September 29, 2025 • 19 mins
We’re edging closer to exceeding 1.5°C of warming globally, and scientists will gather to understand the implications of missing our climate change targets.
The world’s best will descend upon Austria this week for the first-ever Overshoot Conference.
It’s while Winston Peters delivered a “truth bomb” at the UN recently, singling out four countries for being the world’s largest emitters.
So, what happens if we don’t meet our climate targets?
Today on The Front Page, Victoria University climate scientist professor James Renwick is with us to delve into climate overshoot, and why we should care about it.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Editor/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Jane Yee
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kielda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. We're edging
closer to exceeding one point five degrees celsius of warming
globally and scientists will gather to understand the implications of
(00:26):
missing our climate change targets. The world's best will descend
upon Austria this week for the first ever Overshoot conference.
It's while Winston Peters delivered a truth bomb at the
un recently singling out four countries for being the world's
largest emitters. So what happens if we don't meet our
(00:47):
climate targets? Today on the front Page, Victoria University climate
scientist Professor James Renwick is with us to delve into
climate overshoot and why we should care about. First off, James,
can you tell us what climate overshoot actually means?
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (01:11):
So.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
The Paris Agreement, which was drawn up in twenty fifteen,
said that the countries of the world would do what
they have to do to reduce emissions fast enough to
stop at a global warming of well below two degrees
above pre industrial or but a mouthful, and that the
countries of the world would pursue efforts to stop at
(01:33):
one and a half degrees of warming. So the Paris
Agreement ranges between one and a half and two degrees
of warming, and overshoot refers to the idea that the
countries of the world have not done enough and that
warming is going to exceed one and a half degrees
or maybe even two degrees. So the idea there as well, Yes,
(01:54):
all right, that could happen, but provided we can call
things off again fairly quickly, it may not be the
end of the world kind of thing. So it's all
about what is the actual trajectory that the Earth's line
in terms of temperature arise, and what can we do
about cooling things down again. US temperatures do get above
(02:16):
the thresholds and the Paris Agreement. Now you'll be aware
probably that the bottom of the Paris Agreement one point
five degrees.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Has already been breached one year.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Last year was the first year more than one and
a half degrees above free industrial But that's not quite
the end of that story. You really need to say
ten years average of ten years above one and a
half before you could say for sure that yes, we've
broken through that limit, and we're not quite there yet.
We're at about one point three degrees in the ten
(02:48):
year average, but all our things are going we will
be there by the.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
End of this decade.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
So what more can be done?
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Oh well, everything, We're not doing anything. The thing that
needs to happen is we have to stop emitting greenhouse gases,
especially carbon dioxide. And the main way we emit carbon
dioxide is we burn fossil fuels, So burning coal, burning oil,
burning natural gas all release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
(03:19):
And we've been putting more and more and more of
this stuff into the air every year, with one or
two little blips than ever. Half of the total emissions
of greenhouse gases humans have managed to do since you know,
the seventeen hundreds have happened since nineteen ninety, so really,
you know, putting our foot on the gas literally, and
(03:40):
we're changing the climate faster and faster. In the thirty
years the work been talking about fixing this problem, they've
made it twice as bad and we're just accelerating in
the wrong direction. So the world's doing nothing apart from talking.
So it would be great to see a big rollout
of renewal energy and a big reduction in the burning
(04:02):
of coal and oil, especially lots of ebs and solar panels,
all that kind of stuff is really what the world needs.
And it's happening, you know in places China are leading
the world solar panels and win tair of once, but
they're also leading the world and building coal fire past
oceans such. Yeah, a bit of a double edged sword there. So, Yeah,
(04:25):
what we need is just a reduction and emissions across
the globe. And I guess that's been the theme of
or that will be one of the themes of the
Overshirt Conference and certainly has been talked about at the
UN Climate a week in New York.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
When do you think the world is going to get serious?
What a great question, because I mean, you've been in
this game for a long time, James, you're probably sick
of you know, warning, And I mean as soon as
everyone says, oh this is going to happen, that's going
to happen, it happens, but nothing's done about it.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
No, And I really don't have an answer to that question.
When is the world going to get serious? It should
have happened thirty years ago, forty years ago even was possible.
It was already plenty of warning back in the nineteen eighties.
But the status quo has an awful lot of power
behind it. The fossil fuel industry is one of the
(05:24):
most profitable in history. You know, there's a lot of
power and many title and doing things the way we
have done them for the last two hundred years or so.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
So governments are reluctant to really act, and I think,
you know, government's policymakers don't quite believe or they don't
feel it.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
You know, they might know the facts, but they don't
have the you know, the emotional response that you really
need before you take something important on board. So when
is this going to happen. I hope it's in the
next five years, but it's going to take some major
extreme events and some I guess well resourced, rich countries
(06:08):
and you know, maybe a whole lot of death and
destruction before government's really taken on board that, oh gee,
this actually is important. It actually is affecting our economy
and our lifestyles and everything. So, you know, I don't
want to wish extremes and death and destruction on people,
but it doesn't seem as though anything else, any of
(06:28):
the science really tells the story, and so a lot
of people are trying to tell the stories in different
ways through the arts and so on, and maybe that's
making a difference. But the pace of change has been
so slow it's been just impossible even see in the
last few decades that I really wonder when we'll get
(06:51):
onto it. I suppose the good news, you could say,
is that humans have all the power. You know, we
are the one species doing this. We're releasing all the
in housecases into the atmosphere. Whenever we stop doing that,
we will stop climate change within a year or two.
This is now well known, so we'll always have all
the power. But it's really it really comes down to
(07:14):
when do we use how bad do we let things
get in the meantime, And that's the trade off. I
suppose that policy makers around the world think about if
they think about it at all, you know what about
short term profit versus long term sustainability. That doesn't take
much thinking about from my perspective. But if you're trying
to turn a buck this year, I suppose it does
(07:37):
take a bit of thinking about. And this year's buck
just always seems to win.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
So yeah, So China recently pledged for the first time
to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions to seven to ten
percent below peak levels by twenty thirty five. This includes
expanding wind and solar capacity, increasing non fossil fuel energy share,
and ramping up electric vehicle sales, but it still falls
(08:05):
short of the thirty percent of cuts that some observers
say are needed for that one point five degrees. What
does China's new pledge mean for global climate negotiations.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Well, it is a step forward. It's great to see
that China is actually pledging to actually reduce emissions, not
just the intensity of emissions or the things they've come
up with before. So yes, that's a step forward. That's great,
But as you've just said, it's it's a bit weak,
it's a bit slow. You know that there was a
report from the Untergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that came
(08:40):
out nearly ten years ago now twenty eighteen, on what
do we need to do to stop at one and
a half degrees of women And that document said fifty
percent reductions in emissions by twenty thirty and China's talking
about maybe ten percent by twenty thirty five. So it's
it's going in the right direction, but it's way slow.
(09:01):
China is the biggest committer globally, so if they did that,
it would still be a win. But we need every
other bigger money and smaller amount of for that matter,
to do the same. And like I said before this,
there's not really any country that's really managing to do that.
The UK, yes, this one I can think of, has
(09:21):
reduced its submissions significantly. Well that's you could argue that's
by exporting those emissions. You know, all the manufacturing that
used to happen in Britain probably nowhattans in China and
other Asian countries. So the global effect has been well
pretty murdered, to put it mildly.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters recently made headlines at the
UN by stating that the world's four biggest emitters that's China, India,
Russia and the US bear the brunt of responsibility, comprising
about sixty percent of global emissions. He urged leaders to
quote face the elephant in the room and describe the
(09:59):
situ as a battle we can't possibly win. It's been
described as a truth bomb. How has that been received?
And first of I mean what was your first reaction
to seeing that, because it is a bit of a
different change in tax for Winston Peters.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Yes, indeed, and you could well or a truth bomb.
And he's quite right in the sense that those four
countries are the biggest emitters in the world, and we
won't have solved the problem until those nations really get
on board and reduce their emissions substantially. But you know,
those countries account for sixty percent of global emissions, which
(10:40):
means that if you put all the other countries together
Supfairs in New Zealand, you get the other forty percent,
and there's nothing to stop the other countries of the
world doing what they need to do. And if we
could produce global emissions by forty percent while all of
those countries get into zero, fabulous. You know, that would
be a great step forward, and maybe you would shame
(11:01):
the bigger metis into doing the same thing totally hope. Yeah,
I mean, I'm sort of sympathetic to what he's saying,
and he's quite right, but he's also kind of trying
to sidestep any responsibility in this country and in other
countries that only emit one percent of global emissions or less,
and every country has to play their part. We've got
(11:23):
to get the zero global emissions of carbon dioxide and
that means zero country is still emitting CO two. So yep, okay,
And I'd love to see the big countries respond to
that appropriately, But it doesn't absolve us. And his comment
that it's a battle we can't win us absolutely wrong.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
And like I said, we have all the power.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
We are the ones emitting these greenhouse gases. We can
stop whenever we like I wish it was saying that,
so we can absolutely win. We being the global community.
So that's not anyone country, even just China got zero missions.
That wouldn't fix it. It will be a stick love
step forward. But all countries have to act and all
(12:09):
countries can contribute to winning. We will definitely win if
we do this.
Speaker 5 (12:19):
Another unofficial stated in nineteen eighty nine that within a decade,
entire nations could be wiped off the map by global
warming not happening. You know, it used to be global cooling.
If you look back years ago, in the nineteen twenties
and the nineteen thirties, they said global cooling will kill
the world. We have to do something. Then they said
(12:42):
global warming will kill the world. But then it started
getting cooler, so now they could just call it a
climate change because that way they can't miss climate change,
because if it goes higher or lower, whatever the hell happens,
is climate change. It's the greatest job ever perpetrated on
the world in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Well, speaking of the Big Four, it's all while Donald
Trump told the UN that climate change was and I quote,
the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, what
does the rest of the world and New Zealand I
suppose do when the US president doesn't play ball?
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Oh boy, it's a good question.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
And you know, Donald Trump's a bit of a special
cases and he says all sorts of crazy things, and
this is as crazy as anything else I've heard him
say recently. Of course, it's not a conjob. You know,
there's so much of so many mountains of scientific evenents
and understanding. You know, we've got the observations, we have
(13:53):
the understanding of the physics and all the rest of it.
We have the models. What's happening. There's no rome for uncertainty,
and it was not it's definitely not a con job.
But when the president of the US is something like that.
It does, of course, it kind of gives license to
(14:14):
people in other countries that are maybe uncertain about what
they should do, to say, oh, well, okay, the US
is treating it.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
Like a joke, why don't we do the same. So
it's not good for the global conversation, of course.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
But I really wonder these days how much Donald Trump,
you know, how much weight he carries in terms of
these international conversations. He's sort of said so many strange
things and passed off the countries that I wonder whether
the US is just being a bit sidelines and you know,
(14:47):
the world can carry on and do what it has
to do without the US joining in, and of course
that will hurt the US economy, and Trump won't be
the president forever, so the US can get on board
at some stage. In the meantime, a a number of
you as states are doing what they need to do anyway,
reducing missions. It's not as though the federal government controls
(15:07):
what all of the states do.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
So it's a bit of a mixed big It's not
good globally to.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Have one of the world's most prominent political leaders saying
these things, But you know, I think most people take
Donald Trump's statements with the big grown or starved.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Actually, well, you've been a climate scientist for decades now,
I hope you don't mind me giving away your age.
What kind of conversation has the conversation shifted from when
you began looking into climate change to now.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Yes, those conversations have shifted, but they started happening at
the very least. You know, you do hear a lot
more conversation around action on climate change. And you know,
in this country, the policy landscapes quite different. Here's the
Climate Change Commission, we have the Zero carbonac the government
and principle at least has focused on taking action on
(16:04):
climate change. So that's that is quite a change over
the decades that I've been looking at all this. But
I think, well, it's a strange. It's maybe not unexpected
really when you think about it. But back in the day,
back last century, the end of last century, there was
a fair bit of hope around I guess, and the
(16:26):
idea that we have time and we can take action
and you know, we'll get on top of this problem.
So I had some faith that governments countries around the
world would actually step up and really start to reduce
their emissions over the time I've been working on the problem.
As time's gone on, that hasn't happened. And like I said,
(16:47):
actually the missions have continued to go up. It's become
sort of more and more desperate, I guess, And in
the science community there's a lot more desperation and worry, anxiety,
anger even about the lack of action, because the problem
has become clearer and obviously more dangerous, but the action
still isn't there. So everything's become a bit more fractureous.
(17:11):
And I suppose this is what I'm saying. Maybe it's
not too surprising. As the climate changes, that puts stresses
on natural systems, that puts stresses on food security, water security,
even where people can live. You know, sea level rises
are already affecting that. So things are becoming gradually harder. Life's
(17:33):
becoming a bit harder. And when that happens, people generally
turn onwards, you know, circle wagons and look after their
own and nationalism and you know, countries looking after themselves
rather than cooperating, which is really what we need, has
become the prevalent story. And I think countries want to
protect their own economies. They don't want to be spending
(17:54):
money on what they might see is some possible problem
in fifty year's time or something like that. Of course,
that is absolutely not what it is. It's happening right now.
So it's maybe to be expected that things have gone
the way that Donald Trump describes. And that's not something
(18:16):
I anticipated back in the nineteen nineties. I genuinely thought
countries would see what needed to be done and do it.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
But you know, that's that's a very naive thought.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
And it reminds me of a statement that Al Gore
made in his movie An Inconvenient Truth that twenty years ago,
and he said, you know, he studied the climate system
and what was going on with greenhouse gases and all
the rest of it, and he went to Congress in
the nineteen eighties and he said, oh, I just need
to tell Congress what's happening and they'll get onto it.
(18:48):
And you know, that was forty years ago, and he
did tell Congress and they listened and then went back
to worrying about the economy. So it's yeah, human nature
is the big problem, you know, and when how much
it will take to break through that kind of thinking.
I dorn't no worries, mate, how much it'll take. It'll
it will cost a lot of money, and I suspect
(19:10):
a lot of lives before we see reelection.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Thanks for joining us, James, sure thing. That's it for
this episode of the Front Page. You can read more
about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzadherld dot
co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Jane
Ye and Richard Martin, who is also our editor. I'm
(19:37):
Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or
wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for
another look behind the headlines.
Kielda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. We're edging
closer to exceeding one point five degrees celsius of warming
globally and scientists will gather to understand the implications of
(00:26):
missing our climate change targets. The world's best will descend
upon Austria this week for the first ever Overshoot conference.
It's while Winston Peters delivered a truth bomb at the
un recently singling out four countries for being the world's
largest emitters. So what happens if we don't meet our
(00:47):
climate targets? Today on the front Page, Victoria University climate
scientist Professor James Renwick is with us to delve into
climate overshoot and why we should care about. First off, James,
can you tell us what climate overshoot actually means?
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Sure?
Speaker 3 (01:11):
So.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
The Paris Agreement, which was drawn up in twenty fifteen,
said that the countries of the world would do what
they have to do to reduce emissions fast enough to
stop at a global warming of well below two degrees
above pre industrial or but a mouthful, and that the
countries of the world would pursue efforts to stop at
(01:33):
one and a half degrees of warming. So the Paris
Agreement ranges between one and a half and two degrees
of warming, and overshoot refers to the idea that the
countries of the world have not done enough and that
warming is going to exceed one and a half degrees
or maybe even two degrees. So the idea there as well, Yes,
(01:54):
all right, that could happen, but provided we can call
things off again fairly quickly, it may not be the
end of the world kind of thing. So it's all
about what is the actual trajectory that the Earth's line
in terms of temperature arise, and what can we do
about cooling things down again. US temperatures do get above
(02:16):
the thresholds and the Paris Agreement. Now you'll be aware
probably that the bottom of the Paris Agreement one point
five degrees.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
Has already been breached one year.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Last year was the first year more than one and
a half degrees above free industrial But that's not quite
the end of that story. You really need to say
ten years average of ten years above one and a
half before you could say for sure that yes, we've
broken through that limit, and we're not quite there yet.
We're at about one point three degrees in the ten
(02:48):
year average, but all our things are going we will
be there by the.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
End of this decade.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
So what more can be done?
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Oh well, everything, We're not doing anything. The thing that
needs to happen is we have to stop emitting greenhouse gases,
especially carbon dioxide. And the main way we emit carbon
dioxide is we burn fossil fuels, So burning coal, burning oil,
burning natural gas all release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
(03:19):
And we've been putting more and more and more of
this stuff into the air every year, with one or
two little blips than ever. Half of the total emissions
of greenhouse gases humans have managed to do since you know,
the seventeen hundreds have happened since nineteen ninety, so really,
you know, putting our foot on the gas literally, and
(03:40):
we're changing the climate faster and faster. In the thirty
years the work been talking about fixing this problem, they've
made it twice as bad and we're just accelerating in
the wrong direction. So the world's doing nothing apart from talking.
So it would be great to see a big rollout
of renewal energy and a big reduction in the burning
(04:02):
of coal and oil, especially lots of ebs and solar panels,
all that kind of stuff is really what the world needs.
And it's happening, you know in places China are leading
the world solar panels and win tair of once, but
they're also leading the world and building coal fire past
oceans such. Yeah, a bit of a double edged sword there. So, Yeah,
(04:25):
what we need is just a reduction and emissions across
the globe. And I guess that's been the theme of
or that will be one of the themes of the
Overshirt Conference and certainly has been talked about at the
UN Climate a week in New York.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
When do you think the world is going to get serious?
What a great question, because I mean, you've been in
this game for a long time, James, you're probably sick
of you know, warning, And I mean as soon as
everyone says, oh this is going to happen, that's going
to happen, it happens, but nothing's done about it.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
No, And I really don't have an answer to that question.
When is the world going to get serious? It should
have happened thirty years ago, forty years ago even was possible.
It was already plenty of warning back in the nineteen eighties.
But the status quo has an awful lot of power
behind it. The fossil fuel industry is one of the
(05:24):
most profitable in history. You know, there's a lot of
power and many title and doing things the way we
have done them for the last two hundred years or so.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
So governments are reluctant to really act, and I think,
you know, government's policymakers don't quite believe or they don't
feel it.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
You know, they might know the facts, but they don't
have the you know, the emotional response that you really
need before you take something important on board. So when
is this going to happen. I hope it's in the
next five years, but it's going to take some major
extreme events and some I guess well resourced, rich countries
(06:08):
and you know, maybe a whole lot of death and
destruction before government's really taken on board that, oh gee,
this actually is important. It actually is affecting our economy
and our lifestyles and everything. So, you know, I don't
want to wish extremes and death and destruction on people,
but it doesn't seem as though anything else, any of
(06:28):
the science really tells the story, and so a lot
of people are trying to tell the stories in different
ways through the arts and so on, and maybe that's
making a difference. But the pace of change has been
so slow it's been just impossible even see in the
last few decades that I really wonder when we'll get
(06:51):
onto it. I suppose the good news, you could say,
is that humans have all the power. You know, we
are the one species doing this. We're releasing all the
in housecases into the atmosphere. Whenever we stop doing that,
we will stop climate change within a year or two.
This is now well known, so we'll always have all
the power. But it's really it really comes down to
(07:14):
when do we use how bad do we let things
get in the meantime, And that's the trade off. I
suppose that policy makers around the world think about if
they think about it at all, you know what about
short term profit versus long term sustainability. That doesn't take
much thinking about from my perspective. But if you're trying
to turn a buck this year, I suppose it does
(07:37):
take a bit of thinking about. And this year's buck
just always seems to win.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
So yeah, So China recently pledged for the first time
to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions to seven to ten
percent below peak levels by twenty thirty five. This includes
expanding wind and solar capacity, increasing non fossil fuel energy share,
and ramping up electric vehicle sales, but it still falls
(08:05):
short of the thirty percent of cuts that some observers
say are needed for that one point five degrees. What
does China's new pledge mean for global climate negotiations.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Well, it is a step forward. It's great to see
that China is actually pledging to actually reduce emissions, not
just the intensity of emissions or the things they've come
up with before. So yes, that's a step forward. That's great,
But as you've just said, it's it's a bit weak,
it's a bit slow. You know that there was a
report from the Untergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that came
(08:40):
out nearly ten years ago now twenty eighteen, on what
do we need to do to stop at one and
a half degrees of women And that document said fifty
percent reductions in emissions by twenty thirty and China's talking
about maybe ten percent by twenty thirty five. So it's
it's going in the right direction, but it's way slow.
(09:01):
China is the biggest committer globally, so if they did that,
it would still be a win. But we need every
other bigger money and smaller amount of for that matter,
to do the same. And like I said before this,
there's not really any country that's really managing to do that.
The UK, yes, this one I can think of, has
(09:21):
reduced its submissions significantly. Well that's you could argue that's
by exporting those emissions. You know, all the manufacturing that
used to happen in Britain probably nowhattans in China and
other Asian countries. So the global effect has been well
pretty murdered, to put it mildly.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters recently made headlines at the
UN by stating that the world's four biggest emitters that's China, India,
Russia and the US bear the brunt of responsibility, comprising
about sixty percent of global emissions. He urged leaders to
quote face the elephant in the room and describe the
(09:59):
situ as a battle we can't possibly win. It's been
described as a truth bomb. How has that been received?
And first of I mean what was your first reaction
to seeing that, because it is a bit of a
different change in tax for Winston Peters.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Yes, indeed, and you could well or a truth bomb.
And he's quite right in the sense that those four
countries are the biggest emitters in the world, and we
won't have solved the problem until those nations really get
on board and reduce their emissions substantially. But you know,
those countries account for sixty percent of global emissions, which
(10:40):
means that if you put all the other countries together
Supfairs in New Zealand, you get the other forty percent,
and there's nothing to stop the other countries of the
world doing what they need to do. And if we
could produce global emissions by forty percent while all of
those countries get into zero, fabulous. You know, that would
be a great step forward, and maybe you would shame
(11:01):
the bigger metis into doing the same thing totally hope. Yeah,
I mean, I'm sort of sympathetic to what he's saying,
and he's quite right, but he's also kind of trying
to sidestep any responsibility in this country and in other
countries that only emit one percent of global emissions or less,
and every country has to play their part. We've got
(11:23):
to get the zero global emissions of carbon dioxide and
that means zero country is still emitting CO two. So yep, okay,
And I'd love to see the big countries respond to
that appropriately, But it doesn't absolve us. And his comment
that it's a battle we can't win us absolutely wrong.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
And like I said, we have all the power.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
We are the ones emitting these greenhouse gases. We can
stop whenever we like I wish it was saying that,
so we can absolutely win. We being the global community.
So that's not anyone country, even just China got zero missions.
That wouldn't fix it. It will be a stick love
step forward. But all countries have to act and all
(12:09):
countries can contribute to winning. We will definitely win if
we do this.
Speaker 5 (12:19):
Another unofficial stated in nineteen eighty nine that within a decade,
entire nations could be wiped off the map by global
warming not happening. You know, it used to be global cooling.
If you look back years ago, in the nineteen twenties
and the nineteen thirties, they said global cooling will kill
the world. We have to do something. Then they said
(12:42):
global warming will kill the world. But then it started
getting cooler, so now they could just call it a
climate change because that way they can't miss climate change,
because if it goes higher or lower, whatever the hell happens,
is climate change. It's the greatest job ever perpetrated on
the world in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
Well, speaking of the Big Four, it's all while Donald
Trump told the UN that climate change was and I quote,
the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, what
does the rest of the world and New Zealand I
suppose do when the US president doesn't play ball?
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Oh boy, it's a good question.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
And you know, Donald Trump's a bit of a special
cases and he says all sorts of crazy things, and
this is as crazy as anything else I've heard him
say recently. Of course, it's not a conjob. You know,
there's so much of so many mountains of scientific evenents
and understanding. You know, we've got the observations, we have
(13:53):
the understanding of the physics and all the rest of it.
We have the models. What's happening. There's no rome for uncertainty,
and it was not it's definitely not a con job.
But when the president of the US is something like that.
It does, of course, it kind of gives license to
(14:14):
people in other countries that are maybe uncertain about what
they should do, to say, oh, well, okay, the US
is treating it.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
Like a joke, why don't we do the same. So
it's not good for the global conversation, of course.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
But I really wonder these days how much Donald Trump,
you know, how much weight he carries in terms of
these international conversations. He's sort of said so many strange
things and passed off the countries that I wonder whether
the US is just being a bit sidelines and you know,
(14:47):
the world can carry on and do what it has
to do without the US joining in, and of course
that will hurt the US economy, and Trump won't be
the president forever, so the US can get on board
at some stage. In the meantime, a a number of
you as states are doing what they need to do anyway,
reducing missions. It's not as though the federal government controls
(15:07):
what all of the states do.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
So it's a bit of a mixed big It's not
good globally to.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Have one of the world's most prominent political leaders saying
these things, But you know, I think most people take
Donald Trump's statements with the big grown or starved.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Actually, well, you've been a climate scientist for decades now,
I hope you don't mind me giving away your age.
What kind of conversation has the conversation shifted from when
you began looking into climate change to now.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Yes, those conversations have shifted, but they started happening at
the very least. You know, you do hear a lot
more conversation around action on climate change. And you know,
in this country, the policy landscapes quite different. Here's the
Climate Change Commission, we have the Zero carbonac the government
and principle at least has focused on taking action on
(16:04):
climate change. So that's that is quite a change over
the decades that I've been looking at all this. But
I think, well, it's a strange. It's maybe not unexpected
really when you think about it. But back in the day,
back last century, the end of last century, there was
a fair bit of hope around I guess, and the
(16:26):
idea that we have time and we can take action
and you know, we'll get on top of this problem.
So I had some faith that governments countries around the
world would actually step up and really start to reduce
their emissions over the time I've been working on the problem.
As time's gone on, that hasn't happened. And like I said,
(16:47):
actually the missions have continued to go up. It's become
sort of more and more desperate, I guess, And in
the science community there's a lot more desperation and worry, anxiety,
anger even about the lack of action, because the problem
has become clearer and obviously more dangerous, but the action
still isn't there. So everything's become a bit more fractureous.
(17:11):
And I suppose this is what I'm saying. Maybe it's
not too surprising. As the climate changes, that puts stresses
on natural systems, that puts stresses on food security, water security,
even where people can live. You know, sea level rises
are already affecting that. So things are becoming gradually harder. Life's
(17:33):
becoming a bit harder. And when that happens, people generally
turn onwards, you know, circle wagons and look after their
own and nationalism and you know, countries looking after themselves
rather than cooperating, which is really what we need, has
become the prevalent story. And I think countries want to
protect their own economies. They don't want to be spending
(17:54):
money on what they might see is some possible problem
in fifty year's time or something like that. Of course,
that is absolutely not what it is. It's happening right now.
So it's maybe to be expected that things have gone
the way that Donald Trump describes. And that's not something
(18:16):
I anticipated back in the nineteen nineties. I genuinely thought
countries would see what needed to be done and do it.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
But you know, that's that's a very naive thought.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
And it reminds me of a statement that Al Gore
made in his movie An Inconvenient Truth that twenty years ago,
and he said, you know, he studied the climate system
and what was going on with greenhouse gases and all
the rest of it, and he went to Congress in
the nineteen eighties and he said, oh, I just need
to tell Congress what's happening and they'll get onto it.
(18:48):
And you know, that was forty years ago, and he
did tell Congress and they listened and then went back
to worrying about the economy. So it's yeah, human nature
is the big problem, you know, and when how much
it will take to break through that kind of thinking.
I dorn't no worries, mate, how much it'll take. It'll
it will cost a lot of money, and I suspect
(19:10):
a lot of lives before we see reelection.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Thanks for joining us, James, sure thing. That's it for
this episode of the Front Page. You can read more
about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzadherld dot
co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Jane
Ye and Richard Martin, who is also our editor. I'm
(19:37):
Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or
wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for
another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.