274: COP29: From Billions to Trillions - G20 Calls for Ambition in Climate Finance

Christiana: [00:02:05] Well, thank you, Tom, for that.

Paul: [00:02:08] I read the FT and the BBC, I've got both of them. Christiana Figueres says so, you know.

Tom: [00:02:12] Not the, CNBC. There's been a whole load of them, yeah, anyway we jest.

Christiana: [00:02:18] So, yeah. So, so let's just get back to basics here because this letter that was signed by several or many of us has many suggestions as to how to improve the process. But I would like to focus on the first order of clarity and integrity that needs to really be re-established. And everything else I think, is second order. The first order of integrity is what is the mandate of the COP.

Tom: [00:02:48] Just one more detail, so sorry, we should say there was a letter that was put out by the Club of Rome and others that was signed by you and Ban Ki-moon and many others of the process. You said it's no longer fit for purpose. We need to make more progress. Sorry, I should have put that in the setup. Over to you.

Christiana: [00:03:01] Yeah. So let's remember what the mandate of the COPs is. The mandate of the COP is to reach multilateral decisions that accelerate climate policy and action worldwide. The role of the COP president is to enable exactly that to happen by disassociating him or herself during their term from their own country position, being open to all views and interests of countries and of stakeholders, and to steer negotiations toward advancement of climate policy and actions worldwide. Now, as we know, fossil fuel interests have as of late been trying to hijack the process to get outcomes that are completely contrary to the very mandate of the COP, most recently exemplified not by the president of the COP, but by the Azeri president, the President of Azerbaijan who opened the COP and from the COP podium said quite blatantly that fossil fuels are the gift of God. Now to that I would say they may have been a gift from God last century, but in this century I don't think God wants the destruction of his or her creation. Now, getting back to the seriousness of this, there is a self-regulating nature in COPs because of the participation of all countries and the pressure from civil society that was exemplified last year, as we saw the outcome from the UAE COP was actually pretty decent, not as much as we wanted, but pretty decent.

Christiana: [00:04:35] And the president of of the COP in Baku has recently begun to differentiate himself from the position of his own president of the country. So so that is working. But my point is that hard working negotiators and stakeholders should work with presidencies who are guided by the ultimate objective of the convention and not have to course correct at every step of the way. So lately, I've been thinking, what if the role of the Bureau is refreshed? And let's understand that the Bureau is the equivalent of the board of directors, if the COP were a private company, would be the board of directors. Now the bureau is responsible for process management and it is integrated by representatives from all UN regional groups. Hence, all countries are represented at the bureau. And so one thing that we might want to consider is should the bureau institute an oath of office for COP presidencies, so that the president of the COP, similar to the president of any country that takes an oath of office. COP presidents should be willing to take an oath of office that reminds them, doesn't guarantee, but reminds them what the mandate of the COP is and what the ultimate objective of the convention is. That is no guarantee, but it is at least a very good refresher for COP presidents that step into this very important role.

Tom: [00:06:22] Yeah. So, Christiana, basically, what I understand from what you just said is that we have a multilateral process that needs to be held above national interest, and we have had a series of presidencies who, either in reality or in optics, appear to be advancing their national interests rather than the interests of the whole. And that threatens the process. And we need to find a way of making sure that the people who are guarding this very precious, shared process are acting in the interests of the whole rather than their own bit.

Christiana: [00:06:50] Yep, that's a good summary.

Tom: [00:06:52] So I love the idea of a of a of an oath of office. New presidents come in. I mean, I remember you telling me the story of handing back your national flag when you became executive secretary of the UNFCCC, because you were no longer Costa Rican.

Paul: [00:07:03] I would have loved to have seen that, that's going to be very easy, to get the Costa Rican flag off Christiana, you've got to hand it over executive secretary, hand it over.

Tom: [00:07:09] She's got it back now, she's got it back now.

Christiana: [00:07:10] I have it back now. But but yes, it is both the executive secretary and the COP president who have to do exactly the same thing. They have to disassociate themselves from their country's position. Now, in my case, it was a pretty forward thinking, forward acting position of Costa Rica that I had to painfully disassociate myself.

Tom: [00:07:32] Sure yeah.

Christiana: [00:07:34] But whether you're forward thinking and acting or whether you're trying to pull things back from the point of view of governance, of COPs, as the executive secretary and as the COP president, you have to step away and and and take on a very, very different role.

Tom: [00:07:53] And in that I mean, so so some people would say we just need to not give any leadership positions to anyone who comes from any country that generates fossil fuels. And that's certainly a position many people are taking, because the impression is those people are sullied or tainted by that vested interest, and they won't be able to separate themselves. What you're saying, if I understand it, is actually this is a multilateral process. You can't exclude anybody, but you need to make sure that if those people do take those roles, they don't act from that position, they act from a collective position.

Christiana: [00:08:22] Correct.

Tom: [00:08:22] That's very helpful. I think we should come back to that, because that's something people don't necessarily, understand about this process. Now that's been process, and we should get into substance because there's these two very interesting, events going on at the moment the G20 in Rio, the COP in Baku. And they're intimately connected because many of, well, all of the countries that are in Rio at the head of state level also have delegates in Baku, and those delegates in Baku will be looking to what their heads of state do in Rio that will send signals between the two. And we can get into that.

Christiana: [00:08:56] You know, a couple of episodes ago, we went through the intensity of of multilateral meetings between September and December of this year. And, and this is, you know, yet another one. It really has been quite a quite a heavy three months here with so many multilateral meetings, either one after the other or in this, in this case taking place at the very same time. 

Tom: [00:09:27] At the same time, yeah.

Christiana: [00:09:28] I would not, I wouldn't be surprised if the fact that so many heads of state have actually gone to the G20, I think all of them except Putin. And that, of course, affected their presence at the COP, because we had fewer heads of state there than normal. But it is also interesting that they went then to Brazil, to the G20 meeting and devoted so much time to climate.

Tom: [00:10:02] Yeah, okay. So so I've been spending a bit of time, as you do over the last 24 hours, looking at the communiqué that came out from the G20 in Brazil. It's a long one and I've been through quite a few of these. There are 25 separate points where they discuss various different elements related to climate and nature, so.

Christiana: [00:10:23] Wait, Tom. Before you go into that, can we just give a quick primer on what the G20 is?

Tom: [00:10:28] Yes, go ahead.

Christiana: [00:10:29] So the G20 named 20, but it is actually the leaders, heads of state from the 19 countries, plus the EU, plus the African Union, who represent 85% of global GDP, 78% of greenhouse gases. Quite a critical group because of what they represent, but also because of the potential that they have. So I think that we should establish here the baseline of what they did in 2008 to manage the financial crisis. They actually agreed on a $4 trillion stimulus measures, all of them together. They rejected trade barriers and they enacted reforms of financial systems. So it is it is not a just a talk shop. These really represent very heavy hitting countries economies. And together they're quite a leadership group if they can manage to agree on something. So it is not a talk shop. It really has, quite an extraordinary influence on all multilateral issues.

Tom: [00:11:55] Right, and and, sorry Paul?

Paul: [00:11:56] I was going to say sort of mini world government group like the UN represents all the governments, but this is a group of the biggest ones that potentially, as you point out, with Covid, can really get things done and make big decisions.

Tom: [00:12:08] Right. So, so the communiques and the statements that have to be agreed unanimously between these 20 countries that come out are very strong signals for where this group is going. And as you said, 85% of GDP, 77% of emissions. This is the group that's really driving the bus. So it obviously doesn't have the multilateral participation of everyone in the whole world that the UNFCCC does, but it sends a strong signal in a direction. And, and so I've been looking through their most recent communique and I just wanted to, so there's 25 points that relate to climate and nature between points 35 and 60 for anyone who fancies going and having a look at the G20 communique, and I just wanted to share a few points and find out from you, Christiana, whether or not you think this is a strong signal, emphasizing the role of sustainable development, relatively regular language, reaffirming strong commitment to multilateralism, specifically, the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, resolved to remain united in pursuing the long term goals, recommitting to 1.5 degrees, bold timely and structural actions on a national basis, and to shift the international financial system to accelerate scaling up climate action.

Tom: [00:13:19] Mindful of the fact that these countries have a leadership role, they reaffirm, quote unquote, steadfast commitments in pursuit of the UNFCCC objectives, reiterate commitment to intensify efforts to achieve net zero emissions by or around mid-century. That's quite strong language, actually, by or around mid-century, that's stronger than in the Paris Agreement. They reiterated their commitment that they made last year, phasing out fossil fuels as well also as coming forward and saying specifically that they look forward to seeing a successful new collective quantified goal, this is the finance commitment come out of COP 29, which is happening right now in Baku and pledging to support the COP 30 presidency towards a successful outcome. And they also restated many of the sectoral commitments made last year tripling renewable energy capacity, doubling energy efficiency and a range of other targets. So there wasn't a lot in here that was new. But my sense in reading it and you will, you will know more, is that it's quite good to have this strong political segment of being reaffirmed while the COP is going on. It feels like it kind of kind of went pretty well. What do you think?

Christiana: [00:14:25] I think so, I think so too. And I think it's interesting, as we said before that it happens at the same time, they are clearly sending a very strong signal. Tom, did they also not talk about the need to scale up climate finance from billions to trillions from all sources? Can you look at that? I believe that that that's also in the in the communiqué. So what one thing let's just say one thing that they did not reiterate is the language from last COP, which is to transition away from fossil fuels. That was not possible, although that was originally in the draft. So that was not possible. But all of the rest that you have summarized there is quite strong language and, and, and I think very, very helpful for the last days of the of COP 29 to get a very clear political mandate from these very large economies that are mostly responsible, either historically responsible if you're an industrialized country or currently responsible for three quarters of the greenhouse gas emissions and 80% of global GDP as we've said. So these really are the ones that hold the reins in their hands. Now, of course, the the the political conversation always is, well, they are the emitters and we the small countries are the ones that that are suffering the most because of the emissions of the large countries. But precisely because of that counter position of the large countries versus the small countries, although the island states are represented there in the G20, but as a whole it basically is large countries and not the small countries. So given that, I think it's actually pretty good language, pretty good language, and especially because it's happening right.

Tom: [00:16:40] Right now.

Christiana: [00:16:40] At the same time at the COP, there's a very intentional message being given.

Tom: [00:16:45] Right. And you're exactly right. They did also talk about the billions to trillions, which is a strong signal on finance, and we'll come to Sue in a sec. Paul, you want to say something?

Paul: [00:16:53] Well just one thing. I mean, it's also, you know, there's a little tear welling up in my eye because clearly, I think the G20 is coming together, you know, with the full force of the world's largest economy affirming and reaffirming commitment to action on climate change, the biggest problem the world is facing in full knowledge that the next administration is going to take a different stance. So, you know, there's something sort of kind of poetic and beautiful about this, but, you know, it presages a much more difficult period.

Christiana: [00:17:20] The next administration in the United States.

Paul: [00:17:22] In the United States. Thank you, thank you.

Tom: [00:17:25] I was about to tease you for having welling up with a tear in your eye when reading G20 communiques, but by the time you'd finished your statement about the next president.

Paul: [00:17:32] You had one in your eye, right.

Tom: [00:17:32] I was crying along with you, exactly. Now then, none of us are in Baku anymore. But we do have some brilliant colleagues on the ground, one of them being Sue Reid, who.

Christiana: [00:17:44] Hi, Sue.

Tom: [00:17:44] Finance advisor, climate finance advisor to Christiana. Wonderful member of the Global Optimism team. Former guest on this podcast. Hi Sue, nice to see you.

Sue Reid: [00:17:52] Hello dear friends, hello from Baku. It is so lovely to see you. Can you hear me okay?

Christiana: [00:17:58] Yes perfect now.

Paul: [00:17:59] Super well, it sounds like you're actually in the room with us, so.

Sue Reid: [00:18:02] Clearly I'm a rookie with all the accoutrements. But thank you for having me.

Christiana: [00:18:06] Well, actually, your voice is coming through even clearer than ours, so good job.

Sue Reid: [00:18:13] You're saying I'm loud?

Christiana: [00:18:14] No, I'm saying you're clear.

Tom: [00:18:17] So, Sue, I know we don't have you for long, and you're running around doing millions of things on the ground. So thank you very much for joining us. I suppose I'd love to just start with a general comment. All eyes are now on Baku now that the G20 is coming to a close, we know we need to make significant progress on the finance deal by the end of the week. How's it going?

Sue Reid: [00:18:34] Well, it does feel like all eyes are on Baku from all over the world. I think you nailed it there. You know, there's been there have been widespread reports in terms of the complexities of these negotiations. And it's true, there are a lot of really detailed, wonky technical issues around finance, that are complicated in their own right, and when you add in nearly a couple hundred different governments, all of course, with the different nuances and so on and with so much on the line, because as Christiana often has iconically said, as goes finance, so go emissions, right. This is a core nut of of the ability to deliver on the Paris Agreement and stabilize the climate and reverse some of these inequities. There's an enormous amount of pressure that is being met now, especially with two new elements of new infusion of beneficial forces and tailwind. So one being the arrival of ministers, seasoned diplomats who know how to get things done and pull proverbial rabbits out of hats in terms of finding that sometimes elusive common ground that is essential for getting to yes in the days to come. And then, of course, I'm sorry I missed your discussion of the G20 communiqué, but that's being felt here that G20 is not representative of every government, every society on the planet, of course, but it does have diversity of representation across developing countries or emerging markets and developed countries across the strongest economies, the biggest economies in the world. Those signals in terms of firmly reinforcing the commitment to 1.5°C is the temperature limit, reinforcing the global stocktake and all of its embedded commitments in terms of scaling clean energy, halting and reversing deforestation, transitioning away from fossil fuels, and really importantly, calling on this COP, calling on everyone who's in Baku to deliver on the finance determinations that are needed is super helpful as we go into these last few days.

Christiana: [00:20:52] And Sue literally, they say scale up climate finance from billions to trillions. Now they also say from all sources, which we know has to be there. But that's a huge step for G20 and a huge message for COP 29, is it not?

Sue Reid: [00:21:09] Absolutely, absolutely. We know that the need is at the scale of trillions per year. And so it's about time to have these clearer signals of getting from, for example, what historically has been a $100 billion commitment over these last years of developed countries to developing countries. That's that's really just a bare down payment, right. Getting to this scale is what this is all about. And that signal is powerful.

Tom: [00:21:39] And, Sue, I mean, talk to us just a little bit about what you think the final form of this might take. I mean, I spoke, when I was on the ground I talked to.

Christiana: [00:21:46] Oh my God, poor Sue. Sue, here's the crystal ball.

Tom: [00:21:49] Yeah, get your crystal ball out, so I mean.

Christiana: [00:21:50] Here you are, crystal ball.

Paul: [00:21:51] Is it going to be okay, Sue? Just can you sort it out for us, you know, we're really nervous over here.

Tom: [00:21:55] So I mean, just to give you a little bit of something to react to, I talked to various folks on the ground who said, you know, there's at least three buckets. One is trillions of dollars that need to be invested on a commercial basis, cross-border. That money is not a problem if the projects are there. Then there's a, you know, that's probably one and a half, $2 trillion. Then there's something in the order of 3 or 400 billion that needs to be lent under commercial or concessional terms for resilient infrastructure, for restoring against the future, for protecting against shocks. That's not easy to find, but it's feasible. And it's possible because there is a return. And then there's a smaller piece which is like 100, 150 billion, which probably needs to be grants because it's about damage, it's about recovery. And we need innovative mechanisms that raise that money. Because I think when I talked about this last week on my dialogue with David Lammy and Mia Mottley, we're not going to get there by passing the hat around every year and asking people to put money into it. We need innovative mechanisms that generate that. Is that roughly a sketch of where we're heading, or is there something in there that is not what you think is going to happen?

Sue Reid: [00:22:53] I think that is really fair to say that that's roughly the structure that we're talking about here and what's anticipated for a landing zone in the days ahead, what those exact numbers, so those different layers will look like, you know, I wouldn't I wouldn't begin to lay out an expectation at this point, except that the whole of it, I think we can expect leaders here to deliver on ensuring that all of the pieces will add up to meaningfully meet the need, and it is striking to me, I can't help but add one of the the aha moments that I've experienced here is to see leading investors at the pinnacle of the finance food chain. So some of the pension funds and insurers that are participating in the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance have been here on the ground in Baku meeting with delegations and of course, talking to the broader world. And what they're asking for is virtually indistinguishable from what leading civil society advocates and developing countries are calling for.

Tom: [00:23:56] Wow.

Christiana: [00:23:56] That is just amazing.

Sue Reid: [00:23:58] It's extraordinary. And I just I think that needs to be more broadly understood still, the fact that it was an aha moment for me was was maybe a broader aha moment in terms of, of messaging and communications that, you know, they get it that the systemic climate related financial risks are, you know, something that their portfolios are exposed to no matter where they're situated in the world right. This is a truly global.

Paul: [00:24:24] They have ecological security written into their DNA. You know, some of them have been around for hundreds of years. I, I asked a trustee of a huge US pension fund, CalPERS, I said, what's your investment horizon 20 years, 40 years, 80 years. And he said to me in perpetuity, there is no end date for the state of California. That's the perspective that they bring. And they have trillions of assets. It's brilliantly exciting.

Sue Reid: [00:24:44] Exactly. And it's not that they are operating from a moral and equitable imperative, right. I mean, these are human beings. So sure, that's out there in the ethos, but it is a core economic imperative. They fully appreciate and are leveraging their voices to help catalyze action to address those systemic global risks. And that means putting up public dollars at scale toward things that are really challenging to finance through public finance like adaptation right. And that means a decision here on this new collective goal that is calibrated to meet that trillion dollar plus annual need right. And that also means creating the enabling environment in governments, in countries all around the world, both developed and developing countries, and everything in between that take these commitments to tripling renewables, doubling efficiency, accelerating phase out of fossil fuels, halting and reversing deforestation, and embedding those elements substantively in national policies as already agreed by countries last year right, to to then create the enabling environment and the money will flow. And so you need the the significant scale up of public finance especially to do those things that private capital can't do. You need a significant scale up of public finance to differently share some of the risks in some markets where pension funds, insurers and others, you know, can't invest under current condition, but with some additional allocation of, changing of allocation of risk, they can come in. And then there's a broad swath that can also come in through through both corporations that have global value chains, financial institutions and so on. So there's the potential for all of these. There's a need and potential and imperative to act on ensuring that all of these pieces are lined up to meet the need.

Christiana: [00:26:41] So what what always strikes me in this conversation of finance is, the ratio between public and private finance, it's a very small ratio between what we need from public finance versus what can come in from private finance. So although frankly, it is minute, what is necessary from public. What is very interesting about that minute level of commitment in financing is the outsized, completely outsized effect that it can have in terms of mobilizing private finance. And I'm not sure that we have quite captured that, that it is actually the best investment, because the return on investment and safety and, and, and long term stability for corporations and for economies is so huge.

Paul: [00:27:39] And energy security too.

Sue Reid: [00:27:41] Absolutely, absolutely. And there's the opportunity to leverage public finance both to drive in private finance that originates in developing countries and emerging markets right. It's not just changing the risk equation and making it easier for European and North American investors to invest at far greater scale in emerging markets, in developing countries. They do have very big pools of capital, but it's also about creating a better enabling environment for domestic capital so that those returns can be shared across developing countries and emerging markets in a more equitable way. So they're, and we know how to do this. We know how to deal with currency risk and policy risk and aggregation of projects so you get to the scale that private capital needs to invest and vetting projects and building the project pipeline and things like country platforms that then can take what countries themselves, developing countries themselves want and need to do to build their climate resilience and then make it easier for capital to come in, together with this leveraging of public capital.

Tom: [00:28:46] Amazing.

Paul: [00:28:47] With accelerated permitting and accelerated grid access and all these little bureaucratic blockers and unblockers and enablers, but we're getting there. So this is very enriching to hear about Sue.

Tom: [00:28:57] So, Sue, I know we don't have you for much longer. Just one final question, I left at the end of last week, you'll obviously remain on the ground in Baku. It was a bit of a weird vibe when I was there. You know, like the presidency was talking about fossil fuel golden age and attacking the French, and delegations were walking out. But at the same time, there was also quite a lot of momentum. It felt a bit confused. Do you feel now like everyone has settled down and they're getting into the hard work of reaching a landing ground? Does it, does it feel like the vibe has changed since last week I suppose is the question?

Sue Reid: [00:29:25] Absolutely. I think a lot of us shared that perspective, and that really was a palpable vibe last week. But with those two elements of tailwinds that I flagged earlier of the minister's arrival and this G20 set of signals, that seems to be translating already into a change in the ethos. And really, you see, the intensity of meetings has, dramatically increased. And there are parallel tracks with the detailed negotiations happening, happening on the technical wonky stuff and ministers coming in with the higher level political efforts toward finding that common ground. It's demonstrable that that's happening. Look, it's Tuesday. This COP is slated to go for several days yet to come. But the developments of today are super encouraging. There's still time, absolutely, and expectation to deliver on what needs to get done on the new climate finance target.

Tom: [00:30:24] Amazing. Thank you Sue. Good luck on the grounds. Stay in touch. Come and talk to us again when we have some more clarity on what it's going to look like.

Sue Reid: [00:30:31] Thank you so, so much for having me. It's lovely to see you onwards and can't wait to report back on the ultimate outcomes.

Christiana: [00:30:38] Yay! We will have you back! Thank you Sue.

Paul: [00:30:41] Wonderful Sue, thank you.

Tom: [00:30:42] Thanks, bye.

Sue Reid: [00:30:43] Take care, bye.

Paul: [00:30:43] Bye.

Tom: [00:30:46] Okay, so, I mean, what a star Sue is, always been just an amazing part of the team and such long history in climate finance. I guess we should just sort of wrap up a little now, either of you want to kick off with any reflections from that or some sense of the way forward?

Paul: [00:31:02] I will, I will just say that I think that we have a sort of like an extraordinary moment of global unity before things are going to change somewhat. And it's it's it's great, you know, I found the G20 communiqué very moving in that regard. And I, I also am sure that without going into that whole discussion about the North American election, we are going to kind of prevail here. And it's so important that we kind of hold the right posture to be effective, you know, over the years ahead. And these are bits of good news that we can bank and and not see things with one lens, but see them with multiple lenses. What was it you said, Christiana, holding different perspectives in the mind simultaneously. I think that's that's what I'm taking from this, you know, some outrage, lots of optimism too.

Christiana: [00:31:56] You know, I am, I am struck by, the pattern that so many COPs take in terms of vibe, just to use that word, that you suggested, Tom. And I don't know if you guys will remember when we were all, like, full on into the COPs, but COPs start usually at a very high level. You know, the, the, the in terms of vibe right. A very high vibe with the, with the high level segment at the beginning. And then they begin to descend to the pits of the vibe, which usually hits in what we used to call the sandwich weekend, which is the weekend between week one and week two, somewhere between that Friday and and Sunday or Monday, it is just the pits, and everybody is so demoralized and so frustrated, and so angry and, you know, wanting to to get up and leave, and then the vibe begins to pick up as people realize, okay, we're in the second week, this is the political week. We have to get out, as Sue said, of our wonky details, and begin to reach political agreements that necessarily have to move above the details that so many people are, attached to. And, and, and Sue has just confirmed that that's what we're seeing.

Tom: [00:33:34] Exactly the same pattern.

Christiana: [00:33:36] Exactly the same pattern. It's so interesting. Now, the other bit that, you know, we're recording this on Tuesday, but typically what happens and let's see if it does, is that as you get close to the end, say close to Thursday or Friday, there is a dip again, not the dip that we have in the sandwich weekend, but there is a dip because now we're working at the political level, and it's not always evident where the common ground can be reached. And so there is a lot of, tussle there at the political level somewhere around Friday, and if it goes into Saturday, which many COPs have, then eventually, actually common ground is reached. And that process, I honestly think that there is some magic involved in multilateralism. There is some magic that where the results are always far superior to what any single country would want, and it's superior because all countries have a buy in into the process. So let's just remember the very basic principle of negotiations. No one will go home with everything that they wanted, but everyone must go home with something that was important to them. That's the principle.

Christiana: [00:35:08] You have to go home and say to your own constituency, I won this piece, fully well knowing that you didn't win everything that you wanted, that you didn't get everything that you got there, but you won something. There has to be a win for everyone. And if there's not a win for everyone, and the winds can never be 100% of what each country or each participant wants, it's going to be 100 minus x, but there is a win. And that win that all everyone goes home with may not be the highest ambition of those who want the fastest and deepest transformation. But it is a step, and that's the magic of multilateralism. And I honestly think that we have to remember that multilateralism was created for a very important purpose and needs to continue to be strengthened. We should not begin to say, well, because, you know, we're not getting the results that we want therefore we have to kill multilateralism. That's not that is not the way there is a strength and and a very important role that is being played consistently by multilateralism in this and in many other issues. Plastics, for one.

Tom: [00:36:33] I feel like Christiana, I feel like I would love to hear more of that kind of defence of multilateralism at the moment, because you sort of hear, well, it's a pain and it's inefficient and it doesn't work, but we have to do it.

Christiana: [00:36:46] It is inefficient.

Tom: [00:36:47] Yeah. You hear that kind of narrative a lot, but what you just said is okay, it may be inefficient, but at the end of the day, you get to a better place than if someone had just instituted and dictated something that they want. And I think we need to sort of remember the unique power of it, because obviously it's under significant attack. So thank you for saying that. That's really, I really like that.

Paul: [00:37:09] I remember the you know, you do your worst and we'll do our best thing. I mean, it's not exactly a kind of, you know, I'm Spartacus moment. But you know, whilst it's fair to say perhaps the US is going to take a bit more of a back seat, governments have been popping up to lead in that multilateral process. The UK government told The Observer it intended to step up to save COP 29 at its first press conference. The European Union said it would lead from the front in the negotiations. At the sidelines, a senior Chinese official told delegates China is willing to take a more active role in global climate governance so that multinational, extraordinary and magical process will have a leaderful future. And that's very, very exciting.

Tom: [00:37:48] Nice, love that. All right, should we leave it there? I have a suspicion we'll be back on this topic within a few days, probably when, as we see as this lands. So let's leave it there. Thanks for joining us, everyone. We'll see you pretty soon.

Paul: [00:38:01] Bye. 

Christiana: [00:38:01] Bye.