with the United States, with Todd Stern, who has just published a book, actually, about all of the negotiations.

Christiana: [00:32:54] And and if you read that, you you understand this is surprisingly personal. That's the amazing thing. This is very complex, very, very complex. But it is also, at the same time, surprisingly personal in the sense that we all, as representatives of institutions, in my case, the UN or as representatives of countries, if you're in that situation, you do have a pretty interesting bandwidth of possibilities that you can land on, and how you use that bandwidth depends on the trust that you have built with those sitting across the table from you. And so while I started this conversation a while ago, saying, you know, we're now understanding much more the complexity of this, that is why the personal trust relationship is absolutely crucial, because it allows to be able to play with all of these different factors that do contribute to the complexity from a personal point of view. And I don't know who is building that trust now.

Tom: [00:34:18] Well, I mean.

Paul: [00:34:19] It may well, it may well be China again, simply because of the massive investment by the Chinese state in low carbon technologies, renewable energy and electric vehicles. So I would be surprised if there wasn't leadership from from that area and who knows where else.

Tom: [00:34:32] Yeah, well, I mean, I think that's and anyone who is, I know that Outrage + Optimism is listened to by a lot of people who study things like politics and political strategy. And there you are, there you have it from Christiana. The key is trust to move forward and actually find common agreement in these things. So should we leave it there? We haven't talked about article six, which is the carbon markets agreement. I actually think we should maybe come back to that because it's quite consequential and we want to do it justice. So let's come back at some point in the future, maybe this year or early next year, to what the article six outcome is. This is to do with linking carbon markets around the world. Article six of the Paris Agreement has taken a long time to agree the rules, but that was an outcome on the first day of the COP, but let's.

Christiana: [00:35:08] Nine years.

Tom: [00:35:09] Nine years later, so yes.

Paul: [00:35:12] Nine years is better than 20. So well done the team.

Tom: [00:35:14] That's true. We'll agree the principle, just a few little details to work out in terms of the details and how it's actually going to be implemented.

Paul: [00:35:20] Recognisable percentage of my life actually nine years, anyway, carry on.

Tom: [00:35:23] But I think we should turn to our interview. What do you think?

Christiana: [00:35:26] Yes.

Paul: [00:35:27] Very special guest.

Tom: [00:35:28] Very special guest.

Paul: [00:35:29] Maybe not a total stranger to people who listen to the podcast. And yet first time as a guest.

Christiana: [00:35:35] And maybe someone with a personal fan club.

Tom: [00:35:39] So five years ago, Christiana and I were in Detroit and we were there.

Christiana: [00:35:44] Trying to figure out what the heck a podcast was.

Tom: [00:35:47] What the heck a podcast was. And we had we were there with David Miliband, the former foreign secretary, and we decided we should interview him for the podcast. And so, to our astonishment, the hotel said, oh, we have a podcast studio and if you want, we can try and get our producer in and you should tell the story, because I seem to remember, well, Clay Carnill, welcome to Outrage + Optimism.

Paul: [00:36:07] Welcome to Outrage + Optimism.

Tom: [00:36:08] This is the first time you are the producer that was there all those years ago in Detroit. We are wanting to talk to you now, A because we love you, you have been transformative for this podcast. And also, very sadly, this is the last time that you will be the producer on our podcast because you've decided to move on. But welcome. Lovely to have you here.

Clay: [00:36:27] Thank you. Well, I just want to say I love you too. And, you want me to tell the story of how we?

Christiana: [00:36:33] Yes.

Tom: [00:36:34] Let's do it, yeah.

Clay: [00:36:35] Well, I remember meeting Tom in the hotel studio and just having these, you know, just hearing these amazing conversations, with people who are coming in through the door. And I didn't know who David Miliband was, and I didn't know who Christiana Figueres was, but, this woman came through after Tom and I had spent maybe a couple of hours together recording these interviews. And then this woman comes through the door and, charges right up to me, hands me her phone and says, excuse me, I've just come back from Antarctica and I've recorded some, penguin sounds, and I was wondering if you could get these penguin sounds off of my phone for a podcast.

Paul: [00:37:23] Perfect imitation of a transatlantic accent there Clay, very impressed.

Clay: [00:37:28] I had never I was like, wow, what a question. Yeah, just yes. I don't even know. I don't even, I have to do it.

Paul: [00:37:35] Of course, penguins yeah, of course. Yeah, off the phone.

Christiana: [00:37:37] I'm so sorry about that, Clay, I really do, I'm so sorry.

Tom: [00:37:40] You did a beautiful job.

Clay: [00:37:41] It was a great, great first impression. So that was me meeting Christiana Figueres for the first time.

Tom: [00:37:47] And you started from that moment, you recorded, we immediately got on.

Clay: [00:37:52] Yes.

Tom: [00:37:53] Is my recollection. And you recorded that podcast, started editing them, and you have been with us ever since, which is now since right at the beginning of the podcast. We're incredibly sad that we're going to be losing you now.

Christiana: [00:38:06] Clay has been putting up with us.

Tom: [00:38:08] Putting up with us.

Christiana: [00:38:09] For five years. He is still, still trying to teach us to put our AirPods in, to record. Are you recording? Did you do this? Did you do that? I mean, honestly, Clay, the patience that you have with us every single time to walk us through and go like, okay, guys, let's go through this once again.

Paul: [00:38:31] All the time bringing the spirit of Detroit.

Clay: [00:38:33] Yeah, it is a somewhat ritualistic, it's a practice every week going through the the tech check. Like, are you recording? Do you have your headphones on, AirPods in? I know from your side of things every week it must be just mind numbingly boring to be asked the same question every single week. But for the three of you showing up to the podcast every week, showing up to the microphones, that is a discipline. So it's just a privilege to have been part of the process.

Christiana: [00:39:00] It's a discipline that you put us into Clay.

Clay: [00:39:02] I do try to discipline you and it is not effective.

Tom: [00:39:06] With varying degrees of success.

Paul: [00:39:08] Full metal microphone or something, yeah. Bootcamp.

Christiana: [00:39:11] But but Clay, what have you learned about yourself or about us or about podcasting over the past?

Tom: [00:39:20] And also, what have you learned about climate because you you came into this without a background on climate? So let's answer Christiana's question first. And then I want to know how the climate world appears to you. You have been deeply immersed.

Clay: [00:39:31] This, being a guest on this podcast, I'm learning something right now is deeply uncomfortable. I just got asked four questions at once, so the the the first question is, what have I learned? What have I learned during this time? Number one, I've learned that I needed to unlearn a lot about how podcasting works, how how I think climate change works, how I think the world should work in order to actually make progress. So letting go of in The Future We Choose, one thing that I learned was that we don't know what the outcome will be so we focus on the input. And that allowed me and really freed me up. That idea really freed me up to enjoy the process of making a podcast.

Paul: [00:40:21] So this is The Future We Choose, the book Christiana and Tom wrote. So you read that and that was like your manual, right?

Clay: [00:40:27] Yeah. Well, I mean, they had been saying it, but you know, it takes, you know, there's a certain density to a skull, you know, and you have to hear it and then read something and then be told it again to really get it through your brain. So for some reason, that was the time that it made it through. But, when you let go of what you imagine the outcome will be, then you can truly, actually enjoy the process. So what I've learned about podcasting, about climate change, about community, about life through this five year journey together, is that letting go of what you think the perfect outcome should be actually frees you up to enjoy the process of actually creating the thing.

Paul: [00:41:08] That's deep, that's good.

Tom: [00:41:10] And what about climate change?

Christiana: [00:41:12] So wait, wait a second. Clay has not only learned about climate and podcasting, but what Clay has just beautifully summarized is a very important principle in Buddhism. And Clay, I really commend you for, for being so porous in the sense that you really allowed for so much to, to influence you, not only our day jobs on climate change, but also the particular approach, and the fact that you have been supporting this podcast, but also the Plum Village podcast has led you down two parallel paths here that you constantly interweave with each other, and I've been really impressed with that.

Clay: [00:42:06] Thank you for that. But can I say that you actually kind of threw me in there. Like I showed up to a meeting one day and we met with Pháp Hữu, Brother Pháp Hữu, who's the abbot of Upper Hamlet in Plum Village, and Jo Confino and I show up to a meeting, they're there. Christiana, you're there, Tom's there. And, they said, we're thinking about starting a podcast, and they're like, great, Clay's gonna help you with that. And then the two of you left, and I was left there to say so so the podcast is about Buddhism. I'm sorry.

Christiana: [00:42:38] And the two of them had no idea what a podcast was. They were in the same situation that I was previously.

Clay: [00:42:45] Exactly, yeah.

Tom: [00:42:46] Although I have to say, what that led to is then a few years later when we were all in, Edinburgh for TED Countdown, we all showed up there and there was Pháp Hữu and Jo Confino and a whole range of the other monastics.

Paul: [00:42:57] All the other climate people and Nigel Topping.

Tom: [00:42:59] And all the climate people. And I'd turn up and they'd say, Tom, Tom, is Clay here? And they just wanted to talk to you. And it was like when Clay arrived, he was the big celebrity.

Paul: [00:43:07] Yeah. You were the kind of yeah, I felt, yeah, that was that was really kind of like, oh, what's you know, star is born.

Clay: [00:43:13] They are, there are truly some of the most wonderful people living on this planet and anybody who has an opportunity to go visit them, you absolutely should. If they're on tour going somewhere, you should go meet them. Go talk to them. They are just unbelievable.

Paul: [00:43:29] The monastics from Plum Village in the south of France right?

Clay: [00:43:32] The monastics. Yeah, they're incredible people. And it's seriously, thank you so much for making that podcast happen, because it's become part of my weekly daily life working on that podcast. And it's I've gained quite a few friends through that. So as well as through Outrage + Optimism, but it really sustained me through a lot of isolation through the pandemic, too, because our podcast really kicked off in 2019 and then carried through most of the uncertainty that we all lived through. So that was a huge source of community and friendship. And it was, I'm struggling to say anything else other than an honour, a privilege and a joy. It's been incredible. So thank you, yeah.

Tom: [00:44:18] Thank you Clay, thank you.

Clay: [00:44:20] Yeah, I think I'm actually avoiding your question, Tom, about climate change. Just because I have been, you know, I'm so much more comfortable in the editor's chair and highlighting the voices of people who are coming on the show to share the expertise that they have. So I'm a little hesitant to kind of.

Christiana: [00:44:41] Okay, so let's ask it a different way. Five years in, what are you still outraged about?

Paul: [00:44:49] That's a good question.

Tom: [00:44:50] And you know what's coming next.

Clay: [00:44:51] Yeah I do.

Christiana: [00:44:53] The fact that we don't know where our AirPods are.

Clay: [00:44:56] Yeah, I'm outraged that every week I have to do a tech check and that there's varying degrees of success.

Christiana: [00:45:03] Varying degrees of success. How's, how's that for a diplomatic statement.

Clay: [00:45:07] Well, I stole it from Tom just from a few minutes ago, which means it's good. I'm outraged that our social media platforms that kind of came into, you know, I kind of grew up with, like, I joined Twitter in 20 or 2008. You know, I was on Facebook starting my first year of high school, got Instagram after that. And the ways that, you know, I've communicated with friends and family that those platforms are completely failing to meet the challenges we have today and in relation to climate change, it fuels all of the things that are stopping progress, like division, isolation, disinformation, and in particular, it really continues to emphasize the point that other people are our enemy, which is not true. Our real enemy is, you know, ignorance, hatred, discrimination. And we kind of end up turning against each other. And in climate change, my experience has been when you actually meet with people, when you actually spend time talking with them, there's people want to be together and want to be on the same page and work together. But we're kind of pitted against each other when we're on our phones and on our devices. So I'm pretty outraged about that. And, I you haven't asked the second question, but I'm ready to move on because I don't like staying on outrage very long, yeah. I know, I know what's coming next. 

Tom: [00:46:42] Go on, what makes you optimistic?

Clay: [00:46:44] Yeah. I'm optimistic about the creativity that I see in people. I'm optimistic about the collaboration that I see. I mean, my, in my own personal life, like, it's been stated, like I didn't know anything about climate change relative to what I know now, but I had people take a chance on me and say, Tom, help me with this part, you don't have the proper skills to.

Paul: [00:47:14] Wasn't that Christiana hiring Tom?

Tom: [00:47:16] What Christiana said to me, yeah, you have none of the relevant skills or experience.

Clay: [00:47:19] Yeah, so you don't have the relevant skills or experience but.

Tom: [00:47:26] But I think you'd be great, let's do it.

Clay: [00:47:27] I think you have the ability to navigate an unmapped territory, which we're in.

Tom: [00:47:32] There you go.

Clay: [00:47:33] And you actually did say that to me. So when I read it in the book that Christiana said it to you, I was like, he got that from somewhere. Because you did say that to me at one point. I think when you hired me, you said that to me. So, so I, I'm optimistic that there are others out there that that can really help contribute with the skills that they have. They just haven't been invited yet. And so that's kind of my that's where I'm optimistic, because I do see it happening. And I do see that people really want community. They really do want to work together. And we're at a point to where we actually because of how divided or how polarized things, and uncalcified things really seem right now, there is a real strong desire for people to say, this isn't working. We really need to go back to basics. And one of those is community. And so inviting people in, inviting people to walk together and really make some differences, make some change. 

Tom: [00:48:39] Love that.

Christiana: [00:48:40] Here, here. Thank you for that, Clay. Now, Clay here is here's a challenge, you've developed quite a fan group, through this podcast. And so I think, you know, there are many people who are going to be very sad that you're leaving and will want to know how do they keep in touch with you, so how do they?

Paul: [00:49:02] Show notes, right?

Clay: [00:49:03] Yeah, so go to the show notes. I do have a Patreon page where I create things and share things there. And then all of the money that's raised from that goes to a, there's like a, there's a recycled arts store that's just up the street from me. And so all the money raised from that goes to, educating kids here in Detroit by providing access to art supplies and opportunities to learn about art, music, creativity by using recycled materials. So it's all donation based. Everything that comes through that store is driven in by someone. And I'll put my email in there too, in the show notes so you can reach out to me.

Tom: [00:49:44] Great, amazing, thank you Clay.

Paul: [00:49:45] Thank you Clay, for for helping us, to borrow a phrase from Christiana to inform and activate. And it's absolutely beautiful that you offer that convergence of the circular economy in the arts. Genius.

Clay: [00:49:56] Thank you. Can I also say one, I want to say one more thing, which is that I do want to say a specific thank you to three different groups of people. It'll be quick, I promise. It'll be quick. I do want to thank the production team that I've worked on, which is Sarah, Jenny, Giulia, Kam-Mei, Mandy and Sophie, the reason why this podcast has been successful is because of the amazing women that are on this team. We just have so much fun at our production meetings. We kind of we try to get stuff done, a podcast does go out every week, so that's what we kind of bank on. Second is our audience. I want to thank all the Outrage + Optimism listeners that have been faithful to the podcast through all of the changes that we've made, anytime I've had the opportunity to get an email from someone, anytime I've been I've had an interaction in person, it's been just wonderful. It's kept the podcast going. It has really kept the podcast going. And we are thinking about you every week when we make the podcast. And then my last thank you is to the three of you. This has been, I'm filled with gratitude to have been had the opportunity to work very closely with you, for people listening, you don't get to see this all the time, but once the mics go off, everyone's still the same person. You know, there's no switch on switch off, and that is very rare. That is very rare. And so the authenticity that the three of you bring to your work, to your life, it's it's been an honour. So thank you.

Paul: [00:51:32] Honour is ours, salut Clay, salut.

Christiana: [00:51:34] Yeah, it's deep salut, Clay. Deep, deep salut. Penguin calls and everything.

Tom: [00:51:41] Yeah. And and we will miss you very much. You've been an enormous part of making the podcast what it is. I have no doubt you will go on to do brilliant things, and we will stay in touch with you and have you back on the podcast and certainly stay in touch as friends. So thank you for everything you've done. And, we will we will leave you with one last show notes for listeners. So listeners, don't go away. There'll be a final Clay, show notes after this at the very end.

Christiana: [00:52:06] Thank you Clay.

Tom: [00:52:07] Thanks bye.

Paul: [00:52:08] Thank you.

Clay: [00:52:09] Thank you all. So there you go. Another episode of Outrage + Optimism. I'm Clay here to do my last credits so here we go. Listeners, if you are listening this far into the podcast, this message is especially for you. Every year we invite you to shape the podcast moving forward by filling out a listener survey. This survey informs the team here on what you'd like, what you don't like, and your answers paint a great picture of who is listening because we actually can't see you or hear you. So be more than just a download number. Link in the show notes to fill out the survey and send us your opinions. And similarly, in December, Outrage + Optimism are doing another tradition here on the show, with a December mailbag episode where our hosts take questions directly from you. If you have a question from the How to Live a Good Life series, or maybe something from the climate negotiations or just anything coming up in the next year, 2025, all details are in the show notes on how to get your question to the team. Thanks for sending those in. All right. Thank you, listeners for five amazing years on the show. I feel just as excited editing episode 275 as I did episode one, and I'm humbled to have been invited into the guest seat this week among the incredible people that have been on and will be on this show. And so the show must go on. I hope you've saved a seat for me in the audience as I now join you as a listener. And it's, oh, I get to fill out the survey. Hang on a second. I didn't think of that. Fill out survey. I just wrote it down. I'm gonna do it. Maybe I'll submit a question for the mailbag episode. This is fun, love to all of you. That's everything for this week. Next week, another episode coming your way. I'll be tuning in. Join me, won't you.