340: Jacinda Ardern and… Is It Time to Talk About Geoengineering?
This week, hosts Tom Rivett Carnac and Paul Dickinson delve into the rapidly emerging - and faintly surreal - world of solar geoengineering.
About this episode
This week, hosts Tom Rivett Carnac and Paul Dickinson delve into the rapidly emerging - and faintly surreal - world of solar geoengineering.
Politico journalist Karl Mathiesen joins us to unpack his investigation into Stardust, a VC-backed startup claiming it’s ready to spray particles into the stratosphere. Karl explains why this technology is suddenly attracting serious money, why scientists still have major questions about safety and side effects, and how in some places, the global regulatory landscape is almost nonexistent.
And from technological disruption to political stability, former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, reflects on the leadership we need. She’s unflinchingly honest about why so many politicians still choose “fear and blame” over long-term action, and why climate remains New Zealand’s “nuclear-free moment.” A test of political character as much as policy. Her argument is hopeful: people, she insists, are ahead of their politics.
As we march towards the end of 2025, these conversations map the terrain of 2026: technologies racing ahead, governance lagging behind, and a public increasingly hungry for leaders willing to act with integrity. If you want to understand where the climate fight is really heading this episode is essential.
Learn more:
📚Read The Strange and Totally Real Plan to Blot Out the Sun and Reverse Global Warming
👂Listen to our episode with Ricken Patel
🎤 Leave us your voice notes and questions for upcoming episodes on SpeakPipe
Follow us on social media for behind the scenes moments and to watch our videos:
Instagram @outrageoptimism
LinkedIn @outrageoptimism
Or get in touch with us via this form.
Producer: Ben Weaver-Hincks
Planning: Caitlin Hanrahan
Exec Producer: Ellie Clifford
This is a Persephonica production for Global Optimism and is part of the Acast Creator Network.
Full Transcript
Transcript generated by AI. While we aim for accuracy, errors may still occur. Please refer to the episode’s audio for the definitive version
00:00:02.360 --> 00:00:03.900
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Hello, and welcome to Outrage and Optimism. I'm Tom Rivett Carnac.
00:00:04.920 --> 00:00:06.140
Paul Dickinson: And I'm Paul Dickinson.
00:00:06.140 --> 00:00:16.140
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Just the two of us today, Paul, and we are going to talk about geoengineering with Karl Mathiesen from Politico, and we have a fantastic conversation on leadership with Jacinda Ardern. Thanks for being here. So Paul, little old us, we're going to struggle on. Christiana is back next week, but sadly not with us. I mean, even the best things, I guess we need to take a break from. So she's on the beach.
00:00:30.440 --> 00:00:36.880
Paul Dickinson: Well, you have to replace one fabulous female leader with another fabulous female leader, not replace, but compliment.
00:00:36.880 --> 00:00:40.440
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Well, Christiana will appear actually in this episode in the interview we did with Jacinda. So we'll come to that a bit later.
00:00:41.980 --> 00:00:43.720
Paul Dickinson: Two fabulous female leaders.
00:00:43.720 --> 00:00:45.060
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Two fabulous female leaders. But first of all, we are going to delve into the arena of geoengineering. And we're going to do this in a very light way. And this is a topic we're going to cover in a lot more detail later, because actually, we've talked about it already on Outrage and Optimism, and it's going to be one of the features of the coming years. So like it or not, we're going to delve into it from different perspectives. But we wanted to cover it today, because the episode we did last week with Kim Stanley Robinson, author, of course, of Ministry for the Future, which was a great conversation if you didn't listen to it, that book depicts a solar geoengineering intervention where a government uses its air force to inject sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere. And as I was listening to that episode and reading, as I do, all the latest climate news, I came across an amazing article written by a good friend, Karl Mathiesen, that set out the current state of the real life version of that story. So that's what we wanted to dig into, wasn't it, Paul, before we got going?
00:01:42.300 --> 00:01:42.580
Paul Dickinson: Yeah. And I mean, look, this is not exactly a breaking story. I mean, it is a breaking story. It's a story about a company. And I think Karl's done a fantastic job of explaining this extraordinary new company. It's raised a lot of money. I'll be linking the show notes. It's a great article. It's a great read. And it's a great interview. I'm like many people. I've been looking at this for a long time. I sent a PowerPoint to my colleagues on this subject in 2008, 17 years ago, because we are in a situation where we're facing these kind of tipping points. So, well, let's not pre-run the interview, but I think that it's timely now. And Tom, you said you've been getting quite a lot of it incoming from your extended networks regarding this theme, is that right?
00:02:23.160 --> 00:02:34.280
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Yeah, it was really interesting, because actually a lot of people listened to last week's episode, and then they sent me this article by Karl Mathiesen, which, as you said, the link is in the show notes, and said, this is really happening. So it was interesting to see the coincidence of those two things. So I went and read that article, and it's fascinating. I mean, it represents several months of reporting by Karl, in which he delves in particularly to the activities and the strategies of one venture-backed solar radiation management company called Stardust, and the way in which they're raising tens of millions of dollars from venture capitalists, and they're looking to scale up their technology to begin to take action to present the planet from warming. So, I mean, this is going to be a feature of our world, and we're going to have to find a way to think about it. So one of the challenges around this is that actually it's quite click-baity and sensationalist all around this whole concept of geoengineering, and it feels quite difficult to cover it in a sort of balanced way. But we do need to cover it. How do we address that challenge?
00:03:20.560 --> 00:03:25.240
Paul Dickinson: Well, we sort of responsibly pick it up, and just tell our listeners that it's absolutely vital that you listen to this story. It's the most important thing in the world. Pass it on to all your friends and relatives, and spread this out because Outrage and Optimism is going global, and with your help and with this story, I mean, look, click-bait is there for a reason, and I guess, but we've got to cover this stuff. I mean, it is emerging and it's real.
00:03:38.340 --> 00:03:47.760
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Maybe we should just go now to the conversation we just had with Karl a few minutes ago, and then we'll be back afterwards for some analysis before we pivot to something very different in the second half.
00:03:47.800 --> 00:03:48.940
Paul Dickinson: But connected.
00:03:53.400 --> 00:03:55.160
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Karl, welcome to Outrage and Optimism. This is long overdue. We've been friends for a long time, and you helped us in the early days of the podcast. It's great to talk to you now in your new position at Politico. And in particular, we wanted to talk about this fascinating article that you've been working on for a long time around the concept of geoengineering, and in particular, this company Stardust. And it's really emblematic of where this conversation is getting to. So you're appearing on this podcast a week after Kim Stanley Robinson, who of course wrote Ministry for the Future. And he told us that geoengineering is no longer science fiction. Of course, it features in his book. But he said, a consequence of political failure. From your reporting, does it feel like we're crossing that line, and in particular, that solar radiation management is shifting from a speculation to a real option?
00:04:39.700 --> 00:04:41.560
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): Thank you, Tom, for having me on. The answer to your question, I think, is, yeah. I think it's fair to say that the place we have gone to politically is driving people to, new actors to come into this space with, you know, fairly radical ideas and proposals around geoengineering, solar radiation management, and the company that I spent most of the last part of the year investigating with my colleague Corbin Heer from E&E News, is this company's status to have an idea to essentially spray aerosols into the stratosphere and thereby dimming the sun. And this has kind of been proposed for a long time, but the difference now is that this company says that they have developed the technology to do it. And not only that, they're getting rode in behind by pretty serious venture capital money, a lot of it from Silicon Valley. So I think we are entering a kind of a new paradigm with this discussion, where private companies are now forging the way ahead. And we have really had a discussion about whether that's a good idea.
00:05:48.480 --> 00:05:52.340
Tom Rivett-Carnac: So, Karl, can you just tell us a little bit about who these people are behind Stardust?
00:05:52.340 --> 00:06:06.120
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): One of the things we needed to do to establish this story in our minds is something worth spending our and our readers' time on was to just check and see who the people were and look on both sides. The money and the science side, this is not a bunch of back-out kooks kind of trying their hand. This is on the money side, a lot of the money is coming through a group called Lower Carbon Capital, who have a really strong track record of bankrolling innovation in the climate space. And the company itself, the Israeli scientists that are behind it, come out of the Israeli government nuclear program. So these are credible, serious people who are trying to develop a novel way of approaching this problem. So once we thought about it and saw where the money was coming from and saw who these people were, it really confirmed for us that this is a story that is worth doing.
00:06:55.300 --> 00:06:56.220
Tom Rivett-Carnac: I mean, it's interesting, isn't it? I mean, just on the back of what has seemed like this astonishingly rapid development of AI into an unregulated landscape, because the technology has gotten ahead. It's sort of an interesting model, because there are so many things in your article, but the factors around Stardust, that it's a private company, that it's venture capital-backed, that it's raised tens of millions of dollars, and it's making these assumptions about flows of capital from governments basically a hedge against failure, the assumption that they will be able to generate billions of dollars for undertaking this. When I looked at their website, their website says we want to follow regulations and be a regulated industry, but none of that currently exists. So, I mean, they are presumably taking a bet that we're going to fail on climate and that we're going to need to invest in this technology. I suppose the first question is, does it work? I mean, before we take the sort of the moral elements and should we do it, would it actually prevent the planet from warming up?
00:07:50.780 --> 00:07:54.660
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): I think that's where the science is pretty clear. The basic question, would it cool the planet or at least arrest warming, depending on how much, how many aerosols you inject into the stratosphere? It would work. Yeah. I mean, we kind of know this because we have all these corollaries with volcanic eruptions and things like that. So that basis is fairly strong. What we don't know a lot about is the side effects. How would it play out regionally? You know, there's some modeling that says maybe, you know, heavy use of this would create drying in sub-Saharan Africa. But there really hasn't been a lot of research. And the fact is that actually, we probably won't know the full side effects until we start doing it and start conducting this global experiment. So that's kind of where that part of the safety issue question lies. And then the other, the other thing is we don't actually know what their particle is. They haven't released that. They say it's safe and it avoids some of the downsides of other types of aerosols that have been proposed like sulfur, which would be toxic and harm the ozone layer. They say that that's one of the engineering challenges that they've overcome, but they haven't released any information about the chemical makeup. So we are waiting with beta breath because they say they are going to, but until scientists independently have had a look at this. And as you say, regulators get involved, then we might be able to make some more firm judgments about whether this would be a good idea.
00:09:31.160 --> 00:09:33.840
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Can you just tell us, what is the regulatory landscape right now?
00:09:33.840 --> 00:09:52.000
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): We have a couple of non-binding decisions and things like that in the UN, like the Convention on Biological Diversity, for example, which addresses geoengineering, but it's not a powerfully binding ban or anything like that. And also, you got to remember that the US isn't a party to that convention. And, you know, most people we talk to think that they are probably one of the prime movers in this space in the future if they decide to be. So I would say there's really next to no regulation. That doesn't mean that there aren't applicable treaties potentially. I've heard people talk about maybe doing something through the Montreal Protocol, you know, in the same way that the Kigali Amendment was used to address HFCs and CFCs and things like that. So this space is, you know, open. But I'd be interested in what you guys think, you know, the UN experts.
00:10:34.560 --> 00:10:38.380
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Well, I mean, as far as there's nothing under the UN Climate Convention that talks about this at all. And obviously, there are different patchwork pieces of regulation at the international level and certainly lots at the national level that talk about different emission types and they're regulated sometimes sectorally. But I don't think there's anything overarching and strategic that talks about this in any significant way.
00:10:54.580 --> 00:11:05.980
Paul Dickinson: And certainly the scientists that I spoke to about this emphasized that it would, she felt, need to go through the UNFCCC as the body that deals with climate change on behalf of the nations of the world.
00:11:05.980 --> 00:11:09.220
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): That's really interesting to me, that it would be through the UNFCCC.
00:11:09.220 --> 00:11:10.600
Tom Rivett-Carnac: It is. It's one of those areas that once you scratch it, you just sort of look through this keyhole into this whole area of new issues, many of which we haven't grappled with. I mean, let's leave aside the question of what's in it, because maybe that will be revealed by future disclosures or analysis by third parties. But the question of the regional variations, I mean, if you were, theoretically, to insert this or spray this into the atmosphere, and it was to lead to regional variations, and you go into this and you're reporting different droughts, shifting rainfall patterns, winter droughts, other things. I mean, the first of all, the question of liability and the balance of benefit versus risk for different people that live in different parts of the world. We're nowhere near being able to get our arms around the governance and the implications for that.
00:11:53.580 --> 00:11:57.900
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): Not to mention, there's the real effects and then there's the perceived effect. So a lot of security analysts are very worried about when you start doing this and say, most people agree that really only a very small number of countries could actually do it because they would have the Air Force power to do it without having their planes shot down or by countries that don't agree with it. So probably this is going to be a superpower project at its heart. But what then happens when there's a typhoon in the South China Sea and it gets blamed on...
00:12:33.400 --> 00:12:35.580
Tom Rivett-Carnac: It may have been caused by that or it may not have been. Yeah.
00:12:36.120 --> 00:12:49.800
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): There's a whole new web of geopolitical disruption that could fall out of this unless it's undertaken with a sort of global consensus and with good governance and careful regulation. Possibly some of those disruptive elements could be avoided, but we don't have any of that right now. So we're really moving into a... So there's the real and perceived problems that come up immediately when we talk about this.
00:13:04.640 --> 00:13:13.680
Paul Dickinson: There's a bit of the AI forcing thing, like kind of where we've got to be first, our country is about to be obliterated by climate change, or we've actually gone crazy on fossil fuels. We've got so much fossil fuels that actually this is the answer for us. I could really see them trying to sell this into the Trump administration, fossil fuels plus dust in the sky and we're kind of fine. I mean, it's bonkers because it's like creating a private sector assisted dying facility before the bill's gone through. But we do have private sector companies that make nuclear weapons, so we sort of live in this strange place. I'm just going to, I want to put to something that you covered in the article, but I think is the bigger issue. And a very distinguished scientist, she said, she thought the whole discussion about solar radiation management was premature for two reasons, the one you've just discussed, but the much bigger one of the termination effect. Which is that you're essentially, you're hooked, right? Once you start doing this, you absolutely can't stop. And it doesn't do anything about ocean acidification, and it doesn't solve any of the other problems. You've just hooked yourself on a temporary palliative. Now I have friends who are actuaries, who look at tipping points and they say that this scientist person I know isn't an expert in human failure, and it's a political failure. I mean, it rips your heart apart, right? On the one hand, we mustn't do it, because we'll get addicted to something that won't solve the problem and might even encourage the fossil fuel industry. And on the other hand, we've got to do it to avoid tipping points that are going to kind of wipe us out. Have you, Karl, found somewhere in yourself where you have a sense of what on earth is right when our listeners feel themselves weeping on the sofa?
00:14:45.860 --> 00:14:47.820
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): Well, I think you're right. It's a fundamentally tragic story. It says not a lot that's good about us and our collective capacity to deal with this problem. I have to say, though, I mean, I've never worked on, I mean, working on climate change, people talk about their kids a lot. I've never worked on a story where people's kids came up so much in discussions with sources. And, you know, you asked about my experience with it. So, I, it's a terrifying thought. It's a sad thought. I haven't worked on a story for a long time that opened any kind of window of, like, real new options for climate change. And so that's what's sort of weirdly tantalizing about this, is that if it could work, and there are a lot of caveats and there are all the sorts of downsides, then it could get us out of this problem that I don't necessarily see.
00:15:49.540 --> 00:15:50.500
Paul Dickinson: Temporarily, right? Because it doesn't deal with the other problem.
00:15:52.900 --> 00:15:55.040
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): It would give us more runway to... It would buy us time to get our fossil fuels. Yeah. We still have to do all the things we're doing, and just as fast, but it would potentially stave off some of the really terrible impacts that are going to come in the next decades. And I have very complicated feelings about this story.
00:16:12.620 --> 00:16:14.000
Paul Dickinson: It's a bit oxycontin, though, isn't it? Because it's sort of dealing with the pain in the short term, but it's not dealing with the underlying problem, and a lot of people have got themselves in it.
00:16:21.680 --> 00:16:23.040
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Well, I think that's separate, right? I mean, it could be done, and we could decarbonize while we put it in. Those are two different questions there. The idea that we would do it and therefore ignore climate action as an assumption, that I can see why we'd make that assumption, but that wouldn't have to be how we'd use it. I would love to just ask about also, and coming to your own experience, I think, is a really important part of this. But also, there's a certain mentality that is brought by a kind of West Coast, move fast and break things, VC-backed, let's scale this up. And we know, we're, you know, the sort of tech bros, if you look at the state we're in in the world, quite a lot of problems have been caused by that mentality. Do you think that's the right structure and mentality to do this very sensitive and difficult thing? Or, because the good part of it is it can move quickly and scale, which we also need. But the bad part is that the incentives get all mixed up.
Load More
00:17:12.260 --> 00:17:14.000
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): I think that's a fair point. I think the other counterfactual is that we have to remember that the climate world broadly has dismissed this as an option for, like, outright, it's been almost taboo to talk about. And one of the reasons why we don't have any international structures or a global conversation around that is because of that taboo. And that has opened the space for these actors to move in.
00:17:37.220 --> 00:17:38.840
Tom Rivett-Carnac: So yeah, that's interesting.
00:17:38.840 --> 00:17:45.920
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): Yeah, it's difficult to it's a difficult one to answer because it's like with without them, would would this ever happen? Would it be developed by, you know, the Chinese government? Like, when like, how would it play out in my play out differently? It's playing out like this. I'm not sure it's I'm not sure it's great. I think one of the things one of the reflections that I would have on how these people involved in this see it is having spent quite a lot of time with talking to the investors talking to the company is that they very much see this as a kind of a trolley problem that the classic philosophical issue you have a train going for five people on the tracks if you pull the lever it goes to one person on the track I see and there's a very very utilitarian analysis like of course you pull the lever and that is how they see what their technology is offering I'm not sure that it's well I'm convinced that it's not that simple I think they don't know that the level would work for a start but you know there's there's lots of other ways to view this problem and I think one of the biggest concerns that people will have is you know the trolley problem is a philosophical problem because the morality of pulling the lever and deliberately killing that one person to save other people is complicated and so as we start to think through this and I think this is what I hope our article is going to do I really don't know if this is a good idea or not and I don't have a stake in it but I really do think we need to start talking about seriously how we approach this as a global community because otherwise there are extremely powerful forces in Silicon Valley in venture capital I mean this you know it's got 75 million dollars behind it now there's probably a lot more to come there's a lot of interest in due engineering and like across the board of all these different technologies cloud seeding marine cloud brightening there's tons of money ready to move into it and this company is kind of in a vanguard of one of these options and I just think we're going to see a lot more movement and money come in emanating from the valley and challenging us.
00:19:57.420 --> 00:20:30.040
Tom Rivett-Carnac: It's one of the things I got from your article actually is and I thought again about the AI analogy and how quickly we all got to the assumption that AI is now inevitable and from it being it went straight from impossible to inevitable and the insertion of the regulation kind of didn't come and didn't come and now it almost feels too late and I think one of the things I got from your article is we don't know if this technology is a good thing but we do know that it being deployed unilaterally by small groups of people without proper testing is not a great direction for humanity.
00:20:30.040 --> 00:20:42.520
Paul Dickinson: I mean just to find a thing from my side is if and when tipping points really start to present themselves and you know great sways of California are burning up including very expensive properties well maybe that's already happened. Will people just be begging for this? It's kind of like you know smash the glass, press the button.
00:20:47.100 --> 00:20:55.360
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): I think that's what the investors in Stardust are bedding on, is that there will be that kind of demand. You mentioned Paul another scenario which is the petrostate fossil fuel like you know break glass to survive industrial strategy. I think there's like there's a really interesting and you know potentially terrible scenario where that is how this gets used. One of the main characters in the story is Janos Pastor, the former UN.
00:21:17.680 --> 00:21:18.820
Tom Rivett-Carnac: We know Janos very well. He was at the UN.
00:21:21.180 --> 00:21:27.500
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): He said to me during the reporting that he is sure that Saudi Aramco would be interested in potentially buying this. And I don't see that, see why that would happen, except are the fossil fuel companies really that concerned about their business model currently and climate regulation eating into it. I don't think, I suspect the tipping points of climate might come before they really see any impact on their bottom line.
00:21:47.680 --> 00:21:56.160
Paul Dickinson: But there's a school of thought that says solar is replacing gas and EVs are replacing oil and it's happening and they have, you know, I think certain companies would be pretty worried about that.
00:21:56.160 --> 00:21:58.580
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): I just wonder if it's existential for them yet. And I think this would need to be pretty existential for them to engage in kind of giving the sun kind of activity. But no, you're right. I think there's plausible pathways that this could be used like that. So, and there was a piece of science reporting out just the week that we brought our story out actually where the huge majority of scientists that were surveyed said that they think that this technology will be used in this century. And I just think that's sadly a reality that we're heading towards.
00:22:29.920 --> 00:22:31.120
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Karl, thank you for joining us. Really appreciate it. And we'll keep covering this on Outrage and Optimism. So look forward to further reporting from you. Thanks a lot.
00:22:35.840 --> 00:22:36.400
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): Thank you, guys. Thank you so much.
00:22:40.460 --> 00:22:47.960
Tom Rivett-Carnac: It's so great to have journalists of Karl's caliber delving into this incredibly nuanced and complex issue. What did you think of that discussion, Paul?
00:22:49.620 --> 00:22:54.500
Paul Dickinson: Well, we're all sort of everything's kind of like, lots of different things are going in the same direction. I'm actually checking now episode 309 of Outrage and Optimism, Too Hot to Handle, Facing a Future Beyond One and a Half Degrees. We talked to Ricken Patel and he's moved on from kind of affairs and is thinking about these sorts of issues, I'll be linking the show notes. I have a sense that when you're kind of beginning to lose your planet to tipping points, you end up thinking about the fire escape and all these other kind of cliches. What did you think, Tom? How did it come across to you?
00:23:27.260 --> 00:23:37.360
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Well, I just feel like it's one of those, I suppose I'm guilty of studiously avoiding the topic of geoengineering because I don't really want to think about it. And I suppose I'm in the mode of thinking, well actually, you know, mitigation is a thing and the economics are in our side and let's plow on and do that. And so of course, that's not necessarily a particularly responsible way to ignore a whole potential area, thanks Paul for sticking me off, because actually what you find is others have not ignored it. And then you actually then crack the seal on a whole world that's been developing, which is around the questions of the governance, the questions of the oversight, the asymmetric impacts. It might overall cool the planet, but then other areas get impacted differently. How does that then get handled? What's the legal structure of the organizations who might do this? Who benefits commercially? Who makes decisions? I mean, these are big, big questions that we are going to have to grapple with probably as we try to navigate the coming decades. I think that solar radiation management is one form of technology. There are others that are also really interesting. I think that actually I'm interested in delving more into this, so that we can get a sense of really what the parameters and the opportunities are. I think it's a responsibility of those of us who are focused on the climate, in this because we believe in the future rather than because we want to, and I'm not saying this is all that Stardust wants to do, but inflate valuations in order to create exits, because there's a kind of thinking that's going to be necessary here, that is long-term, that is structured, in order to try and address how we deal with the problem. So I thought it was fascinating. I thought the article was fascinating, and I thought Karl's insights on it were fascinating as well.
00:25:09.640 --> 00:25:18.120
Paul Dickinson: Well, we have to hope that the global leaders can manage this better than they've managed having thousands of hydrogen bombs pointed at each other. So shall we talk to a global leader?
00:25:21.600 --> 00:25:22.180
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Let's do that. So let's take a quick break, and then we will be back in the second half with something completely different. See you in a sec. So the second half of this episode, we want to bring you what I suppose could effectively be a palate cleanser from the difficult challenges of the first half, although of course there are difficult challenges in all areas of our attempts to deal with the climate crisis. That is a conversation with former Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern. Now, listeners will remember that a few weeks ago, we brought a conversation with Jacinda Ardern to you, which we recorded while we were at the COP in Belem during the first week. And the pieces that we included in that episode were only focused on what was relevant for the COP. But it was a much longer episode that looked at leadership, that looked at the opportunities for transformation. Jacinda Ardern herself, of course, is very famous for a new kind of leadership that is empathetic, that is courageous, and that is so essential at this moment. So we wanted to, now that we had an opportunity to take a breath, now that the COP is over, to bring you the rest of this fantastic conversation. And Christiana does participate in this. So I believe the next voice you will hear will be Christiana.
00:26:30.740 --> 00:26:40.800
Paul Dickinson: Not so fast, Tom, because I still want to say something before this interview, which is, please, that she got a name as the anti-Trump in the Trump's first administration. And I think that's quite a crown to wear. And she was there at the COP, not representing New Zealand necessarily, officially. But the COP's are where we all dream of a world government. And so I just wanted people to have that context, that she was there talking about leadership, where the whole world was looking for leadership. And I just wanted people to have that in their minds as they listen to this extraordinary leader. I've used the word leader too much, but they do it in the United States. Let's hear from her.
00:27:16.180 --> 00:27:17.920
Karl Mathiesen (guest, Politico): Here we go.
00:27:17.920 --> 00:27:28.520
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): In the situation, the bigger picture that we have, in addition to climate, to which climate contributes, but we're in a situation of many crises at the same time. Yes. I have never seen any crises where leadership is unimportant. What type of leadership do we need because of the breath of the crises that we have? Is there anything that you say this is the type of leadership that we need, whether it is from heads of state or anywhere else? I'm talking now about leadership, not about official government leadership. The quality of leadership that we need now.
00:28:02.700 --> 00:28:08.060
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): I would articulate it as being, broadly speaking, empathetic leadership. You could either put it under that banner or if you're more specific, say leadership that's willing to look out collectively at the impact of individual decision-making. Obviously for an issue like climate change, we need leaders to be able to look beyond their geographic boundaries, beyond just the perceived impact on the individual constituencies, and think more broadly about the much wider societal impact of lack of action on climate change. And yes, so I would put that under the banner of empathetic leadership, but there are many ways you could cut it. You could say we need fewer isolationists, we need more collectivists. You know, either way, it's that approach that is so important. We also need consensus builders because obviously, this challenge is not on a three-year or four-year electoral cycle. And so, you know, when we think about the way that we tend to focus as politicians, which is how can I get my domestic constituency to vote for me in the next electoral cycle, which is understandable. Understandable, absolutely understandable. And often, of course, you're in really fraught battles with your opponents where there's no incentive to build consensus. But this is an issue where we need it. We need more reaching across the aisle. One of the challenges for this.
00:29:30.380 --> 00:29:32.640
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): This is an issue or this is a moment? Or both.
00:29:35.080 --> 00:29:36.920
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Is it an issue or a moment? I've always called it a moment.
00:29:38.500 --> 00:29:39.020
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): Okay. You just said an issue.
00:29:40.120 --> 00:29:41.340
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Yeah. But I guess from a policy shorthand. Okay. When I, for instance, for example, a piece of legislation on climate, that's when I would take it across to our opponents and say, what will it take for you to vote on this issue for this moment? Yes. So that's how I would articulate it.
00:30:00.160 --> 00:30:01.420
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): So it's a combination of both.
00:30:01.420 --> 00:30:03.100
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Absolutely. One of the ways I used to refer to it in New Zealand, which is only really probably makes sense domestically, is to call it our nuclear-free moment. And it's because in New Zealand's psyche is a period in the 1980s where we looked around the world at the debate on nuclear testing and said it is not okay to test a device like this in our region. Because you might not be testing it, you know, right on our back door, but the Pacific is our back door. So this matters to us. And we took that regional view and we took a stand to the point where we declared ourselves nuclear free and we hold it to this day. It lost us some important alliances at the time with the United States in particular. But it was a moment where we stood up. And so that's how I see climate for New Zealand. It is our nuclear free moment where we have a choice to take a stand.
00:30:59.400 --> 00:31:06.900
Tom Rivett-Carnac: So speaking of moments and standing up, I'd love to ask you about this moment, because obviously this COP is amongst many other things. It's 10 years since Paris. And the underlying logic in Paris was that if we put in place these long-term goals with these national plans, then in time, the economics will shift and the politics will follow the economics. And if you look back now after 10 years, the economics has gone further and faster than we could have imagined. Wind and solar, cheapest form of new power around the world, more jobs. The politics has gone in the opposite direction. Why is that?
00:31:36.120 --> 00:31:58.000
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Because politics, politicians are, unfortunately, have always had options in front of them that to secure electoral victory, they can choose one of two options, to amplify a message of hope and change, or to amplify messages of fear and blame. And fear and blame have been around. As political tools for decades. And when you think about it, are a lot easier than hope and change. Because there's less of a delivery message for it. There's more of a rally around blaming this other group, thereby removing any responsibility I might have as a politician to affect the change that is needed. And particularly when you're dealing with the complexity of financial insecurity, which I think is a significant issue in the post-COVID economies. So it's an easy, easy trick and playbook for a politician. And it just so happens we're seeing a lot of it.
00:32:37.300 --> 00:32:38.680
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): Easier to understand for people.
00:32:38.680 --> 00:32:39.620
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Easier to understand.
00:32:39.620 --> 00:32:40.900
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): Easier to communicate.
00:32:40.900 --> 00:32:51.360
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Because of course, you know, what we're asking for is a transition away from often traditional forms of energy generation, manufacturing, transportation. It is a significant change in economic shift. It's very easy to position it as a threat to jobs and livelihoods.
00:32:58.940 --> 00:33:07.860
Tom Rivett-Carnac: So, so do you think that that, because if the economics truly has shifted, and all the evidence is that it has, and that'll be bumpy, transitions are messy, they'll be winners and losers. But in the end, do you think that the politics will align with the new economics? Or do you... You better say yes. Is it a bug or is it a feature of our new post-truth landscape? Is it just a transitional issue? Or do we need to be more deliberate about connecting the economics with the new?
00:33:24.960 --> 00:33:30.660
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): I see the politics as also a passing moment in time. That is how I see it. I think we're in a particular cycle. But I think people will shift before necessarily politics will. And look, in Western liberal democracies, that's usually how it tracks. But I think it's a mistake for us to believe that just because we have this particular form of leadership, that that is the will of the people currently. And it's a natural assumption to make that it surely is the will of people. These are democracies electing these leaders. But I don't believe that necessarily every single person who has voted that way is always voting for every single piece of the ideology that comes with it.
00:34:02.740 --> 00:34:04.040
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): It actually is a mystery. So there's at least one recent survey that says that 89% of global population wants their governments, whether it's a national or some national, to move faster. But they don't vote that way.
00:34:15.340 --> 00:34:15.920
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Yeah. So this is where it's really interesting. And I roar on that UNDP survey all the time, because it's one of many pieces of example and data that shows us that actually just because we have these particular leaders and doesn't mean it's necessarily reflecting where people are at. And that's just because...
00:34:31.780 --> 00:34:34.020
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): But it also doesn't reflect where they're voting.
00:34:34.020 --> 00:34:34.520
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Indeed. And that is...
00:34:34.760 --> 00:34:35.420
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): How they're voting.
00:34:35.420 --> 00:34:43.820
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): And that is, of course, I think we sometimes just make a natural assumption that when people vote, it is a reflection of their brain. But at the time, if you drill down into it, sometimes people vote just because they feel like the system is broken and not working for them. So they vote for someone that feels outside of the system. And on climate, probably people do think the system is a bit broken. That hasn't delivered. We can't necessarily make an assumption about every outcome from an election. And the other is that sometimes people might vote for one particular policy, often one that benefits them financially, understandably in these times. But it's not necessarily the case that they are always voting ideologically in the way that we assume. So it is complex. But I do think it will, to your point, I do think it will shift. Because if people are sold a particular narrative about, I will make your life better, and then their life isn't better, they search around for the alternative. What we need is for them not to turn away from democratic institutions when they do.
00:35:44.480 --> 00:35:51.520
Tom Rivett-Carnac: So if you, I mean, if you look now, we believe the premise that people want this, it's economically beneficial, and yet we're here at COP and leaders aren't delivering on it.
00:35:52.320 --> 00:35:53.900
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): And you're expecting people to be rational.
00:35:53.900 --> 00:35:54.260
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Right, right. Well, maybe that's where I'm falling apart, falling down.
00:35:56.000 --> 00:35:57.720
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): That's where this all falls down.
00:35:57.720 --> 00:35:58.240
Tom Rivett-Carnac: That's right. Well, that's the question. Because if you speak to someone who's in those positions, they will say, well, that's all very well, but you don't know what it's like. There are all these competing priorities. But you have been in those positions, and you led, and you made the decisions.
00:36:10.080 --> 00:36:10.420
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Yes.
00:36:10.420 --> 00:36:11.800
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Are you disappointed when you come here? I mean, you must weep when you look around at the quality of leadership we have in the world today.
00:36:15.760 --> 00:36:17.080
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): I mean, look, you're right. When you're in the position, you can see, you can see how it happens. You can see what's led that person to that decision-making point. It doesn't make you feel any better about it.
00:36:27.440 --> 00:36:27.700
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Right.
00:36:27.700 --> 00:36:32.440
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): And it just means you understand the context and then feel depressed. But I think one of the challenges that, you know, and we had some really tough decisions, but what always stuck with me was I was a child of the 80s. And in New Zealand, we went through a very bumpy economic transition. We in New Zealand went from being one of the most regulated economies in the world to one of the most open. What felt like overnight? It was very dramatic and a lot of jobs were lost and a lot of harm was done. And we're probably still feeling the social consequences of it now. And the way that played out in my thinking was I do not want to preside over decision making, which postpones inevitable decisions that lead to an inevitable economic shock. And so taking long-term decisions around, for instance, transitioning away from fossil fuels, I saw as that was my version of trying to prepare and lay the groundwork for something that otherwise might hit hard. So that was why we took-
00:37:31.320 --> 00:37:34.440
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): And something that is going to come anyway, so your mind doesn't accelerate it.
00:37:34.700 --> 00:37:40.700
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): And it did not sit well with me, the idea of just for my political expedience, postponing it for someone else.
00:37:40.740 --> 00:37:41.120
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): Yeah.
00:37:41.120 --> 00:37:49.780
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): And so it also is the best opportunity to make tough decisions as if you put them on a pathway that is less jarring. And so that's how why we decided that we would ban the issuing of future offshore oil and gas permits. It was in our minds the best way to signal the transition we needed to make. If you put out the permitting for exploration, that's another 10, 20 years of exploration in those offshore basins of New Zealand. So that was our way of saying to the industry, this is, we have to exit. We're signaling that now. Now work with us on a hydrogen roadmap for that energy hub of New Zealand.
00:38:24.900 --> 00:38:26.020
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): And what was the reaction?
00:38:26.020 --> 00:38:38.720
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Yeah, actually, look, in the area itself, yeah, it was tough because it was an industry, significant economic part of the economy of the Taranaki region. But we didn't remove anything overnight, obviously. Obviously, everything that was existing was still operating. It was a way of saying, we're going to work with you though for an alternative plan. So over time, it got better because they saw us then investing in the region for that alternative economy.
00:38:59.740 --> 00:39:02.620
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): Over time during your term or post your term? Because so often these really radical changes need to be started and then have the patience and the wisdom to see, they will supersede your term.
00:39:13.000 --> 00:39:21.880
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Well, I'll finish this story because obviously, I don't always put the end part on because it doesn't always feel hopeful. I was in for five years and then when I left, the new government reversed the ban.
00:39:26.200 --> 00:39:26.700
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): Here we are.
00:39:26.700 --> 00:39:27.860
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): But a signal was sent.
00:39:27.860 --> 00:39:28.720
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): A signal was sent.
00:39:28.900 --> 00:39:36.280
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): And that signal was, you can be assured that if a labor government is returned, we will make that change again.
00:39:36.280 --> 00:39:37.520
Tom Rivett-Carnac: And who's going to invest in that country?
00:39:37.520 --> 00:39:41.520
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): And so now the industry is, of course, has heard that message. And so that's, I always say to the private sector, if you're looking for the certainty, then just lift the bar.
00:39:48.380 --> 00:39:48.780
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Yeah.
00:39:48.780 --> 00:39:51.500
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Lift the bar and that's where you'll find it.
00:39:51.880 --> 00:40:02.960
Tom Rivett-Carnac: What do you think, I mean, here in Brazil, leaders are here at the moment, and they're going to be leaving soon, what are the biggest opportunities for leadership that those individuals who hold the job that you used to hold, that are here right now? What's the biggest opportunity for leadership here that you're appealing to?
00:40:08.880 --> 00:40:21.780
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): From my old hat on, I think what I was always mindful of is, it's not enough to come out and amplify the overarching goals unless you're demonstrating you're walking the talk at home. And so that's, I think, the leadership we need. It's both coming out and encouraging those around you, but demonstrating what you're doing domestically as well. Because, you know, we all look to each other. We look for examples. You know, how is Denmark dealing with its agricultural? What's the Netherlands up to? You know, we canvas around. And when I came in, there was a mantra of, well, New Zealand should be a fast follower. I didn't want to be a fast follower.
00:40:50.080 --> 00:40:51.560
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): You want to be a fast leader?
00:40:51.800 --> 00:41:01.320
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Yeah, you want to be able to lead because then there is some economic advantage, you know, to being a first mover, to being the innovator, to creating the technology that others need.
00:41:01.320 --> 00:41:01.940
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): Absolutely.
00:41:01.940 --> 00:41:04.240
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): But we also do borrow from each other. So I think the leadership opportunity is not just to amplify the important messages, it's to walk the talk and start bringing to the table, you know, those ideas, initiatives and investments that are going to make a difference.
00:41:17.900 --> 00:41:20.500
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): Because otherwise leadership is no integrity.
00:41:20.760 --> 00:41:28.940
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): And as the COP Presidency have been saying, otherwise, it's, you know, it's, you don't have the implementation to hold up. Yeah.
00:41:29.220 --> 00:41:30.040
Tom Rivett-Carnac: I have one last question. Have you got time for that? And then I know. Yeah. When you look at the nature of geopolitics today, which is different from the time when you were in office with President Trump and much less clarity of values based leadership, it's always been challenging, but now it's a particularly difficult time. Do you wish you were still in post to provide a different model or are you glad you're not there?
00:41:49.740 --> 00:41:51.000
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER — please verify (likely Jacinda Ardern herself, mistagged): That's a good question.
00:41:51.000 --> 00:41:52.040
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Of course, I was in office.
00:41:52.040 --> 00:41:53.940
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): Wait, should we ask your family that question?
00:41:53.940 --> 00:41:55.160
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): Yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course, my husband never wanted me to leave, so he's probably a little bit healthier on that one. My mom certainly did. Trump was in when I was in, but you're absolutely right to say it is different this time. It's just a different level again. Do I miss it? There are things I miss. There are things I miss. Such as? I do, you know, if you believe in something really strongly, like, you know, positions on certain wars or on climate change, then of course when you're a leader, there is a natural platform there. And so there's an outlet for your care and concern that doesn't exist once you leave. And so I miss that, but I don't regret the decision. And so instead, my way of feeling useful is to try and just amplify the voices that are already there. The Pacific doesn't need anyone to speak on its behalf. It just needs people to listen. So if I can assist with that, that's enough for me.
00:43:06.960 --> 00:43:08.560
Paul Dickinson: Amazing.
00:43:08.560 --> 00:43:13.540
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): Well, everyone has been listening to the Pacific since the ICJ decision made it. I mean, amazing.
00:43:15.000 --> 00:43:16.980
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): And that was, youth have such...
00:43:16.980 --> 00:43:18.060
Christiana Figueres (archival clip, interviewing Jacinda Ardern at COP): So groundbreaking.
00:43:18.060 --> 00:43:26.280
Jacinda Ardern (archival interview clip): The young, the voice of young people in that as well as advocates for that and making that a reality also huge.
00:43:32.208 --> 00:43:37.788
Tom Rivett-Carnac: So Paul, I know that you sadly weren't with us when we did that interview because you arrived in Berlin for the second week, but I know you've now heard it. So what did you think of the conversation?
00:43:40.288 --> 00:43:43.588
Paul Dickinson: Well, she truly, she's the real thing, you know. It's not like some kind of, you know, take off the TV and just kind of chat to her, and the same sort of clarity of thought comes out. Some of the extraordinary things she was talking about, we need consensus builders. That's completely spot on. Politicians always have a choice between hope and change, which she says is harder than fear and blame, which is easier because there's no delivery mechanism. And I think that's absolutely what's going on in the world right now. But also she looks through the assumptions of how people are voting, you know, voting for right wing populists does not mean that they want climate change. And then finally, talking to some degree about her sense of responsibility, about feeling that she had to deal with climate change because she didn't want to deliver some subsequent shock to the nation, you know, having a policy of rejecting drilling for oil and gas, then having that overturned by the next government, but still being proud that a signal was being given. And then the last thing I think you asked that incredibly bittersweet question, do you miss it? And she said, you know, on climate change, there is a natural platform as a prime minister and an outlet. And I can see that she does miss that. But I'm sure, you know, she's got a long career ahead of her. And I look forward to the hopefully global roles that she may be able to adopt or the international perspective she can provide. What was it like being with this kind of media star in the room?
00:45:06.768 --> 00:45:09.328
Tom Rivett-Carnac: I mean, I've long had enormous respect for her. And obviously she and Christiana are good friends. And actually, we spent loads of time with her, which was a privilege because we were in Rio and she was there too at the EarthShot Prize launch. And then we all were on the same plane. So we all sort of like made a run to try and get through security early morning in Rio and then got on the plane and flew up to Belém and saw a good bit of her throughout the week together with Zach who's on her team. So it was a privilege to kind of get to know her a little bit. And I, you know, leave those few days with more respect for her, even than when I went in. I think she is, as you say, the real deal as a leader on the world stage. And I think a few things that just kind of come across, which I think we're so missing on the world stage, which is that actually climate leadership at the moment is not sort of a technical competence, but it's sort of moral imagination. It's the willingness and the ability to call everyone to their higher selves at this critical moment and tell the stories that we need in order to move us forward. So a remarkable leader and a huge privilege to have her on the podcast.
00:46:09.188 --> 00:46:26.548
Paul Dickinson: I mean, last thing I would share with our listeners is that I was kind of steamed coming out my ears today as the US ambassador to the EU writes a long article chastising Europe for not burning enough fossil fuels and encouraging us to increase our gas purchases.
00:46:26.548 --> 00:46:30.768
Tom Rivett-Carnac: And this sort of kind of hold you personally responsible for that, Paul.
00:46:30.768 --> 00:46:32.928
Paul Dickinson: Why me?
00:46:32.928 --> 00:46:35.088
Tom Rivett-Carnac: I did that because you're here.
00:46:35.088 --> 00:46:36.228
Paul Dickinson: Well, whoever is responsible. I mean, it's just the point of course, of course this article doesn't mention climate change once or doesn't talk about these terrible impacts. So earlier in this conversation, we were talking about how we're so far over the precipice, we might have to do with deoengineering. And then at the other end, you've got some kind of muppet, I think is the term I would use from the US administration, saying that Europe should be burning more fossil fuels. It's crazy town. And this is what I wanted to say about Jacinda Ardern. I think she sort of finds us a way through it. And by the way, just friends out there, the fossil fuel industry's power comes from us buying fossil fuels. Get yourself a heat pump, solar, electric vehicle and take their power away. Own our own power. And that's both a metaphorical and a literal way to think about a positive future.
00:47:23.928 --> 00:47:27.628
Tom Rivett-Carnac: And it's definitely not a cheap shot at the Labour government for removing the heat pump subsidies. Maybe we shouldn't end on that.
00:47:28.748 --> 00:47:30.288
Paul Dickinson: Don't criticize the Labour government. Criticize us and our movement for not going hard enough for Farage and the Conservative Party because they're the ones who hold the knife to the throat of the Labour government. I think we always pick on this soft target.
00:47:43.368 --> 00:47:46.168
Tom Rivett-Carnac: I think we may have opened up a rich vein for further discussion.
00:47:46.168 --> 00:47:48.788
Paul Dickinson: And another thing, and another thing, and another thing.
00:47:48.788 --> 00:47:51.328
Tom Rivett-Carnac: Paul, been a joy and a pleasure to do this with you as ever. Listeners, thanks for joining us. We'll see you next week.
00:47:53.288 --> 00:47:53.628
Paul Dickinson: Bye for now.
