Harjeet Singh: Getting rich countries to pay up for climate change

Transcript

NIALA BOODHOO: As vulnerable countries face the devastation of climate change, asking rich countries to pay up.

HARJEET SINGH: Citizens should know, and particularly the US citizens should know, that their government has a responsibility. Today, they are enjoying the fruits of development, but it has happened at somebody's cost. It's people in the developing countries who are suffering.

NIALA: One activist on how he says civil society is holding top emitters accountable. I'm Niala Boodhoo. From Axios, this is 1 big thing.

UN Climate Conferences don't generally start off with a bang. But COP28 in Dubai this year did just that, when on day 1 a Loss and Damage fund was created to support developing nations hit hardest by climate change. It's been a 30-some year fight to get here, for climate activists… Let's catch you up quick on what Loss and Damage is all about.

2023 is set to be the hottest on record ever. And with rising temperatures have come a slew of more intense natural disasters around the world – including wildfires, floods, and hurricanes. Well developing nations have long been bearing the brunt of these effects of climate change…while wealthy countries including China and the U.S. are responsible for the lion's share of the CO2 emissions causing the warming planet.

That's why activists like Harjeet Singh have been advocating for decades for a Loss and Damage Fund – a way for rich countries to compensate more vulnerable countries for the destruction climate change, and to help them rebuild and prepare for the future.

HARJEET: We have to help people to adapt, which means they must be supported to retrofit their homes. Or build dikes, or have access to different kinds of seeds so that they can deal with erratic weather patterns, early warning systems. And when they get affected, they need support to rebuild their lives. And that's what Loss and Damage Fund is, is entrusted to do now.

NIALA: The new fund as it exists will rely on voluntary contributions from mostly rich countries, and the pledges so far don't come close to matching the need from developing countries. But Harjeet says it's a start.

And his is a well-known voice in this space. He's the Head of Global Political Strategy for Climate Action Network International, which is a network of some two thousand civil society organizations around the world – that means activists, NGOs, non-profits, community groups and others outside government and business – working to combat the climate crisis and fighting for climate justice.

HARJEET: I think the important aspect is who is setting the tone and ambition? And I would say, it's civil society. That is also calling out the hypocrisy. When many countries will say, we want fossil fuel phase out. But back home, what they're doing? They're funding the same fossil fuel companies. And they're doing more extraction, and particularly if I talk of rich countries like the U.S., U. K., Australia, Norway, Canada. They are the ones leading the fossil fuel expansion between now and 2050. 51 percent of fossil fuel expansion is going to come from these five countries. And here, they project themselves as climate leaders because they know the language. And that's where civil society actually calls them out.

Harjeet Singh also one of the few climate activists that actually participates in negotiations. I spoke to him here on the sidelines of COP28 and asked him to explain how vulnerable countries--and the groups supporting them--are driving climate negotiations at this urgent moment.

Harjeet Singh, welcome to One Big Thing. Thank you for being here with me.

HARJEET: Thank you very much for having me.

NIALA: I wanted to start with the issue that came on day one of COP that's been central to all of your work. And that's the Loss and Damage Fund announcement. First of all, can you just explain what exactly the agreement around this fund accomplishes to your mind and how you think this will work?

HARJEET: Sure. I think it's important to understand that the fight has been going on for more than 30 years. When we got the convention in 1992, we all were confident, all developing and developed countries, that we'll be able to avert the crisis.

And that's why the focus was much more on reducing emissions. A couple of years later, there was a realization that we should also now prepare for climate impacts as, you know, we started witnessing those. And look at where we are right now in the last few years, how we have seen devastating floods and raging wildfires and rising seas.

So people around the world are losing their homes, their farms, their crops, their income. And there is no system under UNFCCC which actually deals with that. And that's how the fight got a lot more intensified over the last few years. We got a mechanism in 2013, but nothing on finance. So that's why what we got here, in Dubai is historic, because the decision at Sharm El Sheikh was to establish the fund, which itself, was a breakthrough, but we all were very concerned how it's going to pan out.

Eventually, we got the decision on the day one, which is unprecedented, because you don't get such, big decisions on day one. It's always, not only until the end, but at the same time, what we got is not enough.

Yes, we have got hundreds of millions now being pledged. Details are missing, whether this is grant, or this is new or additional to what climate finance already being provided. And whether, it's going to really reach communities immediately because a lot of money can just get spent in setting up the secretariat. When we know the needs are in hundreds of billions of dollars.

NIALA: It's really in the trillions, correct?

HARJEET: Absolutely. It's touching, it's touching trillion. So you are absolutely right. And the reality is that these poor communities are bearing this burden on their own.

NIALA: Can you explain a little bit more about that? I wonder that there are people who are listening, particularly Americans, who were thinking, why do the richest countries in the world have to pay for this?

HARJEET: We need to understand how industrialization happened over the last 150 years. Who led that? And what a dirty industrialization process that was, which did not care about nature, which actually was so extractive, and we pumped so much of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Of course, the scientists in the U.

S., in the Western world, knew 50 years ago. That the kind of greenhouse gases that we are pumping into the atmosphere, it's increasing the global average temperature, which is going to cause havoc. So we knew that, yet they continued with their extractive model. And US, for instance, is responsible for more than quarter of cumulative greenhouse gasses, so far in the atmosphere.

So when we talk about temperatures changing, right, and the erratic weather that we are, facing, It's all because of those past emissions, which are locked into, the atmospheric system and are causing, these disasters. similarly with European Union, another quarter cumulative emissions come from Europe.

So, that's why we say that it's rich countries industrial model that has caused the problem in the first place and that's why they have more responsibility and obligation to pay.

NIALA: You had some concerns about this fund being housed at the World Bank. What are your thoughts now that you're looking at what's been announced?

HARJEET: We are still very concerned and we have, I would say, we took a bitter pill, because we wanted this to get over the line. Rich countries kept pushing for it, saying creating a new institution is going to take a lot of time. Why don't we house it under an existing institution? And World Bank, because it manages a lot of money, would be appropriate. Our concerns were who controls the World Bank? So U. S. has the largest share in the World Bank, and World Bank responds to its shareholders.

It works for its shareholders. Which means it's going to listen to its shareholder. And so far, the history of World Bank has been only exploiting developing countries, changing their economic policies which can suit the Western world so that their companies can go and create new markets. It has not helped developing countries really come out of poverty.

And, World Bank has also been funding fossil fuel extraction. So, an institution that has caused Climate crisis, but also inequality around the world cannot be trusted. in the last few months there is a lot of noise around, you know, World Bank to be changed and the way it has been operating.

Such an old institution will not change overnight. And creating a new institution would have been much better this institution that we are creating as Loss and Damage Fund, has to be fit for now and fit for future because future is uncertain. The institution has to be very agile, very flexible to respond to the newer challenges.

Is World Bank ready? Can it move so fast? So what we have done, and that's why we accepted, developing countries have put certain conditions exactly on these lines to make sure that there is access for developing countries, and not just countries, but also communities. At the same time, making sure that its board is not going to meddle into affairs and World Bank has to listen to the Loss and Damage Fund Board and UNFCCC processes.

NIALA: Harjeet, I have a question about just how you think, just in practical terms, the way that you sort of laid out the problem, right? The most powerful countries have created this problem. Now we're asking the most powerful countries to fix it. What levers do you think you have to change and to affect change in this matter?

HARJEET: So one thing that we have to realize that we are now in a multipolar world. It's not that rich countries can impose their policies unilaterally and at the same time, ordinary people are beginning to understand the kind of injustice and that injustice that we are saying between countries is not limited to just countries now.

Within the U. S., U. S. is one of those countries where this highest level of inequality, the fight of 1 percent versus 99% is now around the world, including in the US. Look at how, you know, a tiny number of corporations are making so much of money, including the fossil fuel companies, you know, that those five, six companies had a profit of 200 billion in 2022.

You know, as a global fossil fuel industry, it has, you know, multiplied its profits to four trillion dollars annually, which used to be 1. 5 trillion. So this is causing a lot more inequality, and that has to be exposed. And these companies are actually headquartered in the same countries, you know, who have caused the climate problem.

So you know, it all comes together. So I would say. Exposing, this hypocrisy that on one hand, rich countries say there's no money and how fossil fuel companies are making money.

The fact is that industrialization has a huge cost in terms of extraction of natural resources and the pollution it has caused, but who is suffering? It's people in the developed, developing countries who are suffering.

And one, they need to develop. You know, they still don't have resources and now they are being battered by climate disaster. So whatever development gains that they had are now also getting eroded.

NIALA: We'll be back in a moment with more of my conversation with Harjeet Singh. This is 1 big thing.

Welcome back to 1 big thing from Axios. I'm Niala Boodhoo.

Let's get back to my conversation with Harjeet Singh, the Head of Global Political Strategy for Climate Action Network International.

I spoke to him in Dubai where I'm covering COP28, the climate conference, and where one major controversy has been that this year's COP president is Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber, the UAE climate envoy and CEO of the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company.

Al-Jaber made waves when he said there was "no science" behind the push to phase out fossil fuels, which was widely criticized. After an uproar - he then said he did respect the science.

I asked Harjeet about this year's COP president.

HARJEET: Having a COP president who continues to remain in the post of CEO of an oil company is just not acceptable. And that's why we challenge that. Because we know that it's fossil fuels that have caused the problem in the first place. The important thing to note here that Paris Agreement and the Convention both do not talk about fossil fuels. There's no mention of coal, oil or gas. So clearly there's a handprint of the fossil fuel industry that has ensured that the conversation remains on reducing emissions. So what happens? The responsibility goes to the citizens that how green we need to be when these companies on the supply side of the problem, which means fossil fuel, continue to extract and intensify the problem, whereas the onus is shifted to ordinary people.

So, so that's why we need to really call them out, you know, in this process.I still believe that this space can deliver a lot if the spirit of the conversation is changed. If we have real leaders who step up and lead by example, and they have the obligation to lead, but they're not leading.

NIALA: Do you feel like the spirit of the conversation has changed?

HARJEET: I would say it's beginning to change. Again, that links to the multi polar world that we are living in right now. Look at the whole topic of loss and damage. It's something that is so dear to vulnerable countries.

They are the ones who are losing the most and have least resources. They led that fight along with civil society and we got it. if you remember Secretary Kerry last year in September, saying that it's not possible to have an agreement on loss and damage. We got it at Sharm El Sheikh a couple of months later.

So I think it's the power of vulnerable countries, civil society, supported by media, has really helped us echo that a shift is required and that's why here at COP28 on the very first day when we got the decision on loss and damage, it was actually to respond to some of those concerns that this process has not been delivering.

So it was strategic to have that decision. Otherwise, you know, there's a very painfully interesting phrase which says, Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And the kind of bargaining that happens, I've been following negotiations for 15 years, I can tell you, it's excruciating.

Things that should stand on its own. are traded. You say, if you want-

NIALA: Like what?

HARJEET: If you want money for loss and damage, then you have to make sure that you get more ambition from developing countries without any offer of financial support for mitigation. You may not believe that the way Paris Agreement looks right now was nowhere near what rich countries wanted.

They only wanted mitigation to be in Paris Agreement. Why rich countries only want mitigation? Because they know that if If developing countries don't reduce emissions, they are also going to suffer. They were never bothered about the issues of adaptation and loss and damage. The reason you see that in Paris Agreement shows that the balance is shifting and developing countries, particularly the vulnerable ones, are able to resist that pressure and say what they value and what means to them a lot.

So you can see that shift happening.

NIALA: So, let's talk about civil society for just a moment. When we think about, individuals in civil society, if you were to do a call to action, what would it be for an individual of any global citizen?

HARJEET: All of us as individuals have to play our part. We have to make sure that we are very conscious about the food we eat, because carbon footprint is linked to that. You know, the, way we travel has an impact on environment. The way we use electricity or other forms of energy. But at the same time, I must say, not to undermine or underestimate what individuals can do, but what is most important is to influence and put pressure on politicians.

I come from India. I want to use, a bicycle. I can tell you infrastructure is not ready. Even if I want to do, the public transport system is good, but still the last mile connectivity is not there. So individuals can only go to a point, but beyond that, you need support from the government in terms of infrastructure.

So I would say. Do what you can do to reduce your carbon footprint and be very conscious about your actions. At the same time, put pressure on your policymaker, on your politician, from your area, from your district, from your state. That's what is going to bring about the change because they are the ones who are holding power.

They are the ones who are actually protecting the interest of fossil fuel industry and many other polluters.

NIALA: When you think about this past year I'm sure there's a lot of things that keep you up at night that have you worried, but, are there any things in particular that you, of threads you see, of concerns you have that are the most pressing right now?

HARJEET: I think for me, what is mind boggling, that it's not the earth of science. Science is very clear where we are. 1. 2 degree, in fact, temporarily we have crossed 2 degree threshold. And disasters are happening, not limited to developing countries. I know a couple of years ago, when it was only developing countries who were hit by, you know, uh, those storms and, and floods.

Now developed countries, rich countries are also getting affected. Yet, political leaders are siding with the fossil fuel industry, which is the cause of the problem. That, that pains me, and that makes me so angry.

NIALA: Do you ever despair that things won't change in time?

HARJEET: It has taken a long time and it will take a long time. But I also see that power of people is increasing. And Loss and Damage Fund is one such decision that gives us hope. It's not enough, but it gives us hope that if you are working together and you are united And you are working for the right cause.

And if people are with you, and of course I would also say media, which has supported massively on this cause, we will be able to really change things. And now, much faster. It will not take as long as 30 years, because we don't even have that much time, but we'll be able to do a lot more. I think it's people power that's most important.

NIALA: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me. I appreciate it.

HARJEET: Thank you, my pleasure.

NIALA: You can find more of our coverage of COP28 at Axios.com and more about Harjeet's work in our show notes. We reached out to the World Bank for comment on this episode, and have not heard back – but we will also drop their response into our show notes if we receive one.

One last thing before we go today: I've been here at COP28 with Axios' Andrew Freedman, who's been covering climate--and these UN negotiations--for decades. I asked him for his take on what role climate activists play in these talks.

ANDREW FREEDMAN:  So climate activists really, uh, play, kind of a conscience role. They're, they're the conscience of the UNFCCC process in a way. They team up with different country coalitions to push certain positions so that negotiators take them into the negotiating rooms. And really stick to those actual positions when the going gets tough. They often get quite a bit of media attention for doing actions in the site of where the negotiations are, doing different protests. And really, they are what brings this issue down to Earth because a lot of the negotiators can get caught up in uh technical language. They can get caught up in the battles of the day and the activists are really the voices for the people on the ground who are suffering increasingly uh, from climate change.

That's Axios' Andrew Freedman.

And that's all for this week's edition of 1 Big Thing. You can always send feedback by texting me at 202 918 4893, or emailing podcasts @ axios.com.

The 1 Big Thing team includes Supervising Producer Alexandra Botti and Sound Engineer Jay Cowit. Alex Suigura composed our theme music. Aja Whitaker-Moore is Axios' Executive Editor, and Sara Keuhalani Goo is Axios' Editor in Chief. Thanks to Fonda Mwangi for her help on this week's episode.

I'm Niala Boodhoo. Thanks for listening, stay safe, and we'll be back with you here next Thursday.