November 25, 2025 • 31 mins
COP30 has ended without a firm commitment to phase out fossil fuels. Inside Geneva talks to some campaigners who remain surprisingly optimistic.
“I’m actually quite hopeful, and I think that the answer is probably coming from the countries and the communities that have the most to lose,” says Candy Ofime, from the Climate Justice Team at Amnesty International.
Indigenous peoples made their voices heard at COP30.
They have deep knowledge of land use and forest preservation, which can help us tackle global warming.
“The answer is us and that was part of the campaign that we had as indigenous peoples. [We said] ‘pay attention to the world.’ Basically the solution that many of us are looking for has already been happening in the indigenous local communities,” says Deborah Sanchez, from the Community Land Rights and Climate Initiative (Clarifi).
Some now suggest global warming is a hoax…but the scientific evidence proves otherwise. It is damaging our planet and our health.
“These are clever people who want what’s best for you and can read a temperature graph, and they know that there are concrete actions that you can take which are good for your health, as well as good for the planet,” says Diarmid Campbell Lendrum, from the climate change and health unit at the World Health Organization (WHO).
So does it matter that the world’s super power, and biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, stayed away from COP30?
“The US is usually a blocker, and sometimes having the biggest polluters not in the room allows for consensus to be reached. And so in this forum, decisions have to be made, and they will be made with or without the United States,” says Ofime.
Can the world tackle climate change without the US? Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_04 (00:06):
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
SwissInfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's program.
SPEAKER_07 (00:22):
In this arena of COP 30, your job here is not to
fight one another.
Your job here is to fight thisclimate crisis together.
SPEAKER_09 (00:33):
I'm actually quite hopeful, and I think that the
answer is probably coming fromthe countries and the
communities that have the mostto lose.
SPEAKER_04 (00:44):
Indigenous peoples are on the point of the spear.
SPEAKER_01 (00:48):
They are on the front lines protecting what is
sacred for the planet.
The answer is us, and that waspart of the campaigns that we
had as an Indigenous people's.
Pay attention, right, to theworld that basically the
solution that many of us arelooking for is already been
happening at the indigenouslocal community.
SPEAKER_08 (01:09):
It's called the Endangerment Finding.
It's a landmark scientificdetermination that planet
warming pollution from fossilfuels endangers human health.
SPEAKER_06 (01:19):
These are clever people who want what's best for
you and can read a temperaturegraph, and they know that there
are concrete actions that youcan take, which are good for
your health as well as good forthe planet.
SPEAKER_10 (01:31):
Climate change.
SPEAKER_09 (03:07):
Hi, Majin.
My name is Candy Ofime.
I am a researcher and legaladvisor in the climate justice
team at Amnesty International.
My main role at Amnesty is todocument the impacts of the
climate crisis.
SPEAKER_04 (03:19):
Climate change is, as we said, a challenge to all
of us on many different levels.
It challenges our health, itchallenges our way of life if
our sea levels are rising, orour ancestral lands are subject
to drought or flooding.
But also, if we work in thefossil fuel industry, tackling
climate change challenges ourlivelihoods.
(03:42):
But let's start with health.
Just before COP30 began, themedical journal The Lancet and
the World Health Organizationproduced a new shocking study,
suggesting that climate change,and our inaction in the face of
it, is already claiming millionsof lives a year.
To find out more, I caught upwith Dermid Campbell Lendrum,
(04:06):
head of the Climate Change andHealth Unit at the WHO.
SPEAKER_06 (04:09):
Climate change hits on health in many ways, some of
them obvious and direct.
So heat waves take a lot oflives every year, and the latest
report from the Lancet thatwe're also collaborators on
indicates that extreme heat nowtakes about 540,000 lives every
year.
That's a huge number.
(04:30):
But it also hits in many otherways as well.
So the impact of floods ordroughts has immediate effects,
but also long-lasting effects.
So we're now starting to findout that the impacts of floods,
in fact, take perhaps 10 timesas many lives after the effect
as it does in the event itself.
(04:52):
Climate change also makes iteasier to transmit infectious
diseases, for example, thosetransmitted by insects or by
contaminated food or water.
But most fundamentally of all,it undermines the environmental
determinants of health on whichwe all depend.
It makes it harder to provideclean, fresh water to
populations or safe andsufficient food.
(05:15):
So this is why WHO hasidentified climate change as
potentially the greatest healththreat of this century.
SPEAKER_04 (05:22):
And when you bring those reports to governments, do
they accept this data, thisevidence that you bring?
Because there is, you know,there is debate about whether
climate change is reallyhappening.
SPEAKER_06 (05:36):
Well, there is debate about whether climate
change is happening, but notscientific debate.
The scientific consensus uh onthe main points is absolutely
clear and has been for decadesnow.
It's it is happening.
It's mainly due to uh humanactivities.
It is bad, including for health,and this has been documented in
(05:56):
sequential reports, for example,of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change.
Um it is getting worse, but thefinal point is perhaps the most
important one.
We can fix this, and it isactually good news for jobs, the
economy, and health if we takethe actions that we need to fix
it.
SPEAKER_04 (06:15):
These changes you're talking about, though, it's not
going to happen overnight.
In the meantime, you are seeing,you are recording harm to health
because of climate change.
We hear a lot about the strainon our health systems.
Are they prepared?
Are there things they need todo?
SPEAKER_06 (06:34):
Well, the you're right, that health systems uh
around the world are alreadydoing, in some sense, a
fantastic job in improvingpeople's lives, protecting
people's lives, but there'sprobably not a health system
anywhere in the world that isn'talready under strain.
The demands always uh exceed theresources uh available.
(06:55):
And climate change just piles upproblems on on top of that.
If you have an overstretchedhealth service and then which is
then hit by a heat wave uh whichsends uh a lot of particularly
old people, for example, uh tohospital, then you're further
overburdening your healthsystem.
And countries around the worldare getting better prepared for
(07:19):
these now.
And in many cases, we know whatto do.
So we know, for example, thatheat health warning systems,
telling people a heat wave iscoming, telling them what public
health measures they should putinto place to protect
themselves, are effective andthey're also a really good
investment.
So we've looked, as WHO, we'veassessed just five climate and
(07:41):
health interventions, um, theones with the uh the best
evidence.
And the evidence there is thatif we deploy those across the
world, we could save about twomillion lives every year, and
the benefits would outweigh thecosts by a factor of at least
four to one, probably much morethan that.
And those are the kinds ofthings that, in fact, we need to
put into place now if we're notgoing to have climate change and
(08:05):
uh climate extremes tipping ourhealth services over the edge in
many cases.
SPEAKER_04 (08:10):
You would think, listening to that, that
governments the world over wouldbe thinking we need an answer to
this and fast.
SPEAKER_00 (08:16):
Indigenous peoples continue to be some of the
leading solution-focused voiceson the climate crisis.
SPEAKER_04 (08:22):
As it turns out, there are groups in the world
who know a lot about workingwith our planet, who know how to
conserve our environment.
Leaders of Indigenouscommunities from around the
world are also attending.
Indigenous peoples made theirvoices heard loud and clear at
COP 30.
(08:44):
Their knowledge can help totackle climate change,
particularly when it comes topreserving forests, the lungs of
our planet.
SPEAKER_01 (09:07):
The answer is us, and that was part of the
campaign that we had as anIndigenous people's.
Pay attention, right, to theworld that basically the
solution that many of us arelooking for is already been
happening at the indigenouslocal community.
SPEAKER_04 (09:21):
Tell me about that, because I've heard that from a
number of different groups.
The answer is us, ourcommunities have knowledge, we
have experience, we can helpwith this.
Give me some specific exampleswhat you mean by that.
SPEAKER_01 (09:36):
Yeah, so for example, when we are seeing um
the Democratic Republic ofCongo, where we already are
working and have severalprojects with the indigenous
peoples, but also with the localcommunity.
And we did a mapping, and nowyou can see in the maps that
those lands that had beensecured or recognized for those
indigenous peoples are stillintact forests.
(10:00):
And they are making a livingthere, and they have their
communities there, and they havesacred places there, but they
still conserve, still manage.
And if you see surrounded areas,beyond that, there are already a
lot of deforestation happeningon the on those lands.
So that is a very practicalexample of how tradition,
(10:20):
knowledge, customary tenureactually are supporting, for
example, deforestation, holdingdeforestation on the very key
biodiversity areas in the world.
SPEAKER_04 (10:32):
And of course, forests are something we very
much need if we're going totackle climate change.
SPEAKER_01 (10:38):
Absolutely.
SPEAKER_04 (10:39):
Yes.
Some people might say though,look, the kind of world we live
in now, to produce the things weneed, even to produce the
renewables we need, we are goingto have to do different things
with land.
And some of it might interferewith how indigenous peoples
live.
SPEAKER_01 (10:58):
Yeah, and that's true because we need to really
make sure the solution that weare bringing into the table are
sustainable solutions, right?
So if we are doing renewablesone hand, but then we're
deforesting or the or destroyingecosystem on the other hand, we
are actually not solving theproblem, right?
We're just putting the problemsomewhere else, but not actually
(11:20):
bringing a real solution.
And that's where communities areasking for being informed and
has consensus around what are wegonna do with with the land and
what we are gonna do with theresources.
And then I hear, for example, wehad a meeting with the
pastoralists from EasternAfrica, and those are dry lands,
not like rainforest, but but dryforests.
(11:43):
And they say, you know, thepotential for lands to solar
energy, for example, is therebecause it's a land with a lot
of sunlight.
But how communities participate,how consent and decision making
is happening is the key.
So it's just not about the what,but it's about the how we are we
(12:03):
are bringing those solutionsinto the conversation.
SPEAKER_03 (12:07):
You might have heard a lot about what shifting away
from fossil fuels should looklike.
The truth is, this needs to be ajust transition.
That means shifting to anenvironmentally sustainable
economy in a way that's fair toeveryone.
SPEAKER_04 (12:18):
What Dermot and Deborah have to say is, I'm
sure, compelling for many of ourlisteners.
Lots of us are frustrated withthe slow pace of change.
We're worried we won't be ableto keep global temperature rises
within 1.5 degrees centigrade,and some of us are already
suffering the health effects ofextreme heat.
(12:39):
We want to know what we can dopersonally to reduce our
dependence on fossil fuels.
Some of us are trading in ourpetrol cars for electric
vehicles and turning torenewables to heat our homes.
But, says Candy Ofime of AmnestyInternational, we do need to
think carefully and aim for ajust transition.
SPEAKER_09 (13:01):
I think for most people, transitioning to
renewable energy might mean uhchanging your gas stove, buying
uh an electric car.
But I think if we want thetransition to be just, fair,
equitable, and rightsrespecting, we have to think
about the whole supply chainmodel that we're transitioning
(13:23):
from into.
At Amnesty, we spent a lot oftime documenting the impact of
renewable energy transitionprojects on groups in different
parts of the world.
If you think, for example, aboutan electric car, a lot of them
are built with criticalminerals, cobalt, among others,
that are extracted in a waythat's polluting and that has a
(13:48):
huge human rights cost oncommunities in different parts
of the world.
I've documented the impact ofcobalt mining um in the
Democratic Republic of theCongo, both mine industrially
and through artisanal mining.
And today, cobalt is everywhere.
You see it in electric vehicles,energy storage facilities.
(14:09):
It's a mineral that's essentialfor the energy transition.
But what most people do not knowis that the world's largest
reserves are located in theCongo, and people are evicted
from their land for industrialsites to expense.
And a lot of artisanal minersare actually risking their lives
(14:30):
on a daily basis to mine withoutprotective equipment.
And so it's easy if you justthink about what you see, what's
before you, to think that yourindividual consumer habits might
be more sustainable if you don'tthink about tracing the sort of
ecosystem within which yourenergy is supplied and the goods
that you actually have tangiblybefore you where they come from.
SPEAKER_04 (14:54):
Do you think that COP has been addressing that
particular side of itsufficiently?
I mean, we've had the indigenousgroups protesting about fossil
fuels, but is there aconsciousness that when we, if
as we switch to renewables, thatthe extraction of these critical
minerals, rare earths, and soon, that that has to be done
(15:17):
fairly within a human rightsframework?
SPEAKER_09 (15:19):
I think these are demands that civil society have
been bringing to the attentionof COP leaders.
Um, I think we're far from it interms of outcome documents that
particularly embed a humanrights framework to think about
the energy transition.
Now, what civil society isdemanding is not just a
(15:40):
transition to renewable energyin the abstract.
You'll hear the phrase justtransition a lot.
It's coming from the labormovement, and it encompasses
both a process that leaves noone behind.
And that starts with the workersof the fossil fuel industry who
will have to be rescaled andprovided alternative
(16:02):
opportunities for theirsubsistence all the way to the
consumption and the productionmodels that will pivot to while
we transition away from fossilfuels.
So we're barely at the stagewhere cop leaders are
considering discussing theelephant in the room.
SPEAKER_05 (16:22):
How much will climate change cost us and what
will it cost us to stop it?
SPEAKER_04 (16:28):
But even while Candy and her colleagues argue for a
just transition, in the world'swealthiest countries, some
people are beginning to doubtthat any kind of transition is
worth it or even necessary.
SPEAKER_06 (16:41):
We will drill, baby, drill.
SPEAKER_04 (16:45):
They worry about the cost to themselves.
The WHO's dermid CampbellLendrum suggests the current
fossil fuel-based financialmodel needs more scrutiny.
SPEAKER_06 (16:57):
At the moment, the world is massively subsidizing
the consumption of fossil fuels.
So if you're a taxpayer, youshould probably be aware that
governments around the world areon average providing about$3,000
per household per year on top ofthe energy bills that you pay in
order to subsidize theconsumption of fossil fuels,
(17:19):
which are also taking many livesfrom air pollution now and also
driving the climate crisis,which is messing up the future
for you and your children.
So you should probably take aninterest in the fact that for
most people, your taxes areactually going to subsidize the
climate crisis.
SPEAKER_04 (17:38):
Well, you say that, but a lot of people,
particularly in the West, in thedeveloped countries, are
personally thinking, I'm gonnathis is going to cost me too
much.
I'm gonna have to makeunnecessary sacrifices.
SPEAKER_06 (17:51):
Well, I think perhaps we're looking at this uh
the wrong way.
The evidence on the on theeconomics is very, very clear.
Clean energy is now the cheapestsource of energy.
So there are upfront investmentcosts in order to uh make the
transition uh that we need tomake to uh protect uh the
climate.
And in any country around theworld, those investment costs
(18:14):
are up front, but in arelatively short period of time,
they pay themselves back.
So typically, after say six oreight years, you've got back the
money that you've invested justfinancially, and from that point
on, you're effectively inprofit, you're making more money
back.
So it's obviously a good dealjust for the economy, but it's
(18:34):
an even better deal from ahealth point of view, because if
you factor in the fact that airpollution takes about seven
million lives every year, that'sa death every few seconds.
And most of the drivers of airpollution are actually the same
drivers as they are of theclimate crisis.
If you factor in the healthgains that you would get from
(18:55):
cleaning up our energy systems,in fact, those health gains are
bigger than the costs that ittakes to fix climate change.
So these are things we should bedoing anyway.
To be honest, even if you didn'tcare about climate change, you
should be doing it for clean airand more sustainable and healthy
food systems and so on.
It's absolutely clear from ascientific point of view, if not
(19:18):
a political point of view, thatthis is a good deal for
individual countries as well asfor the planet as a whole.
SPEAKER_05 (19:24):
Net zero, net zero net zero, net zero, net zero,
net zero.
Net zero.
Net zero madness.
SPEAKER_04 (19:32):
Dermud's points are persuasive, but still the fears
about the cost of transitionremain.
Candio Fime at Amnesty has heardthem too, and warns that many of
the arguments over cost arebeing fueled by one particular
lobby.
SPEAKER_09 (19:48):
These are flawed arguments, often fueled by, you
know, fossil fuel lobbyists inthe industry that has a vested
interest in spreading thosenarratives.
These are also, in many parts ofthe world, narratives that are
connected to the rise ofauthoritarianism.
You see interesting strains thatare attached to this fantasy of
(20:11):
a romanticized past whereeconomic growth was attached to
modalities of production andconsumption that are changing.
And so I think there's a way tocounter a narrative that's based
in fear, looking atopportunities that renewable
energy projects offer across theworld and that are not
(20:32):
complicated to imagine.
I think we have to remember thatour collective imagination is
limited by design.
They are corporate intereststhat are invested in preserving
the status quo.
And if we want to thinkcreatively about liberation, and
if we want to think holisticallyabout how to protect our planet
(20:56):
for future generations, I thinkwe need to be very mindful and
unpack the forces that are atplay.
We're talking about billions andbillions of dollars of fossil
fuel subsidies that statesprovide to fossil fuel
companies.
So when we talk about corporategreed and when we talk about
limitations and possibilities,these are dimensions that I
(21:16):
think a lot of people ignore.
And if we had more politicalwill and corporate interest in
forging an alternative that'ssustainable, I think the
conversation would be in adifferent place in many parts of
the world.
In the past half hour, leadersat the COP 30 Climate Summit in
Brazil have agreed on a dealthat ends the summit but fails
(21:38):
to mention fossil fuels.
SPEAKER_04 (21:39):
So where is the political and corporate will?
COP 30 has now ended with a verymodest agreement which makes no
mention of Moore commitment tophasing out fossil fuels.
And the entire conference washeld without the world's most
powerful country, biggestconsumer of fossil fuels, and
(22:00):
also the biggest emitter ofgreenhouse gases, the United
States.
You might imagine that thepeople I've been talking to
today would be disappointed, butit's not as simple as that.
Candy or Fime again?
SPEAKER_09 (22:14):
You might be surprised by my answer, but I'm
actually quite hopeful, and Ithink that the answer is
probably coming from thecountries and the communities
that have the most to lose.
So we've seen incredibleexamples of political leadership
coming from small islandcountries like Tuvalu, Fiji
(22:35):
Island, places that willdisappear in the next few
decades if we don't do somethingimmediately.
Small island countries,developing nations that actually
have a lot to lose in thecurrent state of play have
really been stepping up on theinternational political stage to
(22:56):
push for the conversation toshift.
So surprisingly, I think becausemaybe I'm interacting with
groups and communities aroundthe world that have just
demonstrated so much innovationaround climate solutions, I feel
like they're there.
We just have to pay attention tothem and bring them to the
centers of decision making.
SPEAKER_04 (23:17):
Has it been helpful or a hindrance that the United
States, the world's biggestemitter, has not been at COP 30?
SPEAKER_09 (23:27):
I think consensus from civil society would be that
it's been helpful.
The US is usually a blocker.
And sometimes having the biggestpolluters not in the room allows
for consensus to be reached.
And I think if we secure apositive outcome on um fossil
fuel phase out at this COP, itwould most likely have been
(23:47):
helped by the absence of theUnited States, who most likely
would have objected.
SPEAKER_04 (23:52):
Okay, that's so that's interesting.
World's only superpower getsleft out.
You're not the first person tosay that to me that, okay, fine,
they're not here, good.
We need to get this done.
We do it without them.
SPEAKER_09 (24:03):
Yeah.
International negotiations,that's where multilateral
multilateralism, and I can neverpronounce that word.
You know, you keep um keepgoing.
And so right now the US isreally using its influence
internationally to leverage itseconomic and trade deals to
disincentivize and to pushreally regressive policies on
(24:25):
climate.
And so in this forum, decisionshave to be made and they will be
made with or without the UnitedStates.
SPEAKER_04 (24:31):
And Deborah Sanchez believes this year's COP, with
its focus on indigenous peoples,has laid good foundations and
she's already building for nextyear.
SPEAKER_01 (24:41):
From our side, we'll be supporting as much as we can
the governments to reallyunderstand what are those action
points the communities arebringing and how from where
policymakers can make a decisionto actually advance these
commitments that they have beendone in COP.
So by next year, when we are inCOP again, we have some results.
(25:05):
So, for example, we hadsupported in the policy around
land tenure for indigenouspeoples in DRC.
And now in this COP, we alreadysee 150,000 hectares of land
being recognized for indigenouspeoples and local community.
And if we continue supportingthat conversation and that work
together between communities,countries, and philanthropy,
(25:28):
channeling the funds there, nextyear in COP, we want to see
bigger, right?
We want to see probably 1million hectares.
And that will be a massiveachievement around tackling
climate change, but also from anangle of human rights and
justice in environment justiceand climate justice, that what
is what we are advocating for.
SPEAKER_04 (25:49):
And Dermud Campbell Lendrum of the WHO puts his
faith not in the climate denierswho populate our social media
feeds, but ordinary people theworld over who every opinion
poll shows want to protect ourplanet.
SPEAKER_06 (26:05):
Well, first off, I think they may need less
convincing than you think thatuh we need action on climate
change.
The polling from around theworld uh shows that there is a
very strong majority inbasically every country in the
world to do more about climatechange.
We've fallen into this narrativethat it's it's all pain and no
(26:25):
gain, and it's all uh doom andgloom and no benefit.
The evidence is if we look atthe actual solutions that we
need to put into place, many ofthose are pretty popular.
So people are actually in favorof clean air.
They actually want air that issafe for their children to
breathe.
(26:45):
They are in favour, I think, ofspending less of their
taxpayers' money and their andtheir own money on subsidizing
the uh the climate crisis andputting that money into things
which are actually useful forsociety.
So the message that we have isto talk much more about the
solutions, because those arepopular and those are
(27:06):
empowering, rather than justtelling people the world's going
to hell unless we all act to theuh to the extreme now, um,
there's nothing we can do aboutit.
When you break it down intopractical actions that
individuals can take andgovernments can take, you get a
lot more support.
The final thing I'd like to sayon this is that the health
community is absolutely behindthis.
(27:29):
So we work with healthprofessionals from around uh the
world, and there is a very clearconsensus amongst frontline
health professionals, yourdoctors and your nurses, uh,
that we need to take action onclimate change and that it's
good for your health.
And I the final thing I wouldsay to the woman or man in the
street is that you know youprobably trust your doctors and
(27:49):
nurses to be telling you what'sgood for you.
These are clever people who wantwhat's best for you and can read
a temperature graph, uh, andthey know that there are
concrete actions that you cantake, which are good for your
health as well as good for theplanet.
SPEAKER_04 (28:10):
And with those wise words from the WHO, a gentle
reminder, in fact, thatlistening to the scientific
advice is always recommended, wecome to the end of this edition
of Inside Geneva.
My thanks to Dermot, Deborah,and Candy for their time and
their insights.
We hope you enjoyed the program.
(28:31):
Next time on Inside Geneva.
SPEAKER_10 (28:35):
Judges from Britain, America, Russia, and France
assemble in Nuremberg'scourthouse.
Imagination sickens at thecrimes laid upon the accused,
now stripped of the trappings oftime.
The world's writ has run toNuremberg, and justice waits.
SPEAKER_04 (28:52):
It's 80 years since the Nuremberg trials, 80 years
since the founding of the UnitedNations, and 80 years since the
world agreed on some basicinternational laws to keep us
all safe.
But 80 years on, is 2025, theyear we threw it all away.
(29:14):
Join us on December 9th for afascinating discussion.
And just before we go, here'ssome news of another Swiss Info
podcast that some of ourlisteners might be interested
in.
(29:34):
Are you Swiss and planning tomove abroad?
Or maybe you've already takenthe leap?
SwissInfo has a new podcast justfor you.
It's coming out on November25th.
It's called Ade Merci Schwitz.
Or maybe that should be AdieuMerci la Suisse.
It's available in Swiss Germanand French.
(29:55):
It covers everything you need toknow about setting up your new
life abroad.
Abroad.
We speak to Swiss around theworld who've already made the
move, and we ask experts toshare their experiences.
You'll find Ade Mercy Schwitzwherever you get your podcasts
or in our SWIPLU app.
(30:21):
A reminder you've been listeningto Inside Geneva, a Swiss Info
production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodes: how the International Red Cross (30:31):
undefined
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
SwissInfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's program.
SPEAKER_07 (00:22):
In this arena of COP 30, your job here is not to
fight one another.
Your job here is to fight thisclimate crisis together.
SPEAKER_09 (00:33):
I'm actually quite hopeful, and I think that the
answer is probably coming fromthe countries and the
communities that have the mostto lose.
SPEAKER_04 (00:44):
Indigenous peoples are on the point of the spear.
SPEAKER_01 (00:48):
They are on the front lines protecting what is
sacred for the planet.
The answer is us, and that waspart of the campaigns that we
had as an Indigenous people's.
Pay attention, right, to theworld that basically the
solution that many of us arelooking for is already been
happening at the indigenouslocal community.
SPEAKER_08 (01:09):
It's called the Endangerment Finding.
It's a landmark scientificdetermination that planet
warming pollution from fossilfuels endangers human health.
SPEAKER_06 (01:19):
These are clever people who want what's best for
you and can read a temperaturegraph, and they know that there
are concrete actions that youcan take, which are good for
your health as well as good forthe planet.
SPEAKER_10 (01:31):
Climate change.
SPEAKER_09 (03:07):
Hi, Majin.
My name is Candy Ofime.
I am a researcher and legaladvisor in the climate justice
team at Amnesty International.
My main role at Amnesty is todocument the impacts of the
climate crisis.
SPEAKER_04 (03:19):
Climate change is, as we said, a challenge to all
of us on many different levels.
It challenges our health, itchallenges our way of life if
our sea levels are rising, orour ancestral lands are subject
to drought or flooding.
But also, if we work in thefossil fuel industry, tackling
climate change challenges ourlivelihoods.
(03:42):
But let's start with health.
Just before COP30 began, themedical journal The Lancet and
the World Health Organizationproduced a new shocking study,
suggesting that climate change,and our inaction in the face of
it, is already claiming millionsof lives a year.
To find out more, I caught upwith Dermid Campbell Lendrum,
(04:06):
head of the Climate Change andHealth Unit at the WHO.
SPEAKER_06 (04:09):
Climate change hits on health in many ways, some of
them obvious and direct.
So heat waves take a lot oflives every year, and the latest
report from the Lancet thatwe're also collaborators on
indicates that extreme heat nowtakes about 540,000 lives every
year.
That's a huge number.
(04:30):
But it also hits in many otherways as well.
So the impact of floods ordroughts has immediate effects,
but also long-lasting effects.
So we're now starting to findout that the impacts of floods,
in fact, take perhaps 10 timesas many lives after the effect
as it does in the event itself.
(04:52):
Climate change also makes iteasier to transmit infectious
diseases, for example, thosetransmitted by insects or by
contaminated food or water.
But most fundamentally of all,it undermines the environmental
determinants of health on whichwe all depend.
It makes it harder to provideclean, fresh water to
populations or safe andsufficient food.
(05:15):
So this is why WHO hasidentified climate change as
potentially the greatest healththreat of this century.
SPEAKER_04 (05:22):
And when you bring those reports to governments, do
they accept this data, thisevidence that you bring?
Because there is, you know,there is debate about whether
climate change is reallyhappening.
SPEAKER_06 (05:36):
Well, there is debate about whether climate
change is happening, but notscientific debate.
The scientific consensus uh onthe main points is absolutely
clear and has been for decadesnow.
It's it is happening.
It's mainly due to uh humanactivities.
It is bad, including for health,and this has been documented in
(05:56):
sequential reports, for example,of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change.
Um it is getting worse, but thefinal point is perhaps the most
important one.
We can fix this, and it isactually good news for jobs, the
economy, and health if we takethe actions that we need to fix
it.
SPEAKER_04 (06:15):
These changes you're talking about, though, it's not
going to happen overnight.
In the meantime, you are seeing,you are recording harm to health
because of climate change.
We hear a lot about the strainon our health systems.
Are they prepared?
Are there things they need todo?
SPEAKER_06 (06:34):
Well, the you're right, that health systems uh
around the world are alreadydoing, in some sense, a
fantastic job in improvingpeople's lives, protecting
people's lives, but there'sprobably not a health system
anywhere in the world that isn'talready under strain.
The demands always uh exceed theresources uh available.
(06:55):
And climate change just piles upproblems on on top of that.
If you have an overstretchedhealth service and then which is
then hit by a heat wave uh whichsends uh a lot of particularly
old people, for example, uh tohospital, then you're further
overburdening your healthsystem.
And countries around the worldare getting better prepared for
(07:19):
these now.
And in many cases, we know whatto do.
So we know, for example, thatheat health warning systems,
telling people a heat wave iscoming, telling them what public
health measures they should putinto place to protect
themselves, are effective andthey're also a really good
investment.
So we've looked, as WHO, we'veassessed just five climate and
(07:41):
health interventions, um, theones with the uh the best
evidence.
And the evidence there is thatif we deploy those across the
world, we could save about twomillion lives every year, and
the benefits would outweigh thecosts by a factor of at least
four to one, probably much morethan that.
And those are the kinds ofthings that, in fact, we need to
put into place now if we're notgoing to have climate change and
(08:05):
uh climate extremes tipping ourhealth services over the edge in
many cases.
SPEAKER_04 (08:10):
You would think, listening to that, that
governments the world over wouldbe thinking we need an answer to
this and fast.
SPEAKER_00 (08:16):
Indigenous peoples continue to be some of the
leading solution-focused voiceson the climate crisis.
SPEAKER_04 (08:22):
As it turns out, there are groups in the world
who know a lot about workingwith our planet, who know how to
conserve our environment.
Leaders of Indigenouscommunities from around the
world are also attending.
Indigenous peoples made theirvoices heard loud and clear at
COP 30.
(08:44):
Their knowledge can help totackle climate change,
particularly when it comes topreserving forests, the lungs of
our planet.
SPEAKER_01 (09:07):
The answer is us, and that was part of the
campaign that we had as anIndigenous people's.
Pay attention, right, to theworld that basically the
solution that many of us arelooking for is already been
happening at the indigenouslocal community.
SPEAKER_04 (09:21):
Tell me about that, because I've heard that from a
number of different groups.
The answer is us, ourcommunities have knowledge, we
have experience, we can helpwith this.
Give me some specific exampleswhat you mean by that.
SPEAKER_01 (09:36):
Yeah, so for example, when we are seeing um
the Democratic Republic ofCongo, where we already are
working and have severalprojects with the indigenous
peoples, but also with the localcommunity.
And we did a mapping, and nowyou can see in the maps that
those lands that had beensecured or recognized for those
indigenous peoples are stillintact forests.
(10:00):
And they are making a livingthere, and they have their
communities there, and they havesacred places there, but they
still conserve, still manage.
And if you see surrounded areas,beyond that, there are already a
lot of deforestation happeningon the on those lands.
So that is a very practicalexample of how tradition,
(10:20):
knowledge, customary tenureactually are supporting, for
example, deforestation, holdingdeforestation on the very key
biodiversity areas in the world.
SPEAKER_04 (10:32):
And of course, forests are something we very
much need if we're going totackle climate change.
SPEAKER_01 (10:38):
Absolutely.
SPEAKER_04 (10:39):
Yes.
Some people might say though,look, the kind of world we live
in now, to produce the things weneed, even to produce the
renewables we need, we are goingto have to do different things
with land.
And some of it might interferewith how indigenous peoples
live.
SPEAKER_01 (10:58):
Yeah, and that's true because we need to really
make sure the solution that weare bringing into the table are
sustainable solutions, right?
So if we are doing renewablesone hand, but then we're
deforesting or the or destroyingecosystem on the other hand, we
are actually not solving theproblem, right?
We're just putting the problemsomewhere else, but not actually
(11:20):
bringing a real solution.
And that's where communities areasking for being informed and
has consensus around what are wegonna do with with the land and
what we are gonna do with theresources.
And then I hear, for example, wehad a meeting with the
pastoralists from EasternAfrica, and those are dry lands,
not like rainforest, but but dryforests.
(11:43):
And they say, you know, thepotential for lands to solar
energy, for example, is therebecause it's a land with a lot
of sunlight.
But how communities participate,how consent and decision making
is happening is the key.
So it's just not about the what,but it's about the how we are we
(12:03):
are bringing those solutionsinto the conversation.
SPEAKER_03 (12:07):
You might have heard a lot about what shifting away
from fossil fuels should looklike.
The truth is, this needs to be ajust transition.
That means shifting to anenvironmentally sustainable
economy in a way that's fair toeveryone.
SPEAKER_04 (12:18):
What Dermot and Deborah have to say is, I'm
sure, compelling for many of ourlisteners.
Lots of us are frustrated withthe slow pace of change.
We're worried we won't be ableto keep global temperature rises
within 1.5 degrees centigrade,and some of us are already
suffering the health effects ofextreme heat.
(12:39):
We want to know what we can dopersonally to reduce our
dependence on fossil fuels.
Some of us are trading in ourpetrol cars for electric
vehicles and turning torenewables to heat our homes.
But, says Candy Ofime of AmnestyInternational, we do need to
think carefully and aim for ajust transition.
SPEAKER_09 (13:01):
I think for most people, transitioning to
renewable energy might mean uhchanging your gas stove, buying
uh an electric car.
But I think if we want thetransition to be just, fair,
equitable, and rightsrespecting, we have to think
about the whole supply chainmodel that we're transitioning
(13:23):
from into.
At Amnesty, we spent a lot oftime documenting the impact of
renewable energy transitionprojects on groups in different
parts of the world.
If you think, for example, aboutan electric car, a lot of them
are built with criticalminerals, cobalt, among others,
that are extracted in a waythat's polluting and that has a
(13:48):
huge human rights cost oncommunities in different parts
of the world.
I've documented the impact ofcobalt mining um in the
Democratic Republic of theCongo, both mine industrially
and through artisanal mining.
And today, cobalt is everywhere.
You see it in electric vehicles,energy storage facilities.
(14:09):
It's a mineral that's essentialfor the energy transition.
But what most people do not knowis that the world's largest
reserves are located in theCongo, and people are evicted
from their land for industrialsites to expense.
And a lot of artisanal minersare actually risking their lives
(14:30):
on a daily basis to mine withoutprotective equipment.
And so it's easy if you justthink about what you see, what's
before you, to think that yourindividual consumer habits might
be more sustainable if you don'tthink about tracing the sort of
ecosystem within which yourenergy is supplied and the goods
that you actually have tangiblybefore you where they come from.
SPEAKER_04 (14:54):
Do you think that COP has been addressing that
particular side of itsufficiently?
I mean, we've had the indigenousgroups protesting about fossil
fuels, but is there aconsciousness that when we, if
as we switch to renewables, thatthe extraction of these critical
minerals, rare earths, and soon, that that has to be done
(15:17):
fairly within a human rightsframework?
SPEAKER_09 (15:19):
I think these are demands that civil society have
been bringing to the attentionof COP leaders.
Um, I think we're far from it interms of outcome documents that
particularly embed a humanrights framework to think about
the energy transition.
Now, what civil society isdemanding is not just a
(15:40):
transition to renewable energyin the abstract.
You'll hear the phrase justtransition a lot.
It's coming from the labormovement, and it encompasses
both a process that leaves noone behind.
And that starts with the workersof the fossil fuel industry who
will have to be rescaled andprovided alternative
(16:02):
opportunities for theirsubsistence all the way to the
consumption and the productionmodels that will pivot to while
we transition away from fossilfuels.
So we're barely at the stagewhere cop leaders are
considering discussing theelephant in the room.
SPEAKER_05 (16:22):
How much will climate change cost us and what
will it cost us to stop it?
SPEAKER_04 (16:28):
But even while Candy and her colleagues argue for a
just transition, in the world'swealthiest countries, some
people are beginning to doubtthat any kind of transition is
worth it or even necessary.
SPEAKER_06 (16:41):
We will drill, baby, drill.
SPEAKER_04 (16:45):
They worry about the cost to themselves.
The WHO's dermid CampbellLendrum suggests the current
fossil fuel-based financialmodel needs more scrutiny.
SPEAKER_06 (16:57):
At the moment, the world is massively subsidizing
the consumption of fossil fuels.
So if you're a taxpayer, youshould probably be aware that
governments around the world areon average providing about$3,000
per household per year on top ofthe energy bills that you pay in
order to subsidize theconsumption of fossil fuels,
(17:19):
which are also taking many livesfrom air pollution now and also
driving the climate crisis,which is messing up the future
for you and your children.
So you should probably take aninterest in the fact that for
most people, your taxes areactually going to subsidize the
climate crisis.
SPEAKER_04 (17:38):
Well, you say that, but a lot of people,
particularly in the West, in thedeveloped countries, are
personally thinking, I'm gonnathis is going to cost me too
much.
I'm gonna have to makeunnecessary sacrifices.
SPEAKER_06 (17:51):
Well, I think perhaps we're looking at this uh
the wrong way.
The evidence on the on theeconomics is very, very clear.
Clean energy is now the cheapestsource of energy.
So there are upfront investmentcosts in order to uh make the
transition uh that we need tomake to uh protect uh the
climate.
And in any country around theworld, those investment costs
(18:14):
are up front, but in arelatively short period of time,
they pay themselves back.
So typically, after say six oreight years, you've got back the
money that you've invested justfinancially, and from that point
on, you're effectively inprofit, you're making more money
back.
So it's obviously a good dealjust for the economy, but it's
(18:34):
an even better deal from ahealth point of view, because if
you factor in the fact that airpollution takes about seven
million lives every year, that'sa death every few seconds.
And most of the drivers of airpollution are actually the same
drivers as they are of theclimate crisis.
If you factor in the healthgains that you would get from
(18:55):
cleaning up our energy systems,in fact, those health gains are
bigger than the costs that ittakes to fix climate change.
So these are things we should bedoing anyway.
To be honest, even if you didn'tcare about climate change, you
should be doing it for clean airand more sustainable and healthy
food systems and so on.
It's absolutely clear from ascientific point of view, if not
(19:18):
a political point of view, thatthis is a good deal for
individual countries as well asfor the planet as a whole.
SPEAKER_05 (19:24):
Net zero, net zero net zero, net zero, net zero,
net zero.
Net zero.
Net zero madness.
SPEAKER_04 (19:32):
Dermud's points are persuasive, but still the fears
about the cost of transitionremain.
Candio Fime at Amnesty has heardthem too, and warns that many of
the arguments over cost arebeing fueled by one particular
lobby.
SPEAKER_09 (19:48):
These are flawed arguments, often fueled by, you
know, fossil fuel lobbyists inthe industry that has a vested
interest in spreading thosenarratives.
These are also, in many parts ofthe world, narratives that are
connected to the rise ofauthoritarianism.
You see interesting strains thatare attached to this fantasy of
(20:11):
a romanticized past whereeconomic growth was attached to
modalities of production andconsumption that are changing.
And so I think there's a way tocounter a narrative that's based
in fear, looking atopportunities that renewable
energy projects offer across theworld and that are not
(20:32):
complicated to imagine.
I think we have to remember thatour collective imagination is
limited by design.
They are corporate intereststhat are invested in preserving
the status quo.
And if we want to thinkcreatively about liberation, and
if we want to think holisticallyabout how to protect our planet
(20:56):
for future generations, I thinkwe need to be very mindful and
unpack the forces that are atplay.
We're talking about billions andbillions of dollars of fossil
fuel subsidies that statesprovide to fossil fuel
companies.
So when we talk about corporategreed and when we talk about
limitations and possibilities,these are dimensions that I
(21:16):
think a lot of people ignore.
And if we had more politicalwill and corporate interest in
forging an alternative that'ssustainable, I think the
conversation would be in adifferent place in many parts of
the world.
In the past half hour, leadersat the COP 30 Climate Summit in
Brazil have agreed on a dealthat ends the summit but fails
(21:38):
to mention fossil fuels.
SPEAKER_04 (21:39):
So where is the political and corporate will?
COP 30 has now ended with a verymodest agreement which makes no
mention of Moore commitment tophasing out fossil fuels.
And the entire conference washeld without the world's most
powerful country, biggestconsumer of fossil fuels, and
(22:00):
also the biggest emitter ofgreenhouse gases, the United
States.
You might imagine that thepeople I've been talking to
today would be disappointed, butit's not as simple as that.
Candy or Fime again?
SPEAKER_09 (22:14):
You might be surprised by my answer, but I'm
actually quite hopeful, and Ithink that the answer is
probably coming from thecountries and the communities
that have the most to lose.
So we've seen incredibleexamples of political leadership
coming from small islandcountries like Tuvalu, Fiji
(22:35):
Island, places that willdisappear in the next few
decades if we don't do somethingimmediately.
Small island countries,developing nations that actually
have a lot to lose in thecurrent state of play have
really been stepping up on theinternational political stage to
(22:56):
push for the conversation toshift.
So surprisingly, I think becausemaybe I'm interacting with
groups and communities aroundthe world that have just
demonstrated so much innovationaround climate solutions, I feel
like they're there.
We just have to pay attention tothem and bring them to the
centers of decision making.
SPEAKER_04 (23:17):
Has it been helpful or a hindrance that the United
States, the world's biggestemitter, has not been at COP 30?
SPEAKER_09 (23:27):
I think consensus from civil society would be that
it's been helpful.
The US is usually a blocker.
And sometimes having the biggestpolluters not in the room allows
for consensus to be reached.
And I think if we secure apositive outcome on um fossil
fuel phase out at this COP, itwould most likely have been
(23:47):
helped by the absence of theUnited States, who most likely
would have objected.
SPEAKER_04 (23:52):
Okay, that's so that's interesting.
World's only superpower getsleft out.
You're not the first person tosay that to me that, okay, fine,
they're not here, good.
We need to get this done.
We do it without them.
SPEAKER_09 (24:03):
Yeah.
International negotiations,that's where multilateral
multilateralism, and I can neverpronounce that word.
You know, you keep um keepgoing.
And so right now the US isreally using its influence
internationally to leverage itseconomic and trade deals to
disincentivize and to pushreally regressive policies on
(24:25):
climate.
And so in this forum, decisionshave to be made and they will be
made with or without the UnitedStates.
SPEAKER_04 (24:31):
And Deborah Sanchez believes this year's COP, with
its focus on indigenous peoples,has laid good foundations and
she's already building for nextyear.
SPEAKER_01 (24:41):
From our side, we'll be supporting as much as we can
the governments to reallyunderstand what are those action
points the communities arebringing and how from where
policymakers can make a decisionto actually advance these
commitments that they have beendone in COP.
So by next year, when we are inCOP again, we have some results.
(25:05):
So, for example, we hadsupported in the policy around
land tenure for indigenouspeoples in DRC.
And now in this COP, we alreadysee 150,000 hectares of land
being recognized for indigenouspeoples and local community.
And if we continue supportingthat conversation and that work
together between communities,countries, and philanthropy,
(25:28):
channeling the funds there, nextyear in COP, we want to see
bigger, right?
We want to see probably 1million hectares.
And that will be a massiveachievement around tackling
climate change, but also from anangle of human rights and
justice in environment justiceand climate justice, that what
is what we are advocating for.
SPEAKER_04 (25:49):
And Dermud Campbell Lendrum of the WHO puts his
faith not in the climate denierswho populate our social media
feeds, but ordinary people theworld over who every opinion
poll shows want to protect ourplanet.
SPEAKER_06 (26:05):
Well, first off, I think they may need less
convincing than you think thatuh we need action on climate
change.
The polling from around theworld uh shows that there is a
very strong majority inbasically every country in the
world to do more about climatechange.
We've fallen into this narrativethat it's it's all pain and no
(26:25):
gain, and it's all uh doom andgloom and no benefit.
The evidence is if we look atthe actual solutions that we
need to put into place, many ofthose are pretty popular.
So people are actually in favorof clean air.
They actually want air that issafe for their children to
breathe.
(26:45):
They are in favour, I think, ofspending less of their
taxpayers' money and their andtheir own money on subsidizing
the uh the climate crisis andputting that money into things
which are actually useful forsociety.
So the message that we have isto talk much more about the
solutions, because those arepopular and those are
(27:06):
empowering, rather than justtelling people the world's going
to hell unless we all act to theuh to the extreme now, um,
there's nothing we can do aboutit.
When you break it down intopractical actions that
individuals can take andgovernments can take, you get a
lot more support.
The final thing I'd like to sayon this is that the health
community is absolutely behindthis.
(27:29):
So we work with healthprofessionals from around uh the
world, and there is a very clearconsensus amongst frontline
health professionals, yourdoctors and your nurses, uh,
that we need to take action onclimate change and that it's
good for your health.
And I the final thing I wouldsay to the woman or man in the
street is that you know youprobably trust your doctors and
(27:49):
nurses to be telling you what'sgood for you.
These are clever people who wantwhat's best for you and can read
a temperature graph, uh, andthey know that there are
concrete actions that you cantake, which are good for your
health as well as good for theplanet.
SPEAKER_04 (28:10):
And with those wise words from the WHO, a gentle
reminder, in fact, thatlistening to the scientific
advice is always recommended, wecome to the end of this edition
of Inside Geneva.
My thanks to Dermot, Deborah,and Candy for their time and
their insights.
We hope you enjoyed the program.
(28:31):
Next time on Inside Geneva.
SPEAKER_10 (28:35):
Judges from Britain, America, Russia, and France
assemble in Nuremberg'scourthouse.
Imagination sickens at thecrimes laid upon the accused,
now stripped of the trappings oftime.
The world's writ has run toNuremberg, and justice waits.
SPEAKER_04 (28:52):
It's 80 years since the Nuremberg trials, 80 years
since the founding of the UnitedNations, and 80 years since the
world agreed on some basicinternational laws to keep us
all safe.
But 80 years on, is 2025, theyear we threw it all away.
(29:14):
Join us on December 9th for afascinating discussion.
And just before we go, here'ssome news of another Swiss Info
podcast that some of ourlisteners might be interested
in.
(29:34):
Are you Swiss and planning tomove abroad?
Or maybe you've already takenthe leap?
SwissInfo has a new podcast justfor you.
It's coming out on November25th.
It's called Ade Merci Schwitz.
Or maybe that should be AdieuMerci la Suisse.
It's available in Swiss Germanand French.
(29:55):
It covers everything you need toknow about setting up your new
life abroad.
Abroad.
We speak to Swiss around theworld who've already made the
move, and we ask experts toshare their experiences.
You'll find Ade Mercy Schwitzwherever you get your podcasts
or in our SWIPLU app.
(30:21):
A reminder you've been listeningto Inside Geneva, a Swiss Info
production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodes: how the International Red Cross (30:31):
undefined
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com