November 4, 2025 • 30 mins
The Paris Agreement was a huge deal when it was signed in 2015 at COP21. But after 10 years and $10 trillion dollars invested into decarbonizing our economies, what has it accomplished?
As we approach COP30 in Belem, Bloomberg Green’s Laura Millan and Akshat Rathi look back at a decade of the Paris Agreement, and speak to Christiana Figueres and Laurence Tubiana, two of the architects of the deal.
Explore more:
- Read Bloomberg Green's Big Take on 10 years since Paris.
- Read all of Bloomberg Green’s reporting from COP30
Zero is a production of Bloomberg Green. Our producer is Oscar Boyd. Special thanks to Eleanor Harrison Dengate, Siobhan Wagner, Sommer Saadi and Mohsis Andam. Thoughts or suggestions? Email us at zeropod@bloomberg.net. For more coverage of climate change and solutions, visit https://www.bloomberg.com/green.
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 (00:00):
Welcome to zero. I am Akshatrati this week ten years
from Paris. Given the climate vibe, you might not have clocked,
but it has been ten years since the Paris Agreement
(00:22):
was signed at COP twenty one in twenty fifteen. It
was a huge deal at the time, and as we
embark on COP thirty at Brazil, I wanted to take
a look at what impact the Paris Agreement has had
on the world, and to do that, I'm joined by
my colleague Laura Milan, who has written an extensive article
with our colleagues in Bloombergreen looking at the impacts of Paris. Laura, welcome,
(00:45):
Thank you. What was it like when the Paris Agreement
was signed.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Well, one of the things I've done several times as
a climate journalist has been to go back at the
video on YouTube of the exact moment when the Prize
agreement was signed, and you can see and hear the
(01:14):
screams of doy and you know, people getting up and
the smiles. And I think that these videos capture how
it was an extraordinary moment and the people leaving it
were aware of it. It also shows that probably the
people that were at the forefront of the negotiations didn't
(01:34):
quite believe that that would happen up until the very
last minute. So I think that explosion of happiness that
the video show kind of capture that, the fact that
it was an extraordinary moment and it could have well
not have happened. It required so much energy and negotiation
power to put that together.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
But even when it was signed that all these skeptics
talking about look twenty years to get an agreement where
all countries said, yes, climate change is real and we'll
do something about it, and they put some temperature targets.
But it was all voluntary. All countries were supposed to
come up with their own climate plans. And when has
that ever worked on a global forum? Right?
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Right, And that's the beauty of the agreement and what
people that are in favor of it and that defend
its legacy, that's what they will say, right. No one
knew that it would work at the time. No one
knew that voluntary commitments would push countries to be even
more ambitious than their neighbors, their allies. It was just
(02:41):
all a hope, and in a way, that's how multilateralism
in the post World War era has worked. So it
had that kind of spirit. No one knew it would work.
And in a way, and we will talk about more now,
of course, but in a way it did work. So
countries did put forward ambitious to targets, and some of
(03:01):
them weren't ambitious enough at the beginning, and then they
became more ambitious as they saw that other again, allies
or other countries were being more ambitious.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
So some of the theory that was hoped for did
come to fruition. But there were also hard, clear targets.
There was a temperature target, which was either two degrees
celsius a warming or ideally below one point five degrees
celsias compared to pre industrial times. If we measure it
based on the temperature goal, how have we done?
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Not good not good enough, I should say. So the
world is currently warming at having for a warming of
just under three degrees celsius by the end of the
century compared to pre industrial times, so that's below what
it was heading two when the price Agreement was signed,
which was around four degrees. So we have averted the
(03:56):
worst case scenario. But we're also not on track to
reach the goal of Paris, which was one point five
slash too close to one point five was the worthing.
So that degree tells use of warming. That separates the
four degrees we were heading four in twenty fifteen and
the three degrees slightly less that we are heading for now.
(04:19):
That was possible, that reduction in the temperature increase was
possible thanks to at least ten trillion dollars in investment
into the clean energy transition. That's something that Bloomberg and
YF has calculated adding up all the global investments that
we've seen over the past decade. And this money, while
(04:41):
it is a huge figure, is still not enough. Hasn't
been enough. Ten trillion dollars invested over the past decade
haven't been enough to slow climate change enough to meet
the price target. But again, one of the main victories
of Paris was putting a number to it, something measurable
that could be looked at in ten years as we're
(05:02):
doing now and say, okay, how did we do over
the past decade.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
So you get Paris agreement with this big temperature target.
And really it's a very short, readable PDF written in
plain English that was then translated into concrete targets that
could be followed, not just a temperature target. But targets
for all sorts of sectors of the economy that needed
(05:27):
to change if we are to meet that temperature target.
So let's do a review of some of those targets
that was set either by Paris directly or by the
COP Forum where the Paris Agreement came to being. But
the following COP events that have happened since. One of
them is tripling renewable energy by twenty thirty. How are we.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Doing We're almost there, not quite yet, but it is
possible to get there. We will talk about other targets
we're technically. Technologically maybe it's harder, but in the case
of tripling renewable power, it can be done. There's just
a difference between how much it's invested now and how
much it needs to be invested. But if enough is invested,
that target could be reached.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
So that is probably the best news in our list
of things that is going to come. The other one
that was also agreed in the same COP was to
transition away from fossil fuels. How are we doing there.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
We are not doing well, because that is really complicated.
While adding renewable power to any greed is relatively easy
from a technical perspective, and from a political perspective, taking
away fossil fuels from the grid is the hard part.
So phasing down coal, which the UK did recently and
other countries are on their way to do, takes a
(06:45):
long time, costs money, and it's even more complicated when
we're talking about oil or gas.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
Talking of gas, we should talk about methane, which was
never mentioned in the Paris Agreement, just like fossil fuels
whenever mentioned in the Paris Agreement. But we know that
carbon dioxide is only two thirds of the warming that
is the problem. Other gases, other greenhouse gases, also contribute
and methane is the second biggest contributor. And we now
(07:11):
have a goal to reduce methane emissions. How are we
doing so?
Speaker 2 (07:16):
We now have a way of measuring methane leaks from
space using satellites. Companies are aware that they have leaks
and they have committed to reduce them. But from there
to actually doing that and reducing them, that's the hard part.
So more are being reduced every year, they're being plugged,
they're being brought under control. It's actually something that brings efficiency,
(07:39):
economic benefits to companies and climate at the same time,
so it makes economic sense for companies to do it,
but to plug all of them, that's the hard part.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Another goal that governments agreed on was to try and
phase out the sale of fossil fuel cars. Some countries,
like the European Union, wants to do it as soon
as twenty thirty five, Developing countries later maybe twenty forty,
maybe twenty forty five.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
How are we doing This is a very interesting one
and one which I like very much because it's a
complex one. Some countries are doing way better than expected.
So for example, China has set a goal for the
sale of electric vehicles but has way surpassed it, practically
doubling it, whereas other countries that even developing nations are
(08:23):
going much much slower and will not meet that goal
in time. So it's a mixed bag. But there are
some cases that are surprising where electric vehicles are taking off.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
And another aspect of climate that very rarely gets discussed
is land what's happening on agriculture? What's happening on deforestation?
At COP twenty six in Glasgow, there was a goal
that countries wanted to end deforestation by twenty thirty. How
are we doing.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
We're actually going in reverse, so not progressing, but going
in the other direction. And why this is bad is
because we rely on natural ecosystems that go from the
oceans to forests and rainforests especially to absorb the greater
of the carbon that we meet. If trees are being
(09:13):
cut and forest disappears, then the Earth has less of
an ability to absorb that carbon, which means the planet
keeps getting warmer and warmer. So in terms of deforestation, again,
it's going in reverse. It's increased over the past few years.
And this COP is being held in Brazil, home to
(09:34):
the Amazon rainforest that is being wrecked by agriculture and
other human activities including wildfires and so on. So it's
going to be one of the main themes at this
COP that will hopefully highlight that this goal is not
going well at all.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
It's also worth noting that cloud scientists had estimates about
how quickly warming will happen, and that estimate had a range,
and we are at the worst end of that range
because warming is happening faster than many climate scientists average
expectations were supposed to be. It might be to do
with us not being able to absorb as much greenhouse
(10:12):
gases in the oceans and the forest, or it might
be to do with something like clouds, which we still
don't understand very well. But it's a worrying sign. For
the Paris Agreement. There is a finance goal that I
want to ask you about. You said, ten trillion dollars
was invested in clean energy technologies, which help shave off
maybe one degree celsius of worst case warming. But Paris
(10:34):
Agreement also says that all financial flows should align with
the climate goal, and specifically, developing countries said they need
climate finance. There was a goal to reach one hundred
billion dollars of rich countries giving money to poor countries.
How did that go?
Speaker 2 (10:51):
That one? Actually not too bad by some measures, or
even well, that goal of one hundred billion in climate
finance was achieved a couple of years later than it
should have. But the thing is that when you look
at how much developing nations need, and let's remember that
developing nations are the least responsible for climate change because
(11:15):
they emitted less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So that's
like the whole reasoning behind why developed countries should pay more.
When you look at what they need. It's just a
drop in the ocean. So the new goal that has
been set is three hundred billion in climate finance by
twenty thirty five. That's three times the previous goal, which
was already hard to achieve, and it's going to be
(11:36):
even harder to achieve it in the current geopolitical context.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
There are a whole lot of sectors that we didn't
touch upon because either there's been very little progress or
there's been no target setting. So on agriculture, for example,
a very touchy topic regardless of whether you're rich or poor.
We are not making good progress on plastics, which you
know are not directly a climate problem, they are indirectly
(12:00):
a climate problem because we use a lot of fossil
fuels to make plastics. We were supposed to have a
treaty that fell apart. So not doing really well. Nuclear,
which is one solution that currently the only solution that
the US government kind of wants to back for decobnizing technologies.
It's a very recent goal, but it's not clear whether
(12:21):
tripling of nuclear power by twenty fifty will actually happen.
Then there are sectors which are not in the Powers Agreement,
shipping in aviation, which without bringing under the Paris target,
we will not be able to stop temperaturize because if
shipping and aviation continued to put out grey in US
gas emissions, meeting all the climate targets that countries want
(12:42):
to meet will not be enough. And finally, sustainable fuels,
which could be a solution for shipping or aviation. We
don't really have much production capacity, so there's a whole
lot of things that still need to be done. So
we have these layers and layers of measures, technologies, targets,
temperature goals. But I want to spend a little time
(13:03):
just you know, reporter to reporter, we work on covering
climate change around the world. But you had to put
your hand on your heart and see whether you think
the Powers agreement so far has succeeded or not. What
would you say?
Speaker 2 (13:18):
I mean, from my point of view, I think the
answer is clear. You look at the numbers and it
hasn't succeeded. We're still headed to close to three degrees
cells used by the end of the century. Where it
has succeeded, and I think that has to be recognized
and I guess celebrated is in building the momentum that
the world needed to really get started on climate action.
(13:41):
It got things moving in a way that is impossible
to turn back. Even if we're now in a world
that politically is very different from where it was ten
years ago or even five years ago. There's a reality,
and it is that the climate movement is not stopping.
It's not stopping in the economy, it's not stopping in politics.
(14:03):
So in that way it was successful. It just wasn't
successful enough to stop or not to stop, but to
slow down climate change. And then in the other sense
that it was also successful is in showing that multilateralism
works and that countries together can make change. Even though
(14:25):
the US left the price Agreement the accord twice or
one and a half, you would say, as it hasn't
officially left it for the second time, but I personally
think it still shows that getting together talking about things
is something that works and is better than just everyone
doing things on their own.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
And what do you think, well, I also have mixed
feelings about it. On the one hand, the numbers make
it clear that success hasn't happened, and the perspective of
island nations, which were crucial in getting the one point
five degree celsius target in Paris. It is clearly not succeeded.
(15:07):
But I also worry that while the numbers were necessary,
you needed a target. You needed a target to be
translated into national climate plans, into corporate plans, into net
zero by twenty fifty. It comes with a tyranny of
numbers because the fact that we have shaved off one
degree celsius of warming doesn't feel as big an achievement
(15:30):
when we are failing to reach one point five degrees celsius.
When we look at corporations setting these net zero targets
and then failing to reach them, we can see that's
a failure, but not a success. That corporations that have
no regulations in most parts of the world to actually
do anything about climate change even set a target that
(15:53):
to me is a failure versus success. That is really
hard for people to grapple to a ze that a
global forum that has existed for now nearly thirty years
continues to produce really on a year to year basis
not much progress is a failure, but it takes away
(16:13):
from the fact that still two hundred countries meet every
year to make sure that they talk about a global
problem that cannot be solved any other way, but done
globally and shamed the one rogue actor in the US
is a huge success. So to me, the paras agreement
is a necessary step that the world had to take.
(16:37):
Was it sufficient? Of course not. But things don't stop here.
What do you think the next ten years look like.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
I think the last ten years, like you were saying,
have shown that COP worked in some ways and the
then in some others. I think the next ten years
will likely that trend is likely to continue. Cops half
their things, that the works so well, and I think
what will be important over the next ten years are
(17:04):
not so much the decisions adopted at COP. You know
that very confluted language that negotiators discuss for days and nights.
But what happens in the private sector, because the progress
that needs to happen now is concrete progress, and thanks
to the price agreement, we know where that progress needs
to happen. It needs to happen in renewable power, it
(17:26):
needs to happen in electric vehicles, transmission grids, methane, hydrogen, plastics,
whatever you can think. But these are concrete things that
have companies working on them. That touch citizens, and so
I think that the private sector will become increasingly important
over the next ten years to achieve these goals and
slow climate change because it's important, but also hopefully because
(17:51):
it makes economic sense for them to do that.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Well, that's preaching to the choir. I read a book
called climate Capitalism would say is that market forces need
to be crucial to making climate action work. But the
thesis also only works if governments are able to shape
those markets. So this hand in hand between governments and
markets in places where sometimes more government work is needed
(18:15):
in places where more private action is needed, they can vary,
but they do need to work hand in hand. This
is a fun chat, Laura. Thank you for all your
reporting and all the work.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Thank you for having me. It's always.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
After the break we hear from Christiana Figures, architect of
the Paris Agreement, about whether she thinks the agreement has
worked and what the future holds in store for it.
(18:52):
As part of her reporting, my colleague at Bloombergreen, Laura Milan,
spoke with Christiana Figures. She was head of the UN's
climate body Triple See when the Paris Agreement was signed
and was crucial in getting it over the line, Laura
wanted to know from Christiana how the Paris Agreement has
worked since it was signed a decade ago and where
to look for progress in the next decade.
Speaker 2 (19:14):
My first question to you is, you know, cop I
think we can agree managed to mobilize an unprecedented amount
of political capital and build momentum around climate change. What's
happened to all that energy that came together with the
Paris Agreement and that for most of the past ten
(19:34):
years has managed to advance the fight against climate change?
What's happened to all of that? Where are we now?
Speaker 4 (19:42):
Where we are now is in a new period of progress.
And that is the mistake that we make that we
always want to put progress into the clothes that it
has already grown out of. So when we worked towards
the Paris Agreement, it was very clear that what we
needed was for national governments to be in the lead.
(20:06):
I would call that at that point it was necessary
in order to have all governments agreed to a common
decarbonization path for the global economy. It was very necessary
to have the governments in the lead and what I
call be the pull factor. We also additional to that,
(20:27):
although it wasn't necessary. But additional to that, we mobilized
an immense push factor, which was all of all of
the other stakeholders in addition to national governments, those were
subnational governments. It was industry, it was finance, it was
women's groups, it was religious leaders, it was the medical community,
(20:50):
et cetera, the youth, all of them who were in
a push mode to support national governments reaching an agreement
that was as ambitious as possible ten years ago. So
ten years ago we have national governments in being the
pull and all of their stakeholders being the push. Today,
(21:12):
ten years later, we have a complete reversal of that,
which is the way it should be. Today, national governments
are no longer the pull. They have already done their job.
They have agreed to the details under the Paris Agreement
called the Rule Book. They have agreed on how much
(21:34):
it's going to take to protect our humanity and all
the rest of life from increasing greenhouse gases. All of
that has already been agreed at the multilateral level, and
that is what we are used to. We're used to
progress coming from the multilateral level of all of the
(21:56):
nations in concert with each other. We have to open
our eyes to understand that we're in a completely different chapter.
Speaker 5 (22:02):
Now.
Speaker 4 (22:03):
If you go to Berlin and you ask the question,
what is the big agreement going to be, there is
no big agreement. That's the wrong question, because we have
actually moved to a completely new chapter, which is, how
do you now take the decisions that were taken at
the international level, at the multilateral level, how do you
(22:26):
take them to the ground. How do you actually make
emissions reductions, how do you actually increase adaptation, how do
you actually mobilize finance? That is something that is now
in the hands of the other stakeholders, not national governments.
So now we're in a chapter of the other stakeholders
(22:48):
being the pull force and national governments being the push force.
Because it's not that their role has disappeared, it's that
their role has changed. They no longer need do you
agree with everyone there would They no longer have to
agree to a unanimous, legally binding text. What their role
(23:11):
is now very much of a transparency accountability role. So
there much in the push, they're not in the pull.
And that's really important to understand because otherwise we're expecting
the cop to do something that it can't do and
it shouldn't be doing because it already did. So we're
(23:33):
victims of our own success. Let us look for progress elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
So within the priory agreement, one of the rules was
the emissions plans. These NDCs would be updated every five years,
and this year was the year when that was supposed
to happen. And I know that you're saying that, you know,
the focus now should be elsewhere, but that guidance from
the governments from the top is still embedded within the
(24:00):
parties agreement. And what we are seeing right now is
that countries haven't put forward their NDCs. Those that have
done it represent a very small share of the global
economy and of global emissions. So what can the skop
achieve realistically to call it a success.
Speaker 4 (24:19):
You're asking the wrong question, my friend. You see, it's
not about what national governments are doing. So, yes, the
NDCs have to be filed every five years. Yes, national
governments have to put forward what their ambition is and
they will continue to do so does that represent the
(24:41):
actual reality on the ground. Does it represent the progress
in real economy? Does it represent the progress in advance
of technology dramatically?
Speaker 6 (24:50):
No?
Speaker 4 (24:51):
The best example is China. China has put in an
NDC that is inconsequential because of the political geopolitical situation
that they have with the United States right now. That
does not mean that China is not pushing forward. China
has a very very long, well established tradition of underpromising
(25:16):
and over delivering. This year, they have under promised radically.
They have taken that to an art form. But they're
also over delivering. They're doing much more to contribute to
global decarbonization than all other countries put together. So that
is what we have to begin to understand that one
(25:36):
thing is what national governments say because they're looking over
each other's shoulders and they have to play the geopolitical
game and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Fine, what is important for
my boss, who is the atmosphere? She looks down and
she says, I don't really care about geopolitics. I want
(25:56):
to know our emissions being reduced. That is the question
that we should be asking. Are emissions actually being reduced?
Are the technologies being developed to address climate change? Is
the finance flowing? Those are the questions. It's not the
smoke and mirrors of national governments. It just isn't anymore
(26:18):
ten years ago, they were definitely in the lead. Now
they're no longer in the lead.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
My colleague Laura also spoke with Lawrence to Bianna Francis,
Special Ambassador for Climate at COP twenty one in Paris,
and discussed how to deal with a rogue United States
and what reforming the COP process could look like.
Speaker 6 (26:40):
Do you think that the organization efforts the growth the
push is now coming from the private sector that's making
this investment, and does the market trend override the backlash
coming especially from the US.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
I hope so. I hope this back lash would not
dominate the reality. It can delay that fosture. We see
that in Europe that, for example, the automotive sector doesn't
want to be obliged to stop selling IC engine in
twenty thirty five and then may win. So delay, yes,
(27:19):
re orient know that y, so.
Speaker 7 (27:21):
It's inevitable that transition it is and in a whey
for me, it's a satisfaction because when we build the
Paris Agreement elements and the communications around Paris.
Speaker 5 (27:34):
I knew that the essential element was the expectation that
the economic sector will finally share and that if the
idea that the transition is unstoppable and inevitable. Wasn't message.
I wanted the press to go and it happened. So
I see really rewarding that we see this is continuing
(27:56):
even if you have of course high end laws in
the way and civilizen in the press, on the media
and of that. Finally, can we go so far?
Speaker 6 (28:06):
That?
Speaker 5 (28:07):
For many questions, but I think the train has left
the station for many years now.
Speaker 6 (28:13):
There is as far as I know, an externals of
committee or a group of people that have been asked
by the un actrical seats the groups of the process
and propose a reform. I've been told that what do
you think are the most important or the main ways,
and with that process should be reformed.
Speaker 5 (28:33):
We are supporting a citizen Assembly or global citizen assembly
that will be it is the whole process and it
has been doing many regions and it will land in
top thirty. I do think that we should institutionalize that
we need to have processes where we hear disrectly what
citizens want, plan to do, how much they are aware,
(28:57):
how much they are concerned by because I don't think
you know. Finally, you look and you say it's going
very slowly, meaning there is a certain conservatism in the system.
When you do any polls everywhere, people are concerned, but
they are not consultants. So government decides that there is
(29:18):
a backlash. The blash is just because it's instrumentalized. Mostly
it is propaganda these days whennewment energy is bad, the
electric will explode, whatever, and so that they say there
is a backlash, which is comfortable for them if they
don't want to do anything, because you pretend that the
citizen will revolt if we do something. At least in
(29:39):
the democratic one, I think we need absolutely this consultation
of people because now it's normal the problem of one
or two constituencies. It's a society problem. Societal problem. So
I'm very very much in favor of introducing the mechanism
of citizen assemblies in the process.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
Thank you for listening to Zero, and thank you to
both Christiana Figures and Lawrence to Bianna for speaking with us.
If you liked this episode, please take a moment to
rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
This episode was produced by Oscar Boyd with additional help
from Anna Masarakis. Our theme music is composed by Wonderly Special.
Thanks to Samarsadi, Moses Andem, Laura Milan and Sharon Chan
(30:33):
i'm Akshadrati, Baksu
Welcome to zero. I am Akshatrati this week ten years
from Paris. Given the climate vibe, you might not have clocked,
but it has been ten years since the Paris Agreement
(00:22):
was signed at COP twenty one in twenty fifteen. It
was a huge deal at the time, and as we
embark on COP thirty at Brazil, I wanted to take
a look at what impact the Paris Agreement has had
on the world, and to do that, I'm joined by
my colleague Laura Milan, who has written an extensive article
with our colleagues in Bloombergreen looking at the impacts of Paris. Laura, welcome,
(00:45):
Thank you. What was it like when the Paris Agreement
was signed.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Well, one of the things I've done several times as
a climate journalist has been to go back at the
video on YouTube of the exact moment when the Prize
agreement was signed, and you can see and hear the
(01:14):
screams of doy and you know, people getting up and
the smiles. And I think that these videos capture how
it was an extraordinary moment and the people leaving it
were aware of it. It also shows that probably the
people that were at the forefront of the negotiations didn't
(01:34):
quite believe that that would happen up until the very
last minute. So I think that explosion of happiness that
the video show kind of capture that, the fact that
it was an extraordinary moment and it could have well
not have happened. It required so much energy and negotiation
power to put that together.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
But even when it was signed that all these skeptics
talking about look twenty years to get an agreement where
all countries said, yes, climate change is real and we'll
do something about it, and they put some temperature targets.
But it was all voluntary. All countries were supposed to
come up with their own climate plans. And when has
that ever worked on a global forum? Right?
Speaker 2 (02:17):
Right, And that's the beauty of the agreement and what
people that are in favor of it and that defend
its legacy, that's what they will say, right. No one
knew that it would work at the time. No one
knew that voluntary commitments would push countries to be even
more ambitious than their neighbors, their allies. It was just
(02:41):
all a hope, and in a way, that's how multilateralism
in the post World War era has worked. So it
had that kind of spirit. No one knew it would work.
And in a way, and we will talk about more now,
of course, but in a way it did work. So
countries did put forward ambitious to targets, and some of
(03:01):
them weren't ambitious enough at the beginning, and then they
became more ambitious as they saw that other again, allies
or other countries were being more ambitious.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
So some of the theory that was hoped for did
come to fruition. But there were also hard, clear targets.
There was a temperature target, which was either two degrees
celsius a warming or ideally below one point five degrees
celsias compared to pre industrial times. If we measure it
based on the temperature goal, how have we done?
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Not good not good enough, I should say. So the
world is currently warming at having for a warming of
just under three degrees celsius by the end of the
century compared to pre industrial times, so that's below what
it was heading two when the price Agreement was signed,
which was around four degrees. So we have averted the
(03:56):
worst case scenario. But we're also not on track to
reach the goal of Paris, which was one point five
slash too close to one point five was the worthing.
So that degree tells use of warming. That separates the
four degrees we were heading four in twenty fifteen and
the three degrees slightly less that we are heading for now.
(04:19):
That was possible, that reduction in the temperature increase was
possible thanks to at least ten trillion dollars in investment
into the clean energy transition. That's something that Bloomberg and
YF has calculated adding up all the global investments that
we've seen over the past decade. And this money, while
(04:41):
it is a huge figure, is still not enough. Hasn't
been enough. Ten trillion dollars invested over the past decade
haven't been enough to slow climate change enough to meet
the price target. But again, one of the main victories
of Paris was putting a number to it, something measurable
that could be looked at in ten years as we're
(05:02):
doing now and say, okay, how did we do over
the past decade.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
So you get Paris agreement with this big temperature target.
And really it's a very short, readable PDF written in
plain English that was then translated into concrete targets that
could be followed, not just a temperature target. But targets
for all sorts of sectors of the economy that needed
(05:27):
to change if we are to meet that temperature target.
So let's do a review of some of those targets
that was set either by Paris directly or by the
COP Forum where the Paris Agreement came to being. But
the following COP events that have happened since. One of
them is tripling renewable energy by twenty thirty. How are we.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Doing We're almost there, not quite yet, but it is
possible to get there. We will talk about other targets
we're technically. Technologically maybe it's harder, but in the case
of tripling renewable power, it can be done. There's just
a difference between how much it's invested now and how
much it needs to be invested. But if enough is invested,
that target could be reached.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
So that is probably the best news in our list
of things that is going to come. The other one
that was also agreed in the same COP was to
transition away from fossil fuels. How are we doing there.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
We are not doing well, because that is really complicated.
While adding renewable power to any greed is relatively easy
from a technical perspective, and from a political perspective, taking
away fossil fuels from the grid is the hard part.
So phasing down coal, which the UK did recently and
other countries are on their way to do, takes a
(06:45):
long time, costs money, and it's even more complicated when
we're talking about oil or gas.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
Talking of gas, we should talk about methane, which was
never mentioned in the Paris Agreement, just like fossil fuels
whenever mentioned in the Paris Agreement. But we know that
carbon dioxide is only two thirds of the warming that
is the problem. Other gases, other greenhouse gases, also contribute
and methane is the second biggest contributor. And we now
(07:11):
have a goal to reduce methane emissions. How are we
doing so?
Speaker 2 (07:16):
We now have a way of measuring methane leaks from
space using satellites. Companies are aware that they have leaks
and they have committed to reduce them. But from there
to actually doing that and reducing them, that's the hard part.
So more are being reduced every year, they're being plugged,
they're being brought under control. It's actually something that brings efficiency,
(07:39):
economic benefits to companies and climate at the same time,
so it makes economic sense for companies to do it,
but to plug all of them, that's the hard part.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Another goal that governments agreed on was to try and
phase out the sale of fossil fuel cars. Some countries,
like the European Union, wants to do it as soon
as twenty thirty five, Developing countries later maybe twenty forty,
maybe twenty forty five.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
How are we doing This is a very interesting one
and one which I like very much because it's a
complex one. Some countries are doing way better than expected.
So for example, China has set a goal for the
sale of electric vehicles but has way surpassed it, practically
doubling it, whereas other countries that even developing nations are
(08:23):
going much much slower and will not meet that goal
in time. So it's a mixed bag. But there are
some cases that are surprising where electric vehicles are taking off.
Speaker 1 (08:33):
And another aspect of climate that very rarely gets discussed
is land what's happening on agriculture? What's happening on deforestation?
At COP twenty six in Glasgow, there was a goal
that countries wanted to end deforestation by twenty thirty. How
are we doing.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
We're actually going in reverse, so not progressing, but going
in the other direction. And why this is bad is
because we rely on natural ecosystems that go from the
oceans to forests and rainforests especially to absorb the greater
of the carbon that we meet. If trees are being
(09:13):
cut and forest disappears, then the Earth has less of
an ability to absorb that carbon, which means the planet
keeps getting warmer and warmer. So in terms of deforestation, again,
it's going in reverse. It's increased over the past few years.
And this COP is being held in Brazil, home to
(09:34):
the Amazon rainforest that is being wrecked by agriculture and
other human activities including wildfires and so on. So it's
going to be one of the main themes at this
COP that will hopefully highlight that this goal is not
going well at all.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
It's also worth noting that cloud scientists had estimates about
how quickly warming will happen, and that estimate had a range,
and we are at the worst end of that range
because warming is happening faster than many climate scientists average
expectations were supposed to be. It might be to do
with us not being able to absorb as much greenhouse
(10:12):
gases in the oceans and the forest, or it might
be to do with something like clouds, which we still
don't understand very well. But it's a worrying sign. For
the Paris Agreement. There is a finance goal that I
want to ask you about. You said, ten trillion dollars
was invested in clean energy technologies, which help shave off
maybe one degree celsius of worst case warming. But Paris
(10:34):
Agreement also says that all financial flows should align with
the climate goal, and specifically, developing countries said they need
climate finance. There was a goal to reach one hundred
billion dollars of rich countries giving money to poor countries.
How did that go?
Speaker 2 (10:51):
That one? Actually not too bad by some measures, or
even well, that goal of one hundred billion in climate
finance was achieved a couple of years later than it
should have. But the thing is that when you look
at how much developing nations need, and let's remember that
developing nations are the least responsible for climate change because
(11:15):
they emitted less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So that's
like the whole reasoning behind why developed countries should pay more.
When you look at what they need. It's just a
drop in the ocean. So the new goal that has
been set is three hundred billion in climate finance by
twenty thirty five. That's three times the previous goal, which
was already hard to achieve, and it's going to be
(11:36):
even harder to achieve it in the current geopolitical context.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
There are a whole lot of sectors that we didn't
touch upon because either there's been very little progress or
there's been no target setting. So on agriculture, for example,
a very touchy topic regardless of whether you're rich or poor.
We are not making good progress on plastics, which you
know are not directly a climate problem, they are indirectly
(12:00):
a climate problem because we use a lot of fossil
fuels to make plastics. We were supposed to have a
treaty that fell apart. So not doing really well. Nuclear,
which is one solution that currently the only solution that
the US government kind of wants to back for decobnizing technologies.
It's a very recent goal, but it's not clear whether
(12:21):
tripling of nuclear power by twenty fifty will actually happen.
Then there are sectors which are not in the Powers Agreement,
shipping in aviation, which without bringing under the Paris target,
we will not be able to stop temperaturize because if
shipping and aviation continued to put out grey in US
gas emissions, meeting all the climate targets that countries want
(12:42):
to meet will not be enough. And finally, sustainable fuels,
which could be a solution for shipping or aviation. We
don't really have much production capacity, so there's a whole
lot of things that still need to be done. So
we have these layers and layers of measures, technologies, targets,
temperature goals. But I want to spend a little time
(13:03):
just you know, reporter to reporter, we work on covering
climate change around the world. But you had to put
your hand on your heart and see whether you think
the Powers agreement so far has succeeded or not. What
would you say?
Speaker 2 (13:18):
I mean, from my point of view, I think the
answer is clear. You look at the numbers and it
hasn't succeeded. We're still headed to close to three degrees
cells used by the end of the century. Where it
has succeeded, and I think that has to be recognized
and I guess celebrated is in building the momentum that
the world needed to really get started on climate action.
(13:41):
It got things moving in a way that is impossible
to turn back. Even if we're now in a world
that politically is very different from where it was ten
years ago or even five years ago. There's a reality,
and it is that the climate movement is not stopping.
It's not stopping in the economy, it's not stopping in politics.
(14:03):
So in that way it was successful. It just wasn't
successful enough to stop or not to stop, but to
slow down climate change. And then in the other sense
that it was also successful is in showing that multilateralism
works and that countries together can make change. Even though
(14:25):
the US left the price Agreement the accord twice or
one and a half, you would say, as it hasn't
officially left it for the second time, but I personally
think it still shows that getting together talking about things
is something that works and is better than just everyone
doing things on their own.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
And what do you think, well, I also have mixed
feelings about it. On the one hand, the numbers make
it clear that success hasn't happened, and the perspective of
island nations, which were crucial in getting the one point
five degree celsius target in Paris. It is clearly not succeeded.
(15:07):
But I also worry that while the numbers were necessary,
you needed a target. You needed a target to be
translated into national climate plans, into corporate plans, into net
zero by twenty fifty. It comes with a tyranny of
numbers because the fact that we have shaved off one
degree celsius of warming doesn't feel as big an achievement
(15:30):
when we are failing to reach one point five degrees celsius.
When we look at corporations setting these net zero targets
and then failing to reach them, we can see that's
a failure, but not a success. That corporations that have
no regulations in most parts of the world to actually
do anything about climate change even set a target that
(15:53):
to me is a failure versus success. That is really
hard for people to grapple to a ze that a
global forum that has existed for now nearly thirty years
continues to produce really on a year to year basis
not much progress is a failure, but it takes away
(16:13):
from the fact that still two hundred countries meet every
year to make sure that they talk about a global
problem that cannot be solved any other way, but done
globally and shamed the one rogue actor in the US
is a huge success. So to me, the paras agreement
is a necessary step that the world had to take.
(16:37):
Was it sufficient? Of course not. But things don't stop here.
What do you think the next ten years look like.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
I think the last ten years, like you were saying,
have shown that COP worked in some ways and the
then in some others. I think the next ten years
will likely that trend is likely to continue. Cops half
their things, that the works so well, and I think
what will be important over the next ten years are
(17:04):
not so much the decisions adopted at COP. You know
that very confluted language that negotiators discuss for days and nights.
But what happens in the private sector, because the progress
that needs to happen now is concrete progress, and thanks
to the price agreement, we know where that progress needs
to happen. It needs to happen in renewable power, it
(17:26):
needs to happen in electric vehicles, transmission grids, methane, hydrogen, plastics,
whatever you can think. But these are concrete things that
have companies working on them. That touch citizens, and so
I think that the private sector will become increasingly important
over the next ten years to achieve these goals and
slow climate change because it's important, but also hopefully because
(17:51):
it makes economic sense for them to do that.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Well, that's preaching to the choir. I read a book
called climate Capitalism would say is that market forces need
to be crucial to making climate action work. But the
thesis also only works if governments are able to shape
those markets. So this hand in hand between governments and
markets in places where sometimes more government work is needed
(18:15):
in places where more private action is needed, they can vary,
but they do need to work hand in hand. This
is a fun chat, Laura. Thank you for all your
reporting and all the work.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Thank you for having me. It's always.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
After the break we hear from Christiana Figures, architect of
the Paris Agreement, about whether she thinks the agreement has
worked and what the future holds in store for it.
(18:52):
As part of her reporting, my colleague at Bloombergreen, Laura Milan,
spoke with Christiana Figures. She was head of the UN's
climate body Triple See when the Paris Agreement was signed
and was crucial in getting it over the line, Laura
wanted to know from Christiana how the Paris Agreement has
worked since it was signed a decade ago and where
to look for progress in the next decade.
Speaker 2 (19:14):
My first question to you is, you know, cop I
think we can agree managed to mobilize an unprecedented amount
of political capital and build momentum around climate change. What's
happened to all that energy that came together with the
Paris Agreement and that for most of the past ten
(19:34):
years has managed to advance the fight against climate change?
What's happened to all of that? Where are we now?
Speaker 4 (19:42):
Where we are now is in a new period of progress.
And that is the mistake that we make that we
always want to put progress into the clothes that it
has already grown out of. So when we worked towards
the Paris Agreement, it was very clear that what we
needed was for national governments to be in the lead.
(20:06):
I would call that at that point it was necessary
in order to have all governments agreed to a common
decarbonization path for the global economy. It was very necessary
to have the governments in the lead and what I
call be the pull factor. We also additional to that,
(20:27):
although it wasn't necessary. But additional to that, we mobilized
an immense push factor, which was all of all of
the other stakeholders in addition to national governments, those were
subnational governments. It was industry, it was finance, it was
women's groups, it was religious leaders, it was the medical community,
(20:50):
et cetera, the youth, all of them who were in
a push mode to support national governments reaching an agreement
that was as ambitious as possible ten years ago. So
ten years ago we have national governments in being the
pull and all of their stakeholders being the push. Today,
(21:12):
ten years later, we have a complete reversal of that,
which is the way it should be. Today, national governments
are no longer the pull. They have already done their job.
They have agreed to the details under the Paris Agreement
called the Rule Book. They have agreed on how much
(21:34):
it's going to take to protect our humanity and all
the rest of life from increasing greenhouse gases. All of
that has already been agreed at the multilateral level, and
that is what we are used to. We're used to
progress coming from the multilateral level of all of the
(21:56):
nations in concert with each other. We have to open
our eyes to understand that we're in a completely different chapter.
Speaker 5 (22:02):
Now.
Speaker 4 (22:03):
If you go to Berlin and you ask the question,
what is the big agreement going to be, there is
no big agreement. That's the wrong question, because we have
actually moved to a completely new chapter, which is, how
do you now take the decisions that were taken at
the international level, at the multilateral level, how do you
(22:26):
take them to the ground. How do you actually make
emissions reductions, how do you actually increase adaptation, how do
you actually mobilize finance? That is something that is now
in the hands of the other stakeholders, not national governments.
So now we're in a chapter of the other stakeholders
(22:48):
being the pull force and national governments being the push force.
Because it's not that their role has disappeared, it's that
their role has changed. They no longer need do you
agree with everyone there would They no longer have to
agree to a unanimous, legally binding text. What their role
(23:11):
is now very much of a transparency accountability role. So
there much in the push, they're not in the pull.
And that's really important to understand because otherwise we're expecting
the cop to do something that it can't do and
it shouldn't be doing because it already did. So we're
(23:33):
victims of our own success. Let us look for progress elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
So within the priory agreement, one of the rules was
the emissions plans. These NDCs would be updated every five years,
and this year was the year when that was supposed
to happen. And I know that you're saying that, you know,
the focus now should be elsewhere, but that guidance from
the governments from the top is still embedded within the
(24:00):
parties agreement. And what we are seeing right now is
that countries haven't put forward their NDCs. Those that have
done it represent a very small share of the global
economy and of global emissions. So what can the skop
achieve realistically to call it a success.
Speaker 4 (24:19):
You're asking the wrong question, my friend. You see, it's
not about what national governments are doing. So, yes, the
NDCs have to be filed every five years. Yes, national
governments have to put forward what their ambition is and
they will continue to do so does that represent the
(24:41):
actual reality on the ground. Does it represent the progress
in real economy? Does it represent the progress in advance
of technology dramatically?
Speaker 6 (24:50):
No?
Speaker 4 (24:51):
The best example is China. China has put in an
NDC that is inconsequential because of the political geopolitical situation
that they have with the United States right now. That
does not mean that China is not pushing forward. China
has a very very long, well established tradition of underpromising
(25:16):
and over delivering. This year, they have under promised radically.
They have taken that to an art form. But they're
also over delivering. They're doing much more to contribute to
global decarbonization than all other countries put together. So that
is what we have to begin to understand that one
(25:36):
thing is what national governments say because they're looking over
each other's shoulders and they have to play the geopolitical
game and etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Fine, what is important for
my boss, who is the atmosphere? She looks down and
she says, I don't really care about geopolitics. I want
(25:56):
to know our emissions being reduced. That is the question
that we should be asking. Are emissions actually being reduced?
Are the technologies being developed to address climate change? Is
the finance flowing? Those are the questions. It's not the
smoke and mirrors of national governments. It just isn't anymore
(26:18):
ten years ago, they were definitely in the lead. Now
they're no longer in the lead.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
My colleague Laura also spoke with Lawrence to Bianna Francis,
Special Ambassador for Climate at COP twenty one in Paris,
and discussed how to deal with a rogue United States
and what reforming the COP process could look like.
Speaker 6 (26:40):
Do you think that the organization efforts the growth the
push is now coming from the private sector that's making
this investment, and does the market trend override the backlash
coming especially from the US.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
I hope so. I hope this back lash would not
dominate the reality. It can delay that fosture. We see
that in Europe that, for example, the automotive sector doesn't
want to be obliged to stop selling IC engine in
twenty thirty five and then may win. So delay, yes,
(27:19):
re orient know that y, so.
Speaker 7 (27:21):
It's inevitable that transition it is and in a whey
for me, it's a satisfaction because when we build the
Paris Agreement elements and the communications around Paris.
Speaker 5 (27:34):
I knew that the essential element was the expectation that
the economic sector will finally share and that if the
idea that the transition is unstoppable and inevitable. Wasn't message.
I wanted the press to go and it happened. So
I see really rewarding that we see this is continuing
(27:56):
even if you have of course high end laws in
the way and civilizen in the press, on the media
and of that. Finally, can we go so far?
Speaker 6 (28:06):
That?
Speaker 5 (28:07):
For many questions, but I think the train has left
the station for many years now.
Speaker 6 (28:13):
There is as far as I know, an externals of
committee or a group of people that have been asked
by the un actrical seats the groups of the process
and propose a reform. I've been told that what do
you think are the most important or the main ways,
and with that process should be reformed.
Speaker 5 (28:33):
We are supporting a citizen Assembly or global citizen assembly
that will be it is the whole process and it
has been doing many regions and it will land in
top thirty. I do think that we should institutionalize that
we need to have processes where we hear disrectly what
citizens want, plan to do, how much they are aware,
(28:57):
how much they are concerned by because I don't think
you know. Finally, you look and you say it's going
very slowly, meaning there is a certain conservatism in the system.
When you do any polls everywhere, people are concerned, but
they are not consultants. So government decides that there is
(29:18):
a backlash. The blash is just because it's instrumentalized. Mostly
it is propaganda these days whennewment energy is bad, the
electric will explode, whatever, and so that they say there
is a backlash, which is comfortable for them if they
don't want to do anything, because you pretend that the
citizen will revolt if we do something. At least in
(29:39):
the democratic one, I think we need absolutely this consultation
of people because now it's normal the problem of one
or two constituencies. It's a society problem. Societal problem. So
I'm very very much in favor of introducing the mechanism
of citizen assemblies in the process.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
Thank you for listening to Zero, and thank you to
both Christiana Figures and Lawrence to Bianna for speaking with us.
If you liked this episode, please take a moment to
rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
This episode was produced by Oscar Boyd with additional help
from Anna Masarakis. Our theme music is composed by Wonderly Special.
Thanks to Samarsadi, Moses Andem, Laura Milan and Sharon Chan
(30:33):
i'm Akshadrati, Baksu
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!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.