71: We Can Only Face the Future if We Do it Together with Achim Steiner

00:28:09.855 --> 00:28:20.995

Achim Steiner (guest, Administrator of the UN Development Programme): It is absolutely something that has come directly from the front lines of the battle to first of all manage the COVID-19 crisis from a containment strategy, the health crisis, so to speak. But immediately, and this is one of the great strength that I appreciated since arriving at UNDP, that it is working at the coalface, so to speak, of development. Its presence in 170 countries, the Secretary General's request that we provide the technical lead in the UN development system for the socioeconomic response has led us to engage with well over 100 countries already in the assessments and in recovery strategies. And the conclusion that we needed to step up in front of the world and say, look, what we are seeing on the ground is extremely important, both from a containment strategy, while we don't have a vaccine, we don't have a treatment for COVID-19, but also by being a witness to the extraordinary economic freefall and social disruption that COVID has caused. And I think two or three things here are very, very significant. One, we did not want to take this debate into the paradigmatic or religious sphere of universal basic income or not. What we tried to make is the analogy that actually, in many more developed economies, wealthier economies, temporary basic income is an integral part of a social security, social safety net system. You know, when you send people on furlough, as in Germany, and you pay them essentially even though they're not working, unemployment benefits, social security insurance, those are precisely temporary basic incomes. And in wealthier economies or more developed social security systems, that is the tool we practice every day. In developing countries, often it is 90% or more who work in the informal sector. You should lock down, you essentially have no income, you have no unemployment benefit, you are literally looking at using up your meager savings, which might be sometimes just two or three days' income, and then having nothing. So both from a point of view of being able to cope and help particularly developing countries focus on how to manage the pandemic at this moment, but secondly, to recognize you cannot ask people who cannot afford to buy food for themselves to stay in lockdown mode. And thirdly, we wanted to make the link also to a global responsibility to just like we do in each of our countries in the European or North American context or Japan right now, stimulus packages, stabilization packages are meant to help the most vulnerable, to ensure that people don't fall through the cracks. That same analogy applies at a global level between richer nations and poorer nations, and that's why we made the link to debt repayments. You see, what we estimate is that this year, about 3.1 trillion or a little bit more of debt repayments are scheduled from developing countries to debtors. Just a third of that could essentially finance such a programme. And so the figure of 199 billion sounds prohibitive, but actually, very quickly you break it down. Countries have their own public budgets. They could defer debt repayments. They could look at repurposing money from defence budgets. They could also look at the macroeconomic impact of injecting money into millions of households who actually stimulate the economy, so indirect and direct tax income could partly pay for it. This is affordable. That was our main message. Secondly, it is urgently needed. And thirdly, it requires both national and international cooperation. And yes, it took courage to put this report out. We were concerned. I was concerned. But the power of the argument and the reality being dictated by what we see on the ground in countries right now led us to take a step forward. And surprisingly, perhaps, the response has been remarkably positive because virtually every country is already engaged in some form of cash transfer programme right now. So let's do this by design rather than by default and hopefully get through this crisis in a much more resilient way.

00:32:05.835 --> 00:32:10.355

Paul Dickinson: It's a wonderfully innovative way of approaching economics. You work at a major United Nations institution, and yet you have said, we live in economically determined times. And you've described the era of trickle-down economics as over. I mean, when you think about global responsibility, you've also spoken very eloquently about separate economic systems, the state versus the private sector. And one wonders if there will be a united corporations or united investors one day. Can I ask you what practical examples you see of where this separatism has come together? Are there examples in the digital space or with regard to the STGs? What's catching your eye and what's exciting you?

00:32:48.015 --> 00:32:53.615

Achim Steiner (guest, Administrator of the UN Development Programme): Look, first of all, it's a basic fact in looking at our economies and the macroeconomic perspective. I mean, you know, public finance, the budget of governments, accounts for roughly a fifth of economic activity in our economies taken globally. So by implication, four fifths is happening in the markets in the private sector universe. And you know, one of the things that we need to get overall is that we always define the private sector as some kind of multinational corporation. Over 90 percent, in many countries, even 95 percent, such as Japan, of businesses are small medium scale enterprises. The backbone of the economic activity of the services industry, of the livelihoods and employment is not the mega corporation. It is in fact the small medium scale enterprises that people in their innovations, in their survival strategies are putting in place. And that is why I have always argued that if you are looking at development, sustainable development, how could you pursue such a path without explicitly thinking about that part of the economy, which is the dominant part in which private sector actors are drivers? Now, you mentioned a couple of examples, and I just want to echo in a strong way the potential. Take digital. Digital is an extraordinary opportunity. It is technology led in one sense. It is also entrepreneurially and startup led in terms of then creating platforms and services and has very quickly also shown that you cannot simply be led by technology. Otherwise, in a few years' time, we are going to be run worldwide by maybe five or ten corporations. So, as we have done in the past, regulatory and policy frameworks are part of shaping an ecosystem in which the brilliance of technology and entrepreneurship drive possibility, but we also address the fact that we cannot leave the majority of the population behind. We cannot let algorithms simply define women, poorer people out of the financial system, to give two examples. And therefore, there is tremendous opportunity. And inclusive finance has, particularly in developing countries, broken through entirely new frontiers in bringing people who didn't exist in the financial system, because they didn't have an address, they didn't have collateral. They are suddenly trading, borrowing instantly in the morning to buy their goods, sell them in the market, repaying loans in the evening. This is a revolution unfolding. At the same time, take something like health insurance. In the midst of this pandemic, the tragedy is that it has once again revealed the deep structural inequalities. There are some people in some countries who are insured. They can weather this storm in a relatively resilient way. For most poor people, there is no health insurance. There is no national health service. And therefore, the ability to, for example, work with the insurance sector, look at the algorithms and the service products that they have developed, the risk management tools, and put in place a micro health insurance programme where government perhaps can use its limited resources to buy down some of the costs, but then allow insurance companies to offer these schemes in order to bring hundreds of millions of people into basic insurance is another good example of this frontier. And I think investment, the third sector is investment. And we live in the richest moment in monetary terms in human history. This planet, this global population has more money at its disposal right now than we have ever been able to count. And yet, wherever you look, we have transformational challenges and there is not enough investment capital. So the finance sector, the financial markets have to become part of an SDG driven investment agenda. And again, I think UNDP can work with governments and the private sector to enlarge that space, as are many others.

00:36:22.095 --> 00:36:22.775

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Great. Do you want to ask another one, Paul, or shall I dive into it?

00:36:24.875 --> 00:36:27.835

Paul Dickinson: I was just going to say that's an absolutely captivating vision. And I hope and believe that your kind of encouragement of leadership in the private sector will body forth those entrepreneurs that take these new opportunities that aren't just about maximizing money, but taking society in the right direction.

00:36:41.235 --> 00:36:48.695

Achim Steiner (guest, Administrator of the UN Development Programme): In their own words, that is the, you know, the paradigm shift that many leaders in the private sector are realizing. Out of a personal conviction, I think, in the first instance, but also the sheer corporate rationale. I mean, we are at a point in time where transparency, information availability is increasing, going to challenge companies that are simply adding to our problems. And I think the renewable energy, clean energy revolution has been a great example. That technology has been in drawers for the last 50 to 80 years. But it was with public policy, public awareness, that you saw this transformation then happening.

00:37:17.175 --> 00:37:28.475

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Can I ask you, you said earlier on that you've always been someone who believed in these principles of the United Nations and this institution that was born out of such awful goings on in the middle of the previous century. And I just want to ask you a question about the health of both that institution and also of the principles of cooperation that it espouses. I mean, several years ago when Christiana and I were at the UNFCCC, you were at UNEP and we were all working towards the Paris Agreement, it felt like this very difficult moment. But looking back now, it sort of looks like days of halcyon innocence compared to sort of what you're facing now. And even before the pandemic, we were at a point where we were facing protectionism, attacks on multilateral institutions, trade wars, nationalism, and this sort of general pulling back from cooperation. And now, of course, with the pandemic, we're seeing projections of massive drops in international trade, even development financing. And we have this rhetoric that is now sort of, from some countries, kind of going off the scale. I mean, just this week, Nikki Haley, the former ambassador to the UN, said at the Republican National Convention, the UN is not for the faint of heart. It's a place where dictators, murderers, and thieves denounce America, then put their hands out and demand their bills to be paid. So, you know, when we're at that point of the rhetoric, it's challenging, right, to look at the necessary steps that need to be taken by these institutions. So I have a couple of questions about what we do about that. But first, I'd just like to know, you know, as much as anyone, you are sitting in the heart of these collaborative networks and institutions responsible for helping the world meet the sustainable development goals. What does it feel like inside those institutions? Do you feel like the winds of cooperation kind of are there and there still is energy and momentum for that? Or does it feel like you're sort of besieged by these forces that are pushing in another direction?

00:39:07.415 --> 00:39:09.515

Achim Steiner (guest, Administrator of the UN Development Programme): Well, I think both observations are true. I mean, this is perhaps the schizophrenic reality of working in the center of an institution that is essentially founded not on some naive idealism that nations are united. I often say we have a United Nations precisely because nations are not united. They have competing interests. They have conflicts with one another. They have different legacies. And the brilliance of the idea, the vision of establishing the United Nations is in my mind so important at this moment in time for a couple of reasons. One, let us remember this is the 75th anniversary of establishing the United Nations. It's associated with the year 1945 after the war. I think what is actually more interesting is that the idea was first born in 1941. And then through conferences, you know, out of the United States, through conferences in London, in Moscow, in Tehran, was matured at the darkest moment of the 20th century. And I think this is so important. In the difficult times, it is vision and it is courage to look at something better that defines possibility, not the, you know, negative skepticism or armchair commentary that we so often hear. And it's a time to lean forward in the midst of this pandemic. And yes, the UN is, as an institution, as a political platform, contested. But let me remind you, this is not new. We've lived through a cold war. We've had, you know, US administrations wanting to see the UN pack up and go down the East River and move somewhere else in the past. I think we should not, you know, confuse the temporary political dynamics in the US, which I think, you know, points to a far larger set of polarizations within the United States, rather than the United Nations. Having said that, there is no question that member states lack a degree of respect at the moment for what they have established in terms of international law, in terms of normative and progressive rulemaking that the UN has so often facilitated. But do I have any doubt that there is, you know, anything better out there? No, there isn't. In fact, you know, just the debate over the pandemic and the WHO. I've often asked the question, so would you rather have a global pandemic response being defined and led by Washington or Beijing? Or do you want to have that place where every nation comes together? And this is a powerful idea. If you're small or you're large, you have a seat in the United Nations, you have the right to be heard. And this is a rules-based and rights-based institution. And here it is 75 years after it was founded. Yes, it has bruises and it needs to evolve. But that evolution has to be driven by member states. It's a lack of respect for the idea and a lack of engagement for evolving the United Nations that I think is very much giving that impression that maybe it is not performing. And clearly as a bureaucracy, as an administration, as organizations, we are the first ones to say, look, this is a different time. This is a different era. We have to change from within as well. But the license to operate comes from member states.

00:42:13.495 --> 00:42:19.755

Tom Rivett-Carnac: I mean, that sort of stubborn, determined optimism gets very high marks around here, I have to say, particularly with Christiana. Okay, so just one other question to that, sort of looking at the political winds around the world. I mean, do you think it's true that we have not done as good a job as we should have done of conveying to individual citizens around the world the benefits of multilateralism today and tomorrow, and that we need to accept that appealing to public goods and the welfare of future generations is likely to be insufficient in times of real hardship, but we need to find a new narrative that helps individuals understand the benefits of multilateralism. How do we do that? And how, because really what we need is citizens, yes, member states, but we also need citizens around the world to understand that they want their leaders to work together and cooperate and collaborate.

00:43:03.535 --> 00:43:04.555

Achim Steiner (guest, Administrator of the UN Development Programme): Well, this is the odd thing. If you look at public opinion polls of citizens, they are far ahead of their leaders. So this is one of the strange phenomena. The United Nations is still recognized as one of the most trusted and admired brands in the world, and this is not UN Commissioned Public Opinion Surveys. And in part it is because people project on to the idea of the United Nations, on to that sacred hall as Secretary General Ban Ki-moon once called the General Assembly Hall, on to the voice and the pulpit of the Secretary General, all that which they believe is righteous and is good, and yet realize fully well that it is not a power in the hard sense. I mean, the Secretary General's power is to speak truth to the world. And I think, let me begin by saying, our citizens are being misled, and our citizens are obviously also facing many crises in their immediate surroundings. How do we address that? Not by preaching to them. I think you're absolutely right. We have to explain in a contemporary way, what is the value of having this unique place that essentially says, why don't you rather talk with each other than point guns at each other? That's the fundamental peace and security mandate. Secondly, isn't it a good thing that we have a humanitarian response system that in the earthquakes, the pandemics, the floods, and all the disasters that affect literally hundreds of millions of people a year, the international community has a rapid response mechanism? We are literally through the World Food Programme right now, ensuring with other UN agencies also that 100 million people this evening have something to eat because fate or however you want to describe it, disaster has left them with virtually no protection. And then there is the development promise. People often say development hasn't worked, development has failed. How many people realize that, you know, we were only 250 years ago, 1 billion people on this planet. It took us 50,000 years to get to 1 billion and now we are 7.5 billion people. In that period, we have, you know, almost eliminated illiteracy. We have increased since 1960 life expectancy by 16 years. We have almost universal education and people live longer, they have more possibilities and we have also significantly reduced extreme poverty. I'm sorry, I don't want to come with too many numbers, but one more that I think is an important illustration. 300 years ago, nine out of 10 people on this planet lived in extreme poverty. Today, with a sevenfold increase in the total global population, roughly one out of 10 people lives in extreme poverty. That's the story of development and it in no way excuses the fact that one out of 10 is still with us because it is absolutely unnecessary given the means we have. But that's the development mandate of our generation to finally eradicate extreme poverty, address injustice and inequality and allow sustainable development to drive the future of our economic but also prosperity and social well-being.

00:46:00.895 --> 00:46:01.455

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Fantastic. Thank you.

00:46:01.755 --> 00:46:09.995

Christiana Figueres: So, Achim, thank you very much for that overview of the progress that humankind has really achieved. And standing on that very firm basis, I would love to invite you to now look forward. We usually wrap up this conversation by asking people, are you more outraged, are you more optimistic about the future because we think we need both? And you're welcome to answer that. But I would love if you could answer that in the context of having spent so much time at the UN with this global view and with all the different hats that you've worn, what are you really excited about in the next two, three years? What do you think is on the horizon that despite everything, you know, that we read in the media, we also know that there are many positive things happening. What are you excited about that you know is going to come about in the next two to three years that makes you jump out of bed in the morning and go, yeah, we're going to get there?

00:47:09.655 --> 00:47:12.835

Achim Steiner (guest, Administrator of the UN Development Programme): Well, I think you need a mixture of outrage and optimism. I think many would say that. But I think in my own outlook on life, optimism always prevails because human nature is not one of self-destruction. And I think therein lies the element of outrage that one has to acknowledge that, you know, for 30 years now, we have been dealing with a challenge such as climate change. We lack the imagination to comprehend why this is such a unique moment in human and planetary history. But then if you look at it in broader historical terms, we're in the midst of transforming our entire global economy from a high carbon intense foundation of the last 250 years to a low carbon clean energy economy. I think what I see and what makes me optimistic is that I think energy transitions will happen much faster. But herein lies my second reason for optimism. It will also help us address one of those underlying conditions that the pandemic has revealed so brutally. We need to learn that in addressing inequality, climate change is not a sectoral issue. It is a scientific phenomenon. We have defined it through carbon emissions and greenhouse gases into a set of actions. But wherever you look in our daily lives, if we can connect the positive action on climate change, which is a generational undertaking, with the benefits of access to clean energy. Six hundred million citizens on the African continent right now do not have access to electricity. This is the year 2020. Why am I optimistic? Because I think despite all the darkness in the immediacy of managing this crisis, and it is a very dark moment, I actually believe that we might see a more realistic ambition in meeting the Paris Agreement targets and goals coming out of this pandemic. And we may actually see the willingness to invest in ways we would not have seen perhaps 12 months ago in connecting people to off-grid, on-grid clean energy, driving development on a continent that otherwise will despair because it has no opportunity to develop, and thereby show also the many, many benefits of working not just on a climate problem, but taking climate seriously as the immediate challenge, but embedding it into a transition towards a green economy and making the SDGs, the DNA, so to speak, also of climate action. And I think vice versa. This is the moment in time.

00:49:32.115 --> 00:49:34.175

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Great.

00:49:34.175 --> 00:49:39.535

Christiana Figueres: Well, you couldn't have voiced it more eloquently, Achim. Thank you very much. And you know what? You've just reminded me why I so much enjoyed working hand in hand with you. So thank you very, very much. Thank you for spending some time with us. Thank you for sharing your your thinking, your frustrations, your joys with us and all the best for your continued work at UNDP.

00:50:00.155 --> 00:50:01.075

Achim Steiner (guest, Administrator of the UN Development Programme): Thank you to all of you. It's been a real pleasure and thank you for having this series of podcasts. Great idea and love listening to it. And, you know, in terms of what I can do, I learned very well from Christiana. So let's keep going on that path. There are many people out there who are very keen to listen.

00:50:15.455 --> 00:50:16.175

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Thanks, Achim.

00:50:16.175 --> 00:50:16.855

Achim Steiner (guest, Administrator of the UN Development Programme): Bye bye.

00:50:16.855 --> 00:50:17.615

Paul Dickinson: Thank you so much.

00:50:17.615 --> 00:50:18.255

Christiana Figueres: Thank you. Bye.

00:50:25.405 --> 00:50:27.025

Tom Rivett-Carnac: I mean, how good to talk to Achim Steiner. And I've got to say, I mean, I observed him fairly closely in the lead up to Paris. And I was kind of shocked in those days, the degree of competition that exists inside the UN system. But Achim was always a remarkably collaborative player, and he was always focused on the outcome. And in that system that actually didn't always bring the best out of people, he was just at such a bright spot. So how amazing to get the chance to talk to him and see that he's still delivering that work. Paul, what did you leave that conversation with?

00:50:59.625 --> 00:51:14.325

Christiana Figueres: Wait, before I cede to Paul, because you remark on Achim's collaborative spirit, the new term collaboration would never occur to me with Achim, right? Absolute collaboration the whole time through, in the thick of it, through difficult days, through good days. Achim is just such a trusted colleague, such a good friend. I mean, not a person, also a personal friend, but such a friend of environmental and development issues. And he's just so open, so inclusive in his work and his leadership. So collaboration does not apply to him, just so that we set that one straight.

00:51:44.205 --> 00:51:52.105

Tom Rivett-Carnac: And just to double down on that, I mean, even, you know, there were months in there where you were kind of like, you know, the center of the stage. And there were others that I won't name, and I'm sure you won't, who were very jealous of that and were trying to kind of muscle in on it. But Achim just did whatever he could for the outcome. There was never any question. I mean, just in terms of the quality of the man, it was amazing.

00:52:08.845 --> 00:52:11.965

Christiana Figueres: Paul, sorry, we jumped in in front of you. Go for it.

00:52:12.685 --> 00:52:15.485

Paul Dickinson: Look, what a lovely, lovely human is all I can say. And he speaks with such passion about justice. First of all, he spoke so articulately about how we have developed so well, but there's still a billion people in kind of experiencing chronic poverty. It's 10% of us instead of 90% of us. But it's, you know, he sees tremendous sort of the justice of relatively modest wealth distribution, but his core, the urgency of that. But I was also very struck about him talking about public finance being only a fifth of global economies. That's very interesting. If you think about it, public finance is only a fifth, then kind of the direction of our economies is the direction of our societies, right? So I just think that he's very astute on understanding that dimension and how achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and helping those billion people who suffer the worst is going to take all parts of us. We can't just rely on the state to fix it all. The other thing I just noticed is he talked about a certain lack of respect for the UN. I used to privately be very cross with John Bolton because he used to be the US Ambassador to the UN, and I'd heard him be very disrespectful. Now it turns out he's kind of one of my heroes for going against certain politicians that I'm not very fond of. But I do think that respect for the UN system is something that will actually emerge from the great work of people like Achim Steiner.

00:53:38.465 --> 00:54:25.905

Christiana Figueres: Well, I was also wondering, although we didn't know about this Chinese announcement when we spoke to Achim, but in my head, I'm bringing them together because if there is evidence of the fact that some political leaders understand that relationship between the environment which allows us to live, breathe and eat, because without that, we wouldn't, Chinese leadership has really understood that they cannot continue to develop, especially if they want to bring the rest of their population that is still under the line of poverty. And they've done a great job over the past 10 years to bring that many people out of poverty. But if they want to continue that path, they have totally understood that they have to go hand in hand with protection of their national, domestic environment, but above all, the global environment, because it affects them in a disproportionate manner. And so I'm delighted to have had that conversation with Achim and then see President Xi Jinping basically pick up that message and go forward with a very, very clear political interpretation of that message that goes beyond literature and beyond academic research into here is what we are doing. And clearly out of no altruistic reasons, this is because he knows that that is the only way forward for the economic development of China, especially bringing people out of poverty is to do as he has announced.

00:55:33.565 --> 00:55:39.545

Tom Rivett-Carnac: It's so interesting you reflect on that and the implication of that China announcement. I mean, two things. One is listening to Achim, I just wept for the power of a public servant who can speak effectively about the need for multilateralism and how that defends our common interest. I mean, we are just so short of people who can genuinely lead, who can talk about the benefits. I mean, he's so compelling. He's so convincing. And I mean, you know, the UK is a disaster, the US is a disaster. I mean, Macron is pretty good about talking about multilateralism, Merkel, of course. But then also, of course, I mean, it just embodies the transition. I noticed this week that Joanna Lewis, a professor from Georgetown, was quoted in the New York Times and she was talking about Trump versus Xi Jinping speech. And she said, while Trump's speech blames China for the world's problems, Xi's speech calls for global response and highlights China's contributions. So we're at a situation now where multilateralism and the benefits of collaboration are being espoused by China and denied by the United States. And, you know, I mean, for people like me, and I suspect like all of us, who would say that the overall net-net, the US contribution to global harmony over the last 50 years has generally actually been pretty good. It's kind of heartbreaking to see the US see that position through such negligence when actually it's so defendable. You know, we can have leadership there that talks about the benefits of multilateralism, as explained by Achim, that really lead us towards a better future. And this is so avoidable and the US is just sleepwalking into it.

00:57:17.145 --> 00:57:26.045

Paul Dickinson: Well, I mean, there is one other thing that was a terrible thing that happened this week, which was the loss of the Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And she said that the greatest threat to freedom is an inert people. And I think that one of the tragedies of the great broker of peace, home of the United Nations, the United States over recent times, is it has kind of through distraction and perhaps a certain sense of irresponsibility amongst some people who are in very powerful positions, allowed the people to become somewhat inert. And this great gift of a sort of a global order has to some extent been lost. But nature abhors a vacuum and the government of China, notwithstanding all the comments you made, Christiana, that question that organization is coming forward with leadership and other leadership will come and follow. But the one thing I think we all know and all the listeners know is that we can read a graph, climate change is happening. This is a fact. Those businesses that decarbonize, those investors, those organizations will lead. And, you know, it may be that Trump digs coal, but this is all going in one direction and we have to get the right result in November.

00:58:36.045 --> 00:58:43.365

Tom Rivett-Carnac: You know, I think Paul, if you ran for political office, just the phrase, we can read a graph, would just land so well with the election. Oh, for years. I've worked in climate change for 20 years.

00:58:45.425 --> 00:58:48.225

Paul Dickinson: And people, journalists say, why do you get into climate change? I say, I can read a graph.

00:58:50.105 --> 00:58:53.705

Tom Rivett-Carnac: I want a hat that says, I can read a graph.

00:58:53.705 --> 00:58:55.245

Paul Dickinson: Make America read graphs again.

00:58:56.785 --> 00:59:00.205

Tom Rivett-Carnac: All right, friends, this has been a lot of fun. There's some outrage not to his merch coming your way with Dickinson, a picture of Paul's face and I can read a graph in it.

00:59:06.145 --> 00:59:07.265

Paul Dickinson: Yeah, exactly.

00:59:07.265 --> 00:59:07.705

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Okay. Now, of course, we're going to bring you some music, as we always do at the end of this episode. And this week, we have a great piece of music for you from She Drew The Gun. Now, as ever, we wrote to the artist and asked for responses to a couple of questions. So this piece of music is actually a rework cover of Frank Zappa's song, and she thought it would be interesting to take this song from 50 years ago and use it to say that the mainstream media still isn't serving us. And she's actually also very thoughtful about the role of artists during a climate emergency, which she says that some art is a means of escape from the harsh truth of what is happening to the world around us, and that's okay. But also, it's the artist's duty to reflect the times, and that she herself likes to use pros to pick holes in the status quo, use good music, but also ask the listener a question, and delve into a big issue to really listen to the lyrics and really understand things on a different perspective. It's all connected, and you can't tackle climate change without tackling other issues like capitalism. It's not that all of her songs are political, but there is often an undercurrent, and she always feels she's chipping away at the assumptions that exist within our society and to try to challenge them to move us further forward. So this is She Drew The Gun. The song is called Trouble Every Day.

01:03:50.218 --> 01:03:55.078

Nolan (podcast producer, covering for Clay): Hi, everyone, this is Nolan, covering for Clay while he's on a much deserved holiday. So there you go, another episode of Outrage and Optimism. The song you just heard is Trouble Every Day by She Drew The Gun. You can check out more of their music by clicking the link in the show notes. Outrage and Optimism is a Global Optimism production and is produced this week by me, Nolan Rossi. Our executive producer is Marina Mancilla-German. Thanks to the entire Global Optimism team, which includes Sarah Law, Katie Bradford, Laura Richardson, Sophie McDonald, Freya Newman, Sarah Thomas, Sharon Johnson, and John Ward. Our hosts are Tom Rivett-Carnac, Christiana Figueres, and Paul Dickinson. And of course, thank you to our guest this week, Achim Steiner. You can find us online at Global Optimism on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. It helps us so much if you leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Five stars and a note. We read every single review. Next week, another great episode. So subscribe, and we'll see you then.