277: Trump and Climate Populism

Paul: [00:00:49] I can share how I'm sort of feeling?

Tom: [00:00:51] That would be lovely Paul, how are you feeling?

Paul: [00:00:53] No, in all seriousness, there's a kind of there's a little bit of a funny thing about, you know, the mood in the climate community since the US election. And I think it's if I my personal story, I think, is that in the first Trump administration, I was kind of getting through it by watching Stephen Colbert and laughing. I stopped watching Fox News, and I want to give Stephen Colbert a hug one day for taking me through. But, but then when Biden got in, I sort of carried on watching Stephen Colbert, and I didn't go back to watching Fox News, and that was probably a mistake. And so it was sort of more of a shock. It's almost like the meds don't work this time. But actually, as we now settle into the new situation, I'm noticing the political processes kind of working, you know, some sort of strange appointments for the Trump cabinet are being kind of rejected. And, you know, the sky doesn't fall in. And and I'm sort of settling into a new world. And, and that was me. And that's what I wanted to share. What about you, Christiana?

Christiana: [00:01:44] So I think the most exciting and interesting thing, precisely because of the changes that are occurring in the United States domestically and their international repercussions that we will speak to Ben Rhodes about. The most interesting thing that is happening is actually happening in The Hague, in Holland, at the International Court of Justice, where the hearings are ongoing for an international case brought by the government of Vanuatu and a large group of young people about the responsibilities that states have toward their citizens and to prevent harm from climate change. What they are seeking is called a consultative opinion, and it's going to be we won't have the results of that until early next year. But what I think is so fascinating is the fact that this is the way jurisprudence is built, step by step. This is not the first time that we have a consultative opinion requested from an international court. There have been several of these, and I actually think next year, Tom and Paul, we should dedicate one episode to an overview of climate litigation, because it is one of the important levers that are squeezing, I think, squeezing the system into more and more responsibility. So I just wanted to tip my hat to Vanuatu and the young people who are behind this very valiant effort, and let's see what happens early next year. But let's just remember that national elections and national politics, and in fact, even geopolitics international is not the only way to advance.

Paul: [00:03:42] I couldn't agree with you more. And we sort of probably notice in the absence, for example, of US leadership on climate change, that there's going to be all these other mechanisms that come forward and all the great work people have done using the legal system to sort of protect us on climate change in many different regards. Incredibly exciting. How are you feeling, Tom?

Tom: [00:03:59] Yeah, I'm feeling good. And I would just echo that as a as a recently appointed trustee of ClientEarth, which is one of the entities that is bringing cases to try to protect future generations and healthy air and clean water and other things. I've been so impressed at what they've been doing. And of course there are others as well, but I would love to dive into this next year. Let's make sure we schedule that. Okay, so let's pivot back to the main topic of the week. Obviously, the US has always come and gone on climate leadership. I mean, those of us who have memories long enough will remember Al Gore going to Kyoto, engaging in the Kyoto Protocol, it never going in front of the Senate. George Bush pulling the US out, Barack Obama back in, Trump out, Biden back in. I mean, this has been a feature of of the US on the international stage, and it's difficult to have a leader that is inconsistent in this way. But we've had to sort of figure out our way. And this is one of the topics we've wanted to talk to, to Ben about.

Tom: [00:04:56] So Ben Rhodes is a writer, political commentator, podcast host, national security analyst. He's former chief speechwriter and national security advisor to Barack Obama between 2008 and 2016. He is currently co-chair of National Security Action, a political NGO. He shares that role with Jake Sullivan, and he's a major contributor to NBC news, MSNBC, and a crooked media contributor as co-host of the foreign policy podcast Pod Save The World. And I would also finally very much recommend his books, The World As It Is and After The Fall. So let's go to this interview with Ben Rhodes, and we'll be back afterwards with some more analysis. Ben, welcome back. It's so nice to have you back on the podcast. It's been a while since I've seen you. I hope you're doing well. The first thing I should start off is saying you're the first Outrage + Optimism guest where we've had groupies. So Fiona, who is on the call here, is a huge Ben Rhodes fan. So in the end, we relented. And she's part of the team who's going to be interviewing you. So welcome, Fiona.

Ben Rhodes: [00:05:54] Great. I'm glad, I'm glad. Thank you Fiona.

Tom: [00:05:56] So, Ben, you know Christiana, you know Paul, we're going to hop into it and you know how this goes, we're going to ask you a few different questions here. Obviously it's been an interesting month or so. So Ben you've you've done quite a bit of writing on this since Trump won. And you've, you've spoken very eloquently about the sort of incumbency and institutions in the US that are really now seen as kind of captured by the elite, and that we can sometimes seem to be defending a system that's been rejected, which can put us in a position against others who seem to have the energy of change. And I think as I sort of read that, I realized that that climate is very much captured by that as a subject that sits inside it. It's very much seen as an interest of the elite. How do we, you know, we'll get to some of the challenges we're facing right now. How do we remake that so that we have an attitude towards climate in the US and around the world that brings more of that populist narrative into it to bring more people along with that discussion?

Ben Rhodes: [00:06:51] Well, this would actually, Tom, be an obvious case of an argument that I was making after the election, which is that part of how you prevent yourself from just being seen as the defenders of a whole set of institutions and a whole establishment that people feel has failed them, is you need a dose of populism. You need to be against certain forces that are standing in the way of progress, that is frustrating people you know around the world. You know, for instance, in 2008, when Barack Obama ran, he was an outsider change candidate, taking on the establishment, taking on the establishment of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton taking on the Republican Party after George Bush. You know, the two figures who've dominated American politics for the last 20 years, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, are both real political outsiders. So this is not new actually, it's strange to me that the Democratic Party didn't, you know, realize that part of what Obama's success was was running as an outsider, but as a speechwriter and advisor in that campaign, his initial message was about special interests standing in the way of progress. And this leads me directly to climate. Kamala Harris barely mentioned climate change. There was a kind of ingrained defensiveness, people maybe are exhausted by hearing about it. People feel like they dealt with it by passing the IRA, which had obviously huge investments in clean energy.

Ben Rhodes: [00:08:05] What's missing, what's missing is the critique of the fossil fuel establishment that stands in the way of progress. If you want populism, I can't think of a riper target for populism than fossil fuel interests who pour money into American politics, to buy politicians to sustain energy policies that are bad for the planet, that have not delivered the lower prices that fossil fuel companies claim that they stand for. And so I think that Democrats get so nervous about, you know, the fracking industry in one state, in a state like Pennsylvania, they fail to realize that right before their eyes is a huge political argument that would resonate with a dissatisfied electorate that doesn't like concentrated power that is not benefiting them. And just to use one more example of this, you know, Donald Trump stood before a collection of fossil fuel executives a few months ago and promised them that if they gave $1 billion to his campaign, he'd do whatever they want. I mean, I don't know what better political gift you could receive about oligarchy. And yet this was barely mentioned. You know, climate change can't just be seen as something that corporate elites discuss at conferences. It has to be about taking on powerful interests that are harming all of us, frankly.

Christiana: [00:09:20] So, Ben, let me let me push on that, because if it's good for the goose, it ought to be good for the gander as well. I take your argument with respect to the United States, but if you go to the international sphere, that argument is being made, has been made, will continue to be made by those who are working on climate internationally, that it is the fossil fuel industry, whether private companies or publicly held companies that are against this, that are delaying. There has been so much outcry about how many fossil fuel lobbyists went to the past COP and the one before and the one before. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And it's still not working. I mean, the outcry against that industry is loud and clear internationally, even if it isn't in the US. And that is not working, why?

Ben Rhodes: [00:10:11] Because I don't think people people are making those arguments at COP. They have to make it inside the politics of their own countries. That's certainly not happening in the United States. I mean, it's actually not helpful that in the US it's only made on the left. You know, the farther left that Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders and AOC do make this argument, but actually it would land better, frankly, if a Kamala Harris or someone who's seen as a more mainstream Democrat was making this argument too, if you put all the onus on climate activists or island nations or Global South representatives to be making these arguments at COPs, you need the political representation that is reflecting those arguments. Again, way back in 2008, Obama's argument was health care is broken in this country because the special interests in the health insurance industry spend all this money lobbying to prevent us from making the changes that we need to make. You know, he made this argument that we haven't done anything on climate change because the fossil fuel industry wrote George Bush's energy policy. The point is, it wasn't just about fossil fuels. It was about a collection of special interests that were distorting our politics in ways that harmed ordinary people, in service of of other interests.

Ben Rhodes: [00:11:29] So in a way, it can't just be seen as an environmental issue or even a climate issue. It's about why is politics not responsive to people? Why are people not getting the outcomes that they want from this system? Trump has managed to make people believe that it's because of bureaucrats in Washington and liberal elites in the media. I don't agree with him that those are the people standing in the way of progress, but he threads together all of the opposing forces into a collective, and he stands with the people against that collective. And frankly, I just think we're in an age of populism. We need to do something similar. So it's not just the fossil fuel lobbyists showing up at a COP in a ridiculous place like Baku, not a ridiculous place on the map, but in terms of as a host for a COP, you know, that's not the place I would choose, but it's more about this is a part of a broader system that is broken.

Paul: [00:12:26] Yeah. I mean, your comment about Trump talking to those, oil and gas companies, I mean, two different sources reported that story in the Washington Post. And, you know, a lot of people I know around the world were kind of like, you've got to be joking. I mean, we kind of suspected, but, I mean, there it was the most brazen, extraordinary comment.

Ben Rhodes: [00:12:43] You've got Trump standing in front of fossil fuel executives saying, if you give me $1 billion, I'll look after your interests when I'm there. You've got a government that is being populated by billionaires and hedge fund managers. It is, but the Democrats don't thread this together. They really don't. I can, it may be surprising to you that percentage of Americans who are aware of that comment about fossil fuels. I guarantee you, is below 1%. There was no repetition. Sure, maybe she mentioned it a couple of times or some Democratic politicians did, but it takes repetition and it takes constructing it into a larger argument, which again, Trump did. The reason Bobby Kennedy, you know, can find a home under that tent is because, yeah, he's railing against elites and experts and the food lobby or what have you. And that kind of goes along with what Trump's message is. You have to have a message about breaking up concentrations of power that are self-interested and that are not in the collective interest. And and to me, by the way, if people are hearing this and saying this is purely a left argument, I don't think it is. I'm not suggesting massive redistribution of wealth policies. I'm not saying that leads inherently to Bernie Sanders economic agenda. I'm saying that you need to kind of tell the story for people, that this is actually about oligarchy, this is about corruption. This is about special interests. Here are all the different proof points for that. And Trump offers you a lot of different proof points for it, because frankly, like we just haven't made that argument since Obama made it in 2008 and 2012 and won both times. Hillary Clinton did not make that argument, Joe Biden did not make that argument, and Kamala Harris did not make that argument.

Tom: [00:14:22] Ben, we want to get into international affairs as well. So let's turn to that in a second. But Fi, I don't know if you want to come in with a question?

Fiona: [00:14:28] Tom, thank you. And, Ben, it's a real privilege to be with you. I'm currently working on a project within Global Optimism that is looking to build a groundswell of voices to embolden leaders to take higher ambition action on climate. But it feels like the problem is that those leaders aren't around to embolden. And so, thinking about the books that you've written and the proximity to leaders that you've had, especially in a time where it feels like we've had the Obama years, we've had fantastic global leaders who have been ambitious. What will it take to to rebuild those sorts of leaders over the next few years and to help us move through this difficult period?

Ben Rhodes: [00:15:04] Yeah, I mean, I think there's a few things in this country that I'd say are probably not just unique to here, but I'll offer it from an American perspective. I mean, one obvious point, I'd say is that we need to get younger. Joe Biden was, you know, for all of his qualities, you know, a party that depends upon enthusiasm from younger people, just cannot have leaders that are that old. It's as simple as that. And again, I'll say this with admiration for each of the individuals I'm going to name. But actually, if you look at the whole leadership of the Democratic Party for the last few years, it was Nancy Pelosi in the House, it's Chuck Schumer in the Senate, and it's Joe Biden in the white House. And I don't know what we're doing. Every one of those individuals has has enormous qualities and tremendous record. But at some point, you have to say that we can't be a party that depends so much on winning elections with younger voters as Obama did twice as Bill Clinton did in the 90s if we don't have younger people and just look at the Democrats who've won. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, these are younger, Jimmy Carter even. Joe Biden was an exception, but he was barely elected in the midst of a once in a century pandemic. So younger is one point. I think a second point I'd make is right now, I think we need people that are not creatures of Washington either. And that's, you know, both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, very much Washington based kind of political figures associated with Washington. Kamala Harris is different, but it's hard to judge her based on 100 days where she had to run this race.

Ben Rhodes: [00:16:32] So I kind of make a bit of an exception there. But we need to be looking in this country at governors and mayors, you know, people that are closer to the lived experience of Americans. And this isn't to say there's not an important place for legislators, there are. But the next Democrat to me, and I'm open to, obviously, some tremendous people who are younger who are in the House and Senate. But I'd be looking for national spokespeople who are of the community, who are local, who've done innovative things in their communities and can kind of take a rapid ascent in the same way that Obama did. You know, I mean, the tragic irony of this year is that if there had been an open primary, we had the best bench of people in their 40s from these states, Wes Moore in Maryland, Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania, young for politicians, people of my age or younger in the case of like a Wes Moore who are from these states, who are close to these communities that have been impacted by all the forces that Trump is drawing upon. So that that would be my main point is to look outside of Washington, look to younger people, and kind of use this time of Trump's second term to regenerate and come back as a different party with a different face and a different message. And again, that's not to say that everything that's happened to now was was wrong, but it's to say that's where the that's where things are going.

Ben Rhodes: [00:17:55] And that's the lesson that we have to take from the loss we just had. And I look at Europe, there are so many like young women in their 30s and early 40s that they show so much promise, and then they kind of run into obstacles when they try to go back into their own national politics. I mean, and a lot of these institutions, a lot of these political parties need to kind of create space for a generational change. And for some people that are just a little bit closer to the issues that people care about. Last point I make is on the climate side, same thing. I think a lesson for all of us is we focus, understandably on activists and on sometimes celebrities because they have big platforms. There are people in this country that are starting clean energy small businesses, or they're working class people that have a job building solar panels, like we need to populate the climate story with different faces that are kind of closer to the ground of where good things are happening, or frankly, where bad things are happening, people, actually a friend of a common friend of ours, Yassamin, who was just elected in Arizona, in part because she moved back there from a climate perspective and that's ground zero for climate change. Arizona, it's really hot there, you know. And so she can speak with great credibility about why this isn't some issue to just talk about at COP or at the UN. This is an issue that matters to people in places like Arizona, that she should be the face, I think, of, of the future, of climate politics.

Christiana: [00:19:22] Well we're huge fans of Yassamin and are thrilled that that she's there so quickly.

Tom: [00:19:26] And I just want to pay quick tribute to Ben. Ben came and supported Yassamin when she was running for City Council and now Ben, it's remarkable to see now she's in Congress. So thank you.

Ben Rhodes: [00:19:37] And we all have to keep doing that. If you see someone like that, who's that promising, so people who don't know, Yassamin Ansari, you know, is now a member of Congress. I mean, we have to get behind those people early.

Christiana: [00:19:47] We've had her on the podcast just recently when she won. So it was delightful. Ben, to complement what you've just said, would also love to hear your sense on the quality of the message. To boil it down to the very basics, Trump came out with a message, as is typical for him confrontational, accusatory, blaming. You know, all of the what in my book is a negative message. Kamala Harris comes out with what in my book is a positive message of collaboration, support for the middle class. We're all going to do this together, you know, collective decision making. Et cetera. Et cetera. Sort of peaches and cream type messaging, as contrasted to throwing rotten tomatoes on the side of Trump. Would love to hear your analysis about the impact of those two completely different qualities of messaging.

Ben Rhodes: [00:20:45] Trump is a bit of a unique figure obviously, it's not my cup of tea, but you know, he's got a certain charisma. He clearly has a certain connection and appeal with his own audience, that by the way, has not transferred to other politicians. You know, when Ron DeSantis ran the governor of Florida, he got little traction. He was saying all the words as Trump, but the music was different. JD Vance I actually don't see that guy having a mass appeal in this country. So there's something kind of distinct about Trump that we have to keep in mind. This is the third election in a row that Trump's had pretty constant support. That's not enough to win. And yet I feel like to the audience, it seems like we're kind of designing and positioning ourselves, just purely oppositional to Trump, this is relevant to a place like Europe, where I talked to a lot of politicians, like it's not enough to say I'm not the far right or the far left. I'm not one of the extremes. You have to have your own distinct identity. That's the first point. There is a problem, I think, in the Democratic Party where we say a lot of words and we have this kind of political consultant class, but it sounds like we're anthropologists, you know, like the middle class will be, you know, the middle of my priorities. I actually think that we just need to talk about solutions for people. The language feels artificial when you're you're not telling a story about what's happening in the country, why people are feeling dissatisfied. You're kind of using buzzwords and it doesn't feel authentic.

Christiana: [00:22:12] Yeah, but, Ben, do you think Trump's buzzwords feel authentic to be coming from a millionaire?

Ben Rhodes: [00:22:18] Yeah, because actually, in a bizarre way, he doesn't hide the fact that he's a billionaire, right. I mean, he's down there at Mar-A-Lago. I mean, he's basically saying I'm one of the corrupt establishment, but at least I'm telling you what the score is, you know. And because I'm one of them, I'm the guy who knows how to break it. Because I know how this game works. And if you listen to Trump over the years, he always I used to buy all the politicians myself. And there's this kind of winking that he does at the audience. You're right Christiana, I don't think that there's some nobility that transfers to him from the electorate just because he won. Sometimes Americans elect the wrong people just because some of the people who voted for him had some legitimate grievances, doesn't mean that they did a noble thing in voting for Donald Trump. Again, I think to win, you just you need an authentic voice. What is your motivation for what you're doing. I think the Democrats have gotten too cautious about being willing to take positions. We're trying to appeal to every slice of voter at the same time, and that starts to feel kind of phony after a while, you know. Start from the premise of you've got a story that you're telling about what's wrong in the country, why you want to fix it, not just what you want to do, but why why this matters to you personally. There is so much fear of Trump. And I was I was part of this that we were so afraid of making mistakes that could let Trump get in, that we became more and more kind of cautious and risk averse, like take climate change, it did not feature in her stump speech. It was barely mentioned in the debate. I think when it came up at the debate, she talked about her support for fracking. And then people are like, well, wait a second, do these people care about this or not. You need to be authentically who you are.

Tom: [00:23:57] So interesting, the sort of message of boldness. I know we've burned through most of our time with you. Is it okay if I ask you one question about international affairs?

Ben Rhodes: [00:24:03] Oh yeah yeah, sure, yeah.

Tom: [00:24:04] Okay, so we're entering obviously a very different context at a very critical moment, halfway through this decisive decade, the COP next year in Brazil is going to be critical for the next step up under the Paris Agreement. Last time we had Trump in the White House, the rest of the world kind of pretended that the resistance was the real presidency and that Mike Bloomberg was showing up and, you know, all that stuff. I don't think that's going to be the same this time or not in the same way right. He's won the popular vote. It's quite a different vibe. So we're going to see probably pulling out of the Paris Agreement, maybe pulling out of the UNFCCC. Our understanding is that could be a unilateral withdrawal using presidential authority, but would require Senate approval to get back in. So that's a medium or long term withdrawal. What happens on the international stage without the US? It's been so hard to agree to big things without US engagement before. Do we just see Europe doing its best trying to lead, China's made some indication that they might be willing to step up further, but historically, it's not been a role the Chinese have played in collective affairs. What do you think happens if the US does really withdraw to the degree that we think they're going to?

Ben Rhodes: [00:25:10] I think we just have to acknowledge that that's bad. We can't, like, sugarcoat it, the United States, for all of its flaws, can still be more effective at building collective action than any other country or group of countries in the international system. And that is what it is. I think the resistance play the first time around, and I was kind of part of that here politically like, this guy's an interloper. He's not where things are going. It was worth trying because if we had succeeded in making him a one term president, you know, it would have worked. But it depended on him being a one term president. And now he's back. Now, how can we find strategies and opportunity in that? You're right that it shouldn't be the resistance, you know, Mike Bloomberg is not the shadow president of climate change. Neither is, you know, Hakeem Jeffries or whatever Democrat shows up. But ironically, this is Trump's last term, you know, like he is a one term president this time around. You know, that's worth keeping in the back of your head. Because the strange thing is, most Republicans now actually acknowledge climate change. You know, they don't go as far as I'd like. And as you guys have experienced and worked on yourselves, you know that most people in markets, you know, asset managers and they know that they want to get into these industries, they want to get into the clean energy transition.

Ben Rhodes: [00:26:27] And now I sound like a broken record from 2017 that states, you know, I live in I'm speaking to you from California. California is going to file every possible lawsuit to continue to have its own clean energy regulations. You know, so this there's still a complexity to the American side. But I do think internationally this is true of climate. It's true of some other things. The international order that the United States was kind of the leader of for the last 70 years. It doesn't exist anymore. It was already breaking. It was creaky. Paris was actually one of the last major achievements. But I always saw because of the work you did, Christiana, and you're a manifestation of this work. I actually saw Paris as the transition to the next international order, because it wasn't just like the US and the permanent five members of the Security Council doing something. It was everybody doing something together. And so it was this kind of transition away from totally US centric to more truly collaborative action. And then I think if we look at the world today and you have Europe and you've got China and you've got the BRICS and you've got India and you've got, you know, then these middle powers like Brazil, and I think it's important for countries or blocs of countries to get comfortable negotiating with each other without the United States at the table.

Ben Rhodes: [00:27:38] I think that would be healthy in any case, if Europe can have its own kind of negotiations with China around some of these issues, or find groups of countries that are in that middle power space, don't just depend on the Americans to go to like an Indonesia or something. I think using these years to try to find areas of collaboration in these other groups of countries and blocs of countries. So you're kind of creating a new form of international order and collaboration on these issues. If and when the United States re-joins, it will be a stronger ecosystem. I was struck going to Glasgow, it almost felt too similar to where things were. I mean, the new piece was the climate finance piece, I guess, and that was important. You know, hopefully in four years the United States can rejoin the table. It'd be good if the conversations that advanced between other countries and that the idea is that the clean energy transition is happening. The question is who's going to be a part of it? Who's going to lead different aspects of it? What are the different approaches to to accelerate it and to manage obviously, the disruptions along the way? I just think that we're going to be forced to do that. You know, to end on a pessimistic and optimistic note, at the same time, Americans didn't get the full dose of Trump the first time around, frankly, candidly, like he inherited an Obama economy that was going well and took a lot of credit for that.

Ben Rhodes: [00:28:57] And then he didn't really get blamed for the pandemic as much as he should have or his mismanagement of it. And so, okay, now people are going to get the full ride here, and I don't think they're going to like it. I really don't. And if I'm wrong about that, then Trump's right about more than I know. But I don't think these policies are going to work. I don't think corruption and oligarchy and breaking government agencies and giving more tax cuts to rich people is going to, you know, be the cure all for this electorate. So I actually think we might have a pretty significant kind of 2008 level correction in this country in four years. That would be the optimistic note of an America that comes back even more ready than Joe Biden, who, you know, did more than Barack Obama domestically, obviously. So use the opportunity the next four years to kind of build new forms of international collaboration and cooperation, continue to work with elements of the United States and the private sector at state and local governments, try to find some more Republican allies in Congress, of which there is a growing small number. And just, you know, we have no choice but to try to keep this thing moving.

Tom: [00:29:57] Ben, that is the saddest happy story we've ever ended on, but I think it's entirely appropriate. Thank you, thank you very much for your brilliant insight into, I mean, fascinating to have this discussion about populism, how climate fits into it, the international order. Thank you for the amazing work you do and really appreciate you coming back on the show.

Christiana: [00:30:13] Thanks so much Ben.

Tom: [00:30:17] So good to sit down with Ben. He's always so impressive and incisive and thoughtful about the issues that we're facing. Which of you would like to kick off with any reflections?

Christiana: [00:30:25] Paul will kick off.

Paul: [00:30:27] I will kick off. Thank you Christiana. I think the thing that I really took the the sort of global message insofar as it relates to the, to the recent election, is that politicians do need to talk about climate change. I don't wish to blame Kamala Harris. I think she, you know, had a very tough hand to play, a very tough gig. And I think there was some analysis that there were, you know, tens of thousands of of people working in the hydraulic fracking, oil and gas recovery industry who were in swing states. And were she to speak on climate change issues, this could tip a swing state against her. But look, you know, with hindsight, which is 2020, it would appear that actually there is a need and an opportunity. I'm going to call it an opportunity because contrast with the the Labour Party, who got a huge victory in the UK, who did talk about climate change a lot. You do need to talk about climate change. And I think I'm just thinking about those tens of thousands of fracking workers who maybe would have actually understood the right narrative. It wouldn't have changed things. So, you know, I think it's time for us maybe not to be too clever and to be more honest in our politics. And that was one of the main points I took from Ben.

Christiana: [00:31:33] It's interesting. I think I commented to Tom a couple of weeks ago that I was actually, ironically, quite relieved that Kamala Harris had not made climate a big issue in her campaign. And I actually personally don't think that it would have tipped the scale for her at all. I think the other things that Ben commented would have made more of a difference, but it's all moot by now. And we will, we we will never know. But what I wanted to pick up from Ben's conversation is this possibility that because of Trump's, I don't even know what to call it, immature speech and irresponsible actions combined with his protectionist measures that he has already announced, and we don't know whether he will put them into effect, that the world will not take him seriously, or, in fact, that the rest of the world will turn their backs on the United States and begin to step into much more of a multi-polar leadership world. On climate that happened last time. As we remember the in the in the United States, states, cities, corporations led on decarbonization despite whatever was happening in what I called the dark house. It's possible that this will happen again, certainly within the United States. Today, I'm actually more curious about what is going to happen outside of the United States. Who's going to be stepping into leadership. Obviously, the EU and the UK have a huge opportunity here to step into leadership, but the growing membership of the BRICS is something that we should really keep our eyes on.

Christiana: [00:33:26] When we were at the UN, the BRICS were actually five countries Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa came in in 2009. So it was five countries. Well, this year there are nine countries, right. And they have been joined by Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the UAE. And the Saudis are considering. So it's a very interesting group of countries that we frankly don't think of immediately as being leaders on climate change. And the question is, what are they going to do? Because if they step into leadership here, not because of politics, but rather because of the economic opportunities that they see with clean technologies, what that would actually open is for the de-dogmatization of climate change, because we would begin to see evidence that climate is not a dogmatic issue, either for the left or for the right, that it is actually an economic opportunity to step into these clean technologies. That is honestly the most hopeful scenario that we have. It is a scenario. Are we going to see it? No one knows. But it's an interesting point that Ben opens there. It's an interesting portal mental portal that he opens. And as I say, what would be very refreshing is to step away from political confrontations on climate and have it be much more about the political economy rather than strategic geopolitics.

Tom: [00:35:15] Yeah, it's such a good point, and I do agree with that. And also, you know, I would counterpoint that with Ben's comments around the rise of populism and the necessity to have a populist narrative. I mean, comments about economic opportunity and expanding economic growth, powerful as they are, weirdly don't seem to win elections anymore. What wins elections is pitting people against each other and creating a sort of populist narrative about everybody kind of coming in and being part of the club that's being built by the leader. So I agree with you, but looking back at US domestic politics, I have to say I left that interview really hoping that we see the emergence of a sort of Obama 2028 type character who's able to take the narrative against the fossil fuel industry and say they knew they lied, make them pay, and turn that into a populist narrative. They're poisoning you. They're poisoning your kids. They're making a fortune out of it. We have to build that into the counter populist narrative, because I think the argument of the economic benefit of the transition and the driving down costs, it works for us, but it just doesn't seem to work in the way that it might as a broad populist narrative.

Christiana: [00:36:21] It's a very good point, Tom, and I think Ben makes that point very compellingly. You said Obama 2028. What happens between now and 2028? That's my point. The price that we pay, right, and if that's the road that we go down and it could well be it's a very, very good, very good argument, then my concern is these are four critical years in the critical decade. That's my concern right. We can't wait until 2028 to sort of rev up the motors on climate again. That's the piece that I just have a very difficult time sitting with.

Paul: [00:36:57] Your point about, it wouldn't have necessarily made any difference if Kamala Harris had had, you know, pushed climate. I can I can agree with you because in the two months, you know, you know, what can you achieve really. But if you'd imagine that she'd had two years to campaign, you know, if Biden had said, I'm not standing in, you know, two years ago, then maybe she could have built a movement about climate change or embrace climate change as a sort of positive narrative of the future.

Christiana: [00:37:23] Maybe exactly the opposite, because I think Ben's point is that I'm not sure that he said this clearly enough, but I think what he meant is, had she come out with a very sharp message against the fossil fuel industry that is stealing your opportunities, maybe she could have gained some ground there. What she couldn't do was go out with, this is the economic opportunity a little bit the argument that Christiana just made okay. That message would not have won her any votes okay. So I think what he says is why did she not take advantage of something that is already as divisive of climate change and make it even more confrontational, more more sharp. I think that's what he's saying, isn't he?

Paul: [00:38:14] And I do agree with that. And I think that, you know, that's where there's so much scope. I also just want to kind of pick up on your comment about the BRICS Christiana. Jim O'Neill, the economist who came up with the acronym in 2001. He actually he highlighted those four later five countries because he felt they were going to be the biggest economies in the 21st century. They had the populations, you know, fundamentally, if we just park Russia, which is a little bit of a special case, and a big oil exporter, India and China, more than a billion people in each country, Brazil, huge country, huge resources. And if you think of the leadership of China in terms of renewable energy and electric vehicles, you know, assuming the US government falls back, I think the Chinese government will fall forward. I think the world would be much more willing to do those kinds of deals with Chinese manufacturers of wind energy, of solar. There are huge gaps in our grids in our long term storage. Kind of final thought on this is, you know, the whole idea of sustainability almost is like us responding to a lack of government leadership, certainly in the private sector. And I think companies and big investors are going to need to think of their sort of geo system strategy. That's what I would call it, how they interact with the changing trade flows, policies, climate policies and different markets and take advantage of that. Because just to your point about between now and 2029, it's only four years in capital expenditure terms, it's a relatively small period of time. Big companies have got big plans for the long term. So how are you going to fit that in? It's got more complicated, but it sort of changed. Nothing has ended. It's changed.

Tom: [00:39:47] So one final point I would make in that direction, you just made the point about China, and we didn't actually bring this up with Ben, but China did something very interesting at the COP in Baku. They came out and provided public details of their climate funding. Remember, China has always been a country that's insisted it should receive rather than provide climate finance because of the way the world looked when the United Nations Convention was initially put together. However, at the beginning of Baku, Chinese officials came out and announced they had paid developing countries more than $24 billion for climate action in the last nine years. Now that's a lot of money. But it's interesting politically that they made that comment and they haven't done that before. Quite what that signals, we don't know. But it's significant that they did it. Right, anything else or is it time to wrap up?

Christiana: [00:40:29] Well it's time to wrap up. But as we do, let's just remind ourselves and listeners that we are observing what is happening in the desertification COP taking place in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, last week and this week. And we will be bringing up some of the results and consequences next week, when, what do we do next week, guys?

Tom: [00:40:53] I think we have a mailbag, which conjures up a lovely image that we'll all be sitting around opening letters. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll be quite like that, but we're still very happy to be answering questions, so please do send them in by mail if you like, but email or anything else also works. You can find all the details in the show notes. We would love to have your questions. We really enjoy doing these mailbag episodes, so the more questions the better. Send them in any time over the course of next week. And finally, just a final shout out for the listener survey, again, the link is in the show notes, but again, this is super helpful and important to us to shape the podcast. It is outrageandoptimism.org/survey. You can find the details in the show notes, but that would be greatly appreciated as well. So listeners please questions for next week and listener survey. Thank you very much. We'll see you next week.