345: Venezuela, Fossil Fuels, and the Year Ahead

00:14:48.820 --> 00:14:51.500

Christiana Figueres: They're a net petroleum exporter. They're not even a net petroleum importer. So it's not like they need any more to export. So yeah, I would agree that this is just domestic, political theater at a time in which we are already inaugurating the year, in which we will have the midterm elections. Support for Trump is on decline. And this is not the first time that the United States or other countries put on this kind of international military theater in order to buttress their domestic support. It is amazing, as you say, to go into the expense of the largest army in the world to do this. But I think for me the question is, so now what happens next? And I would say three factors will determine what happens next. The first is Delci herself. Can she maintain domestic discipline and order, the kind that Maduro had, under the bullying of the United States? Because she is now going to be bullied 27 hours a day. Does she hand over the oil fields, and if so, under what conditions? All of which would be detrimental to Venezuela. The second factor is, does the Venezuelan military remain loyal to her or to any other appointed, not elected, appointed leader, and at what price would they do that? Because they are in full control right now. And the third, what does the opposition do? There is a very vibrant political opposition in Venezuela, and they are, I'm sure, putting their heads together to figure out, okay, they did not start this, but how can they use this crack, this crack in the political system, to their benefit and be able to call for and organize free elections again, while those elections have not been respected by either Chávez or Maduro? So, many factors that have to do with Venezuela, but also, honestly, with respect to oil, it is so ridiculous. It is such fantasy land that the United States operates in. To think that there would be growing demand for oil 10 years from now, it's just fantasy.

00:17:33.580 --> 00:17:34.860

Tom Rivett-Carnac: But, I mean, are you surprised? That's the way it operates, right? I mean, this is a dying industry that is irrational, it's reactive, it's responding in really counterintuitive ways to try and bring itself back, and with its allies who are sitting in office. And of course, it won't work, but it can really create a hell of a lot of pain for a lot of people in the path from here to there.

00:17:53.300 --> 00:17:54.000

Christiana Figueres: Yeah, totally. So to answer to your question, no, I'm not surprised. And yes, I am surprised, because every time I feel like, okay, we've seen it all. And then we see something else. So yes, I am surprised in the same direction that we've seen. But yes, I am surprised again.

00:18:08.520 --> 00:18:12.540

Paul Dickinson: The oil and gas industry, I think, needs to be understood globally as a political force. And actually, you know, oil, in a sense, is the drug that's being trafficked here. I was amazed when, the crazy way Trump talks, but it's so powerful because I think he's communicating to his people at this really guttural level. He said Venezuela was dead. And then he said the USA was dead, but now it's one of the hottest countries. Very clear that no one was killed. Apparently, all these explosions, no one was killed. What they mean is no US service people were killed. The New York Times estimated 40 Venezuelans were killed. But the way, even the Western press, and I have to pick them up for this, Western media were saying no one was killed because they didn't count Venezuelans as people. Chevron's share price is up 9%. There's a bit of a theme. Venezuela's biggest oil reserves in the world, US recently attacked Iran, third largest oil reserves in the world, has threatened Canada, fourth largest oil reserves in the world, previously invaded Iraq, fifth largest oil reserves in the world, has recently hit Nigeria, 11th largest oil reserves in the world. I think renewables and electric vehicles are the power of peace, and fossil fuels are the power of war, and we need to choose peace not just in the way we conduct our politics, but in the way we conduct our energy systems. But I mean, can we just say a little bit about the broader thing that's going on here? Because I was dazzled by Trump, sitting in these cabinet meetings where all his cabinet was saying publicly how brilliant he was. And I thought it was some kind of strange fawning for him, but it wasn't. He was communicating that this is a dictatorship, that there is no independent thought in the cabinet. And, you know, there is a bodying forth of a capability of dictatorial rule to hit another country, to steal the president, to do all of that without even informing the senior members of Congress that that's what you were going to do. It's very much part of the kind of demonstration effect of rule without checks and balances. You know, friend of the show, Ben Rhodes, who's been on many times and is a wonderful person, says, the only thing we know for sure is that US oil companies are going down there. And this kind of behavior can become contagious. And you know, it was others that have mentioned this, but I think I came to the same conclusion. I'm sure you both have. Everyone has to get nukes now. Because if you think your president can be stolen by helicopters, nuclear weapons are the only way you can protect your country from that happening. So in the words of the FT, this is demonstrating US dominance in the Western Hemisphere. This is an attempt by Trump to try and communicate might is right and we can just do whatever crazy stuff we can do. We could talk more about this, but I both am horrified, but also in some strange ways impressed by the evil genius of the Trump system. Yeah.

00:20:45.640 --> 00:21:12.700

Christiana Figueres: But you know, guys, moving on to things to follow for this year, I don't think it is entirely coincidental that Brazil being the COP 30 president, but also for quirky reasons of the UNFCCC, they are now the sitting COP presidency until COP 31 starts. And I don't think it is completely coincidental that the Brazilian COP presidency will focus this year on the dependence on fossil fuels. And I think we should have Ana Toni on the podcast again for her to give us the details. But they are planning, quite unusually so, for the Brazilian presidency, sitting presidency, to be very active. Usually a presidency goes, does the COP and then steps back. They're not planning on stepping back, at least until October 4 when they have Brazilian elections and Lula may be re-elected. But at least until October 4, they're planning to be very, very active in international politics. And how interesting that their choice is, they want to focus on the dangers of global dependence on fossil fuels.

00:22:11.120 --> 00:22:15.340

Tom Rivett-Carnac: So, Christiana, that's really interesting to hear about the Brazilian strategy for the rest of this year. And we're definitely going to come back to that. Let's take a quick break now. And then when we come back, maybe we should all pitch in with some predictions as to what we think 2026 will consist of. See you in a minute. Okay, so welcome back. So in this half, we're going to very quickly pitch. If they're not predictions, they're just an analysis of underlying trends that we're spotting that we think might shape some of the year and how successful we are or are not in addressing the issues that we all care about. Paul, why don't we start with you? What are some hot takes or some things that you think will shape the year that have been rising to your attention?

00:22:49.756 --> 00:22:51.316

Paul Dickinson: Well, thank you. It's something I've been reflecting on over the break, and I do think it's a kind of, it's a febrile time, it's a nervous time. I think people are kind of pretty shocked by AI and its ability to be just incredibly clever. And as humans, we're all thinking in our jobs, you know, like, crikey, is the machine kind of coming for my job? That's making people feel weird. But I think the thing I want to actually focus on is what I'm going to call populism being kind of the new politics. I don't know if populism is the right word, but alongside some terrifying stuff from Elon Musk, you know, whipping up the negative Tommy Robinson march in the UK, for example, why a car manufacturer is trying to persuade, you know, a kind of white nationalist in the UK to an incredible phrase he used, you know, we're at a fork in the road to darkness or greatness. We must have revolutionary government change, Elon Musk said to London by video. By the way, Tesla sales have fallen for two years in a row now. So it looks like trying to combine fascism with car manufacturing isn't working. But the thing I want to focus on is the populism of the other side, the inspiring inauguration of Mandani and just in a sense of so much optimism, Zach Polanski in the UK and so many other countries that there's, basically, the compact between the super rich and the middle classes has broken down. Politics is becoming pitchforks at the gates on the right but also on the left. My take on this is, and it connects to the conversation before the break, is that we need actually for renewable energy now, electric vehicles, grids, all that infrastructure, no meat foods or meat repair. All those industries, we need to get more political combination between the forces of renewable and sustainable business and energy, and the political system. I think we need to acknowledge a shift away from some kind of consensus politics that sort of came unraveled around about 2015 into something that's going to be very different, but full of risk and potential to 2030. That was my take.

00:25:03.896 --> 00:25:11.656

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Paul, I agree this has been one of the most positive trends of the previous year, particularly Mamdani and Zach Polanski. Of course, it's not only them. We've seen others in different parts of the world as well that have emerged, and they're building on the backs of other young leaders that emerged in the previous years, like Sanna Marin in Finland and Jacinda Ardern in AOC. So I am hopeful that we will see, I agree with you, that we will see a younger generation of Gen Z politicians coming forward that really are hungry for a values-based leadership because they're looking around and they're not seeing it anywhere. When we reach that tipping point of young people saying, I'm not going to wait for someone else to do something, I'm going to step in, that tipping point comes when people see themselves reflected in positions of leadership. I think actually we might look back at Mamdani and Polanski as the beginning of a real transformation. I think there's some question marks as well about the leadership. I know this might be a controversial point, but the leadership that emerges can tend to be more activist, and that has a lot of power associated with it, and I think that's very exciting. But sometimes it also doesn't necessarily account for all of the nuance that might exist that those of us who have more gray hairs might be aware of. But hey, the young energy has always changed politics, and if it doesn't always account for all the nuance, at least it blasts through the status quo and makes something different.

00:26:25.676 --> 00:26:30.556

Christiana Figueres: Wait, Paul, did you hear that Tom now has given himself gray hair?

00:26:30.556 --> 00:26:32.936

Paul Dickinson: I have more gray hair than both of you combined.

00:26:32.936 --> 00:26:34.456

Tom Rivett-Carnac: I've discovered three gray hairs.

00:26:34.456 --> 00:26:34.996

Paul Dickinson: Oh, really? Oh, poor Tom. Oh, really? Oh, no. The tears pouring down my face as I have flex of gray on the side of mine.

00:26:45.896 --> 00:26:47.196

Christiana Figueres: Yeah, very interesting. I wonder if what you have both pointed to are going to be exceptions or whether there will be a trend in 2026, because this year again is going to be a huge electoral year. More than 40 countries representing a combined population of 1.6 billion people will hold national level elections in 2026. So it could be a year for a big shift. It could be a year that only confirms the rise of populism that we have seen before last year. And it really is a big question mark. Is there going to be a trend or will we have it that every country will be responding to much, much more domestic smaller issues without a relationship to a mega political cycle?

00:27:55.256 --> 00:27:56.176

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Yeah. Okay. Well, that's one we're going to have to watch this year and maybe interview some of these young emerging new leaders to try to get a sense of their priorities and their agenda. So let's definitely come back to that.

00:28:05.856 --> 00:28:11.836

Christiana Figueres: Wait, and before we step away from that, let's just put a pointer in for midterm election in the United States November 3.

00:28:11.836 --> 00:28:13.936

Paul Dickinson: Oh, bring it on.

00:28:13.936 --> 00:28:14.896

Tom Rivett-Carnac: How are you feeling about that?

00:28:14.896 --> 00:28:17.116

Christiana Figueres: 435 house seats.

00:28:17.116 --> 00:28:17.636

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Yeah.

00:28:17.636 --> 00:28:24.796

Christiana Figueres: And 35 out of the 100 Senate seats are up for grabs in the upcoming US midterms.

00:28:24.796 --> 00:28:26.796

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Let's hear a prediction from you, Christiana.

00:28:27.336 --> 00:28:33.276

Christiana Figueres: Well, no, but let's hear space and opportunity for new, fresh, younger leadership.

00:28:33.276 --> 00:28:33.816

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Yes.

00:28:33.816 --> 00:28:35.936

Paul Dickinson: Let's not predict, let's enable.

00:28:35.936 --> 00:28:42.996

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Having said that, my understanding is that it's going to be really hard for the Democrats to win the Senate because of the seats that are up for grabs. But nevertheless, that's going to be, as you say, an opportunity for new emerging leadership. Christiana, any other trends you want to highlight or bring to us?

00:28:50.056 --> 00:28:53.496

Christiana Figueres: Other trends within the year. Listeners may remember that one of the legacies that the Brazilian government and presidency of the COP wanted to establish with COP 30 and then weren't able to is this phase out of fossil fuels. And since they were not able to get consensus of that, they will take it offline and we should speak to Anathony about how they're doing that. But also we know that Colombia and the Netherlands will be hosting sometime before May 31, for sure, because Colombia goes to elections on May 31. So sometime over the next few months, they are going to try to host an international meeting on phasing out of fossil fuels. How that will be affected by the recent Venezuela events will be very interesting to look at. And how Brazil will be taking its message to that meeting will also be very interesting to watch.

00:29:57.936 --> 00:29:58.676

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Absolutely.

00:29:58.676 --> 00:30:02.656

Paul Dickinson: We desperately need leadership for our kind of climate movement, so to say. And the presidency of the COP is a unique platform where there's enormous potential for kind of coordination. And so very exciting to follow that. And also, insofar as we are able, as the official partner of the COP in Berlin, I'm sure we'll want to try and support those messages and help be an information exchange for everyone who wants to kind of coordinate and better align to achieve those goals.

00:30:26.116 --> 00:30:26.316

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Yeah. I mean, if we can see this being the year when we really accelerate fossil fuel phase out and it becomes part of a multilateral institutional process, that's an amazing thing that could happen this year. And who knows, maybe the fact the oil price hasn't spiked could be the thing that gives people confidence to begin to move in that direction in the beginning of the year. So just to continue the theme of US bullying, there's something which I would like to point out, which is that you have a new UN Secretary General, who is going to be appointed this year. And we know this election reasonably well. It's the UN Security Council that votes. It's a secret vote, but everyone knows who they vote for. And this time, it is the turn of a Latin American woman.

00:30:59.716 --> 00:31:01.396

Christiana Figueres: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

00:31:01.396 --> 00:31:02.496

Tom Rivett-Carnac: It's the turn of a Latin American.

00:31:02.496 --> 00:31:15.836

Christiana Figueres: This time, according to UN rotation, for which there's no established written rule, but it's a good tradition, this time, it would be the turn for Latin America to have a Secretary General. The fact that the Latin American candidates are female is an added bonus.

00:31:21.676 --> 00:31:24.456

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Well, it's been the turn of a woman for a very long time, I would say.

00:31:24.456 --> 00:31:26.656

Paul Dickinson: There's no female Secretary General.

00:31:26.656 --> 00:31:29.836

Christiana Figueres: We've never had a female Secretary General. Please take note, we have never had a female Secretary General.

00:31:33.596 --> 00:31:35.456

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Yeah, which is outrageous. So that should be a major campaign. But there's a really interesting question, Mark, about how effective a campaign is when you're trying to actually appoint a UN Secretary General, because ultimately it is the five permanent members of the Security Council, the UK, France, the US, Russia and China, who vote on that. They are the only ones who have a veto.

00:31:56.976 --> 00:31:59.156

Christiana Figueres: And one veto kills the candidate.

00:31:59.156 --> 00:31:59.696

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Kills the candidate.

00:31:59.696 --> 00:32:01.296

Christiana Figueres: You cannot have one veto.

00:32:01.296 --> 00:32:02.316

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Absolutely. And you need to go through a successive round of voting and the candidates with the lowest number of votes tend to drop out until you end up with a consensus candidate who gets most of the votes and then ends up becoming appointed. Now, I've been in various conversations that have included State Department officials and I have been party to much more senior conversations than those that I have been in. And I've learned a few things. One is that the United States will not accept anyone who has a history of climate leadership in the position of UN Secretary General. They see that as mission creep for the UN and they don't want to see that to continue. And secondly, that they are prepared to look for a compromise candidate and that is likely not to be any of the nominees that currently exist from Latin American countries.

00:32:51.476 --> 00:32:59.556

Christiana Figueres: Wait, Tom, the other thing that we should take off the table, I believe that the United States is vehemently opposed to any female. So they're vehemently opposed to any female. They're vehemently opposed to any environmental responsibility, including climate, but not just. And they're vehemently opposed to respecting the traditional geographic rotation. All three things, they have been very clear about, they're not going to do it.

00:33:20.936 --> 00:33:24.956

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Definitely geographic rotation, definitely environmental and social leadership. I haven't actually heard them say, we are completely against appointing a woman. And if you look at the US administration, there are some women in senior positions, so I don't know if that's true or not. But from what I've heard, there isn't a woman that fits the bill that they are trying to identify, that would enable them to appoint that person. But the other two don't care about geographic rotation and don't want an environmental leader I would 100 percent agree with. So obviously, none of us would ever share confidential information around any appointment or other information that we are given. But I have heard one name consistently, both in meetings that I've been in, and also from two other individuals who heard it directly from senior US government representatives. I checked with them whether they were all right for me to share this on condition of not sharing where I heard it from, and they were happy with it. So I'm going to share it here on the podcast. Now, we should be clear, there's a lot that can happen between now and the appointment of a new UN Secretary General and the world may well change. So whether this ends up being the person or not, who knows? But I would say at the moment, this person's name is not in the news, but I would say from the conversations I've had, they are probably the front runner. And that is a man called Feridun Senerlioglu, the Secretary General of the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe. He was formerly the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Turkish government of Recep Erdogan. And he is the candidate that I've heard both the US and the Russians are prepared to accept as the next UN Secretary General. Now, things may change. It's going to be several months until that vote is made.

00:34:59.296 --> 00:35:01.236

Christiana Figueres: And do the other three accept that?

00:35:01.236 --> 00:35:02.416

Tom Rivett-Carnac: And do the other three accept that? Or are they able to be bullied by those two permanent members into accepting it? It's quite a look for the UN to have a representative of a pretty brutal dictatorship in the form of the government of Recep Erdogan. And to have somebody that will take it definitively away from leadership on social, gender and environmental issues is something that we may have to deal with. Now, that's not necessarily a happy and positive story for 2026, but I think the theme of US bullying makes this quite a likely outcome.

00:35:31.756 --> 00:35:36.216

Christiana Figueres: Let's remind listeners that COP 31 is going to be in Turkey.

00:35:36.216 --> 00:35:42.736

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Well, this is part of the hidden agenda, I think, that has happened behind the scenes around why they were so keen to have it there.

00:35:42.736 --> 00:35:52.896

Paul Dickinson: I just think mission creep, talking about mission creep at the UN is extraordinary from the US administration when you actually think the purpose of the United Nations is to protect states through collaborative action. And the biggest risk to national and global security is indeed climate change. So it's definitely not mission creep. Any thoughts on this candidate, Christiana? Do you think that the UN can be damaged by the wrong Secretary General? I guess the answer is clearly yes.

00:36:07.436 --> 00:36:08.856

Christiana Figueres: Yes, for sure. And I also think that process is important. You can't just stand there and say the geographic rotation that we've had since the inception of the UN is meaningless. It is not meaningless. So both process and final outcome are important.

00:36:26.896 --> 00:36:28.076

Paul Dickinson: I mean, it's a point well made, Tom. How do you respond to this? And do you think that there's some, the UK and France should be lobbying China to say, well, we don't want to have renewable energy pushback?

00:36:36.756 --> 00:36:45.456

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Well, to go back to where we started, okay, you can get a bit from the French, but the UK has not stood up even after this illegal kidnapping of Maduro. They've said, well, we need to wait to see, the US needs to make its own case. I think we're in a situation at the moment where, Al Gore said to us at the end of last year that we've passed peak Trump, but a wounded Trump that is on the way out and is losing popularity is probably much more dangerous than one that's in the ascendancy. If he's really willing to reach out and try and push and bully other allies, then I don't at the moment see the moral courage or sense of values on the world stage that's able to stand up to that. That is a devastatingly sad state of affairs, but I think it's hard to argue with.

00:37:17.336 --> 00:37:17.616

Paul Dickinson: I agree. The world stage, the world stage. All the world's a stage and that, there's a vacancy now. So leaders of countries that wish to come forward now and make historic statements in support of collective action on climate change, now's the time.

00:37:33.936 --> 00:37:35.136

Tom Rivett-Carnac: So thank you, friends. I mean, I think that covers off a tiny fraction of what we want to talk about in this episode in the various trends and underlying developments that we're seeing that are going to shape our year in 2026 as we all try to do what needs to be done in this increasingly narrow window to do what we can do on climate. We would love to hear from you, the listeners, what would you like us to cover this year? What are the big topics that you would like us to delve into in more detail? We've got such an exciting program of deep dives and analysis and visits and other things that we're doing over the coming months, but there's still space to develop that a bit further. So if you have thoughts and ideas, write to us with your ideas and your questions, always super keen to hear from you. And I wonder if as it's the first episode of the year we should just revive an old tradition and go around the three of us and talk about something that we're hopeful about or optimistic about or something that we are maybe outraged about at the beginning of the year. So one thing you're outraged about, one thing you're optimistic about. Christiana, should we start with you?

00:38:30.716 --> 00:38:31.316

Christiana Figueres: Sure. Although I totally feel like a broken record on the outrage. I'm just continually even more and more outraged at the supremacist bullying, not just attitude, but actions of the United States. It takes outrage to the next level. And optimistic, despite I think we communicated a lot of concern in the first part of this conversation. And I think those are all very warranted. And despite that, I'm pretty optimistic about the hard nosed competitiveness of clean technologies and how they are going to continue to grow exponentially in their penetration of the market.

00:39:23.476 --> 00:39:24.636

Tom Rivett-Carnac: Nice.

00:39:24.636 --> 00:39:25.236

Christiana Figueres: Paul?

00:39:25.236 --> 00:39:25.396

Paul Dickinson: Yeah. I mean, I think we've had so much outrage on this episode. I mean, I would just add, there's a bit of, with regard to, you know, many of the sort of wrongdoing from Trump, the sort of facilitation of that, unfortunately, by, you know, a lot of law firms, for example, that have caved, or universities that have caved into unreasonable demands. It's understandable because it's a very tough environment. But what gives me optimism is that I do think, as Al Gore said, we may well be past peak Trump. I'm not sure many of these particularly peculiar shenanigans, just as we discussed before in the show about Venezuela, are going to work out well for the administration. And we already have, you know, Trump really down in the polls, the Epstein files coming out, and a sense of a bit of backbone starting to emerge in the Republican Party. So I have high hopes, actually, that the sort of global system, the business system, will start to recalibrate and recalibrate, that they don't want to be on the wrong side of history. And we can move through to a time of more rational government, where we think about, you know, security, climate change. We think about not just might is right, but the reverse, which is collective mutual self-interest is supportive. You know, it was, at Mandami's inauguration, there was, you know, some beautiful phraseology about supporting each other in society, and society being for, for the many people, even a chant broke out, tax the rich. I don't want to be a politician promoting taxes, but I do think wealth inequality is causing such intolerable and unnecessary suffering. I have high hopes that we could be at a point of change. That's giving me optimism. What about you, Tom?

00:41:05.176 --> 00:41:06.396

Tom Rivett-Carnac: I agree with both of you. I would say an obvious one on outrage is all of the analysis is we're going to have another year over 1.5. Every year that goes by and we just tick higher and higher, we know what that means in terms of the 2024, when we had all of the terrible wildfires, and this just becomes a recurring theme every year. It's obviously going to be a variation on last year, but we're continuing to move in that direction, and it's hard to continue to see the warning light flashing, but it's right there. Then in terms of optimism, just something a little bit different. I could be wrong about this, but I think that people are really sick of distracted by scrolling, by allowing technology to atomize their attention. It might be that I'm just seeing the curated algorithm for myself, but I think there's actually a big pushback against us always being constantly distracted and not having a basis to agree on things. Now, that's a small seed that a great oak would have to come from, but I wonder whether we will look back at this period as a moment where we allow this social media atomization of our attention to take hold of society, and then we reclaim control of it, because the direction we're going in has to change at some point, and I feel some degree of hope that it might be this year.

00:42:17.856 --> 00:42:18.936

Christiana Figueres: May it be.

00:42:19.136 --> 00:42:22.376

Paul Dickinson: That's beautiful, Tom, the curated algorithm for yourself. I think that I'm going to try and I'm going to talk to myself about that.

00:42:24.936 --> 00:42:27.876

Tom Rivett-Carnac: It's telling me that we're no longer going to be subject to the created algorithm. So yeah, it's done its job on me. Wonderful. All right. Well, lovely to see you both. Welcome back. Happy New Year. And we will be back next week. Thanks, everyone. Bye.

00:42:36.696 --> 00:42:38.076

Christiana Figueres: See you next week.

00:42:38.076 --> 00:42:38.596

Paul Dickinson: See you next week. Bye-bye. Bye.