Mamdani and Polanski: can a new left undo Trump’s climate reversal?

While COP30 gets underway in Brazil - Donald Trump is ripping up climate policy, blasting his allies for falling for what he calls the ‘world's greatest con job’ and trying to get big business to follow his lead - and yet in New York, Zohran Mamdani - a left-wing populist unafraid to tout a green agenda - has just won the mayoral race and in the UK, the Green Party has surged under Zack Polanski.

So is the direction of travel really a climate rollback - or is a new left preparing to claim power and reclaim the climate argument? 

With me, from the COP in Belém, is our Chief Correspondent Alex Thomson - and in London, the financial journalist and author Andrew Ross Sorkin, whose new book 1929 investigates the Wall Street crash.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
This administration, the United States has completely shifted
the dynamic around getting to Net 0 at all.
Comments that Bill Gates made even in the past week about
effectively a more moderate approach is a complete shift.
Trump surrendering, going back to drill, baby drill, as he puts
it. In doing so, he's could well be
surrendering the greatest economic opportunity in the

(00:21):
history of the human race to China.
Let's just come then to the the big political development New
York and and Zara Mandani. Is there a bigger trend here
that might lead to something? Hello and welcome to the
forecast. While COP 30 gets underway in
Brazil, in the US, Donald Trump is ripping up climate policy,

(00:43):
blasting his allies for falling for what he calls the world's
greatest con job. And big business is working out
whether or not to follow his lead.
And yet in New York, Zoran Mandani, a left wing populist
unafraid to tout a green agenda,has just won the mayoral race.
And in the UK, the Green Party has surged under Zach Polanski.
So is the direction of travel really a climate rollback?

(01:06):
Or is a new left preparing to claim power and reclaim the
climate argument? With me from COP in Belem is our
chief correspondent, Alex Thompson, and in London, the
financial journalist and author Andrew Ross Sorkin, whose new
book 1929 investigates the Wall Street crash.
Thank you both for joining us. Andrew, let's begin with you.

(01:27):
I mean, to what extent is Trump trying to cast a shadow over COP
30 and frustrate the whole, you know, the whole process?
Oh, I don't think he's just trying.
I think he is and and doing so quite successfully by I mean all
of the rollback efforts that have been made already by this

(01:48):
administration in the United States has completely shifted
the dynamic around net getting to net 0 at all.
And I think you're seeing it in terms of even the large big tech
companies in America that made all sorts of pledges effectively
stepping away from them. The comments that Bill Gates
made even in the past week abouteffectively a more moderate
approach towards those goals is a complete shift.

(02:12):
And and despite frankly you know, the mayoral elect in in
New York City, Zoran Mandami, I am not sure that the direction
of travel is in, in cops favour,if you will, in this moment.
Yeah, I mean, look, look, Trump is sort of is not sending a high
level team to Brazil. America's coming out of the

(02:33):
Paris climate agreement. But but just just focus on on
that sort of corporate America story, if you like.
I mean, you wrote about Bill Gates.
I mean, how much of a real rollback is this?
Or is there an element to which corporate America is getting on
with what it was doing before Trump was re elected, but just

(02:54):
not being as vocal about it as it was before so as not to annoy
him, you know? Look, I think there's some level
of of truth to that. I think one of the things that's
happened in the United States isthe the enormous amount of
investment being made in artificial intelligence right
now. And all of the, the, the sort of
power and energy ecosystem around that that's required has

(03:17):
raised real questions about how much carbon ultimately is going
to be put out as a function of, of all of the new technology and
investment that needs to be madeand energy that needs to get
made. So I think in some ways there's
been a complete rethink even with an industry about how to
approach these goals. I think there was a lot of good
faith efforts that were made, you know, during the past

(03:40):
administration before that around net 0 sum, you know,
companies suggesting they were going to get to, you know, even
even less than net 0 effectivelygoing back in time.
But I think actually Bill Gates's comments are especially,
you know, important in this moment because one of the things
that he's effectively saying nowis not the climate is an

(04:01):
important, but especially in a moment where, you know, USAID
money has effectively disappeared, that now there is a
real debate about how resources get spent.
And in a world of, of finite resources, is it going to be
spent towards climate? Is it going to be spent towards
other things? In this case, I think Bill Gates
is now saying, I think we'll probably see this him deploy

(04:23):
more money towards, you know, measles and polio and things
like that. And and frankly, a way at least,
or at least less than where he was on climate before.
Alex, I mean, to what extent is this shadow being felt in Brazil
as COP gets underway? Well, I think the the shadows
clearly being felt in in Brazil as are being felt elsewhere

(04:43):
across the whole climate world. But there is, dare I say it, a
possibility that we might be getting America here and
Trumpism a little bit out of perspective.
There is the second industrial revolution on this planet going
on. We started, the Brits LED it of
course with coal 150 odd years ago.
It's now happening with electricity, and it's now being
LED very much by China. Now, that's impossible to

(05:06):
ignore. And when you set that fact, and
it is an economic fact against what Trump and other politicians
of some parties may be saying elsewhere in the world, it comes
close to being a little bit irrelevant.
You know, I mean renewables outstripped fossil fuels for the
first time last year by 4141%. The projection of of renewables

(05:30):
roll out has exceeded the expectations and the projections
of the International Energy Agency by 1500% since 2015.
The amount of money going into renewables is now 2.1 trillion
this year. That is twice the amount of
money going into coal, oil and gas.
More people last year for the first time were employed in

(05:52):
renewables around the world energy sector than are employed
in fossils. That is the reality.
That is what is happening. And nothing that Donald Trump or
anybody else politically can sayabout, you know, global warming
being a con or net 0 being too expensive.
They never tell you what not doing net 0 cost, by the way,
none of that is going to make any difference because big

(06:12):
business frankly sees the climate breakdown as an
opportunity and they're going for it.
And yet, you know, Europe is clearly divided.
It's declarations at the beginning of COP have clearly
been watered down. Their ambitions have been
shrunk. They're delaying the start of

(06:33):
the new European carbon market. You know, what do you think is
going on there And, and, and, and what do you think we will
then hope to get out of this COPby the end of it?
Well, hope it's not hope. It's not exactly thick in the
steamy Equatorial air here, Krishnan, to put it, to put it
mildly. And the political reasons for

(06:54):
that are obvious. But I mean, the cop is one
thing, but it is apart from the House, it's fearsomely
democratic. So one country, one country out
of what is 194, whatever can stymie and sabotage the whole
process. The Saudis want to sabotage
things because they want to go on exporting oil.
The biggest oil exporters on theplanet, the Indians have a
massive domestic coal interest. They want to keep that going.

(07:18):
But at the same time, there is this extraordinary push towards
renewables elsewhere. And don't forget, these cops do
matter. If it wasn't for the cop
process, we'd all still be talking about the ozone layer.
It was a COP which put paid to that and stopped the CFCS going
into the atmosphere. If it wasn't for cops, humans,
humanity would be looking at a four Celsius rise in

(07:41):
temperatures, average global temperatures by the end of the
century. That's been pulled back to 2.6.
And if you what I've just been saying about how the projections
for renewables are outstripping,the reality is outstripping the
projections for renewables, that2.6 could come lower still.
So they do make progress. It's just, as many people would

(08:02):
say, too slow. Andrew.
Well, look, I think they out this point, there's no question
renewables are still, you know, on a trend line going in the
right direction. But so much of that trend line
is actually a function of what'shappening in China uniquely.
And actually one of the things that's going to be very
interesting to watch over the next several years is how much
the United States and frankly Europe want to compete

(08:22):
effectively with China when it comes to renewables.
That is a functional big question mark right now.
But I do think I going back to this direction of travel in
terms of what corporate America is looking at right now.
You know, they're seeing a president that effectively is
saying don't invest in these things.
I mean, it's not just saying that they that this president's

(08:44):
agnostic, This president is not agnostic about where where fuel
and energy is going to come fromin the future.
That that has become an interesting point.
And you have not seen the CEO community rise up and raise
their hand and say, you know what, Mr. President, we disagree
with you. In fact, they have been silent
on this issue in large part, to be honest with you, because

(09:05):
either they disagree with the president or frankly, they agree
with the president or think thatit's a cheaper option to go that
approach, even if it's the shortterm approach.
Do do they not fear, though, that America will just fall
behind, that this is is a massive missed opportunity as
China surges ahead with renewables and takes this sort
of global leadership role, that America becomes, you know,

(09:28):
partly irrelevant but also way behind in business terms?
Well, look, the big question right this moment is actually a
function of tariffs and how the tariff regime is changing
everything. I mean, you know, the United
States effectively has argued that these tariffs are some kind
of national security or resiliency argument.

(09:49):
But the truth of the matter is that if you are creating your
own domestic economy, the competition becomes less
important. Look, I like competition.
You like competition. Actually, most CE OS think that
they like competition, except when it's competition with
themselves. So the so the global markets in
renewable technology is not seenas the big opportunity that it

(10:13):
was two years ago. I think that there is a real
divide given that what given this idea of the fracturing of
globalization right now, I thinkthere's a real question mark
within the CEO community, especially in the United States
about what that really means anymore and what competition in
around the globe is ultimately going to look like.

(10:34):
And the truth is the United States, while we were creating
some of this technology, we werenot manufacturing it and
exporting it. And so that's an interesting and
important factor just to think about service, how U.S. business
thinks about this. In fact, most of it was being
imported. Alex, I mean, the other thing
that's that may, you know, rear its head in these negotiations

(10:55):
is the fear among some countriesof Trump using his tariff policy
to to thwart international agreements.
We saw what happened at the IMO over the last few days where
Trump basically blocked a, a, a,an attempt to make shipping more
environmentally friendly. Could he do the same at COP 30?

(11:19):
He could come to that in a minute, just to come back to
what Andrew was saying a moment ago.
I'm sure Andrew would agree withme.
Don't read too much into the silence of CEOSCEOS.
Don't pick fights with Heads of Government.
That's not that. Therefore, the board doesn't
like it. The markets don't like it.
They get on. And in terms domestically of
getting on, let's consider, if you will for a moment, what's
happening in the United States. Where's the biggest roll out of

(11:40):
renewables in the United States?Which state would you choose?
The answer, of course, is Texas.Oil rich, gas rich Texas.
They're people. They're absolutely forging
ahead, and they're forging aheadwith as much perhaps silence,
subtlety and subterfuge as they can.
Globally. It is said in some quarters, and
there may be some grain of truthin this or it may be hyperbole

(12:00):
that Trump surrendering on the issue of going back to drill,
baby drill as he puts it. In doing so, he's could well be
surrendering the greatest economic opportunity in the
history of the human race to China to get on with it and
perhaps the EU when they get their act together to come on in
the curts in the coat tails. Certainly across the UK there
are many of companies who are forging ahead in the renewables

(12:24):
markets and selling right into markets like like the United
States. We filmed in one last week,
massive batteries, container sized batteries.
Where are they penetrating the market in the US?
Why? Because U.S. companies are being
discouraged from doing so. But they need large batteries
for when the wind don't blow. Now, as regards the IMO, yeah,
the big fear you talked, we started this conversation

(12:46):
worrying about the shadow of Trump hanging over.
It's true Trump isn't sending a high level delegation.
It's true he's trying to pull out of Paris, but that would
still take many, many more months to achieve.
It's also true that a lot of state interests, California and
many states, are sending delegations here to say, look,
bluntly, we're not listening to what the White House is saying.

(13:06):
We're getting on with making money in renewables.
But there is that fear at the end of the International
Maritime Organization's conference where they were
trying at last to find a globally agreed way of curbing
emissions from bunker oil, from ships, chimneys, if you will.
And they were close to it and they had it.
Trump sent in his people, the saboteurs in suits to wreck

(13:29):
that. There is they fear that that
that could be attempted here at the cop.
But at the moment Trump is saying that they're not sending
any delegation of any real worthand they're sticking to that.
But we shall see. Andrew wants to come in.
Yeah, just one note. You know, during the first Trump
administration, the CEO community spoke out and spoke

(13:51):
out quite vocally about things that they disagreed with this
with the president, including onclimate, including on his views
about the Paris climate accord and so many other issues.
And and so to suggest that somehow the silence is somehow
no different and that that that CE OS never speak out against,
you know, people in power, I think is actually a a false

(14:13):
choice. I think we saw it in action
empirically between 2016 and 2020 repeatedly over and over
and over again. And it's only now actually given
some of the steps that this administration has taken against
businesses, against universitiesand, and, and against his
enemies in other ways, that we have now seen some of the

(14:36):
wealthiest people in the United States who would otherwise raise
their hand, not raise their handout of fear, sure, but.
What we can agree on, Andrew, what we can agree on is that
they are by self getting on withit.
You know they are still doing this stuff.
Some, but I think it's I, I, I mean, I think that there is
some, there is some of it still going on, but I think the, the

(14:56):
the path of travel in terms of the ambitions that they had even
two years ago is just so very different today than it was
then. Can can you just and I say it's
unfortunate I. Mean what is actually driving
Trump, you know, is it is it just America first?
He thinks, you know, that, that,you know, that there is an

(15:17):
easier way to prosperity from oil and gas in the short term.
You know, is it some attempts tosort of thwart China by
undermining the whole renewable energy, you know, process or is
it that he he just doesn't understand this stuff?
I think it's probably all of theabove and some, you know, it's

(15:38):
never black and white. I think it's a piece of all of
the different components that you just described.
You know, I think on the election trail when he was, you
know, making pledges to to, you know, vast parts of America,
especially in, in towns that hadhistorically coal and other
kinds of what what might describe as dirty energy and the
like. Part of his appeal was he was

(15:59):
saying that he was going to helpthose people get their jobs
back. That's that's what he ran on.
He's somebody who historically has not really believed in
climate change unto itself that that that actually carbon even
in his mind necessarily is the is the knob, if you will, that
is going to change the dynamic over time.

(16:20):
So I think there's a whole bunchof reasons why, you know, and he
would put even climate in this sort of category of woke ISM,
you know, a phrase that you know, has become the the phrase
of the day in America, but that has sort of an amorphous meaning
in lots of ways. Let's just come then to the the
big political development of theday, which is New York and and
Zara Mandani. Is New York just another country

(16:44):
or, or, or is there a bigger trend here that might lead to
something? Look, I think there's real
questions about capitalism and socialism and that you're seeing
that play out in New York. And I think it's it's
representative of affordability crisis that's happening in
America. I think both parties would agree
that there's an affordability crisis in America.
The question is how do you attack that issue of

(17:06):
affordability. What I think we don't know, and
it'll be great experiment, is tosee what ultimately happens in
New York and how much of his agenda, which includes things
that are almost the antithesis for a place that's considered
the capital of capitalism, whether that will work.
And that's the experiment. Yeah, I mean, Alex, I mean,

(17:28):
there are there are fewer Heads of Government going to cop than
last year, aren't there? But I mean, what, what is the
sort of, what is the political feeling?
Do you think you know the the sort of if there was a sort of a
centre of gravity politically that is moving to the right in
lots of parts of the world, is that being felt at COP?
I don't think it is. I mean, the swing of the

(17:50):
political centre of gravity doesn't quite work like that
when you've got this extraordinary sort of, as I
said, democracy of 194 countrieswhere everybody has got to agree
on anything before anything is agreed at all.
You can see from what we've beentalking about, what Andrews just
been explaining about the domestic shift.

(18:10):
I'm in recent elections in in the US.
Quite plainly, what people are seeing here and what they're
looking to is China as a leader,as giving leadership in this.
China has moved its move to address in its NDC nationally
these national plans that countries are required to come
up with. It has for the first time moved
to talking indefinite, quantifiable terms about carbon

(18:35):
reduction. It's doing more by scale than
any other country on the planet in terms of rolling out
renewables. Xi Jinping doesn't come to these
things. And that's so there's nothing
new there, but they send, there's almost the next best
thing in terms of the sort of high command of the
administration in Beijing. So they're looking at them to to

(18:55):
to pick up the baton. And here's a slightly weird
thing about China in terms of its NDC's, its plans to cut
carbon, its plans to stop, curb its pollution.
China's quite unusual, the broadbrushes that most countries
promise a lot but don't deliver to that extent.
China has tended rather to do the opposite, be rather cautious

(19:18):
in its approach, in its promises, in what it can deliver
and actually in quite a number of different areas in terms of
carbon reduction across the industrial piece has under has
over delivered on these plans. So there's a source of hunch
that that might happen here. I mean, the Trump effect
obviously has disrupted things. But then again, we've been here
before. You know, a few years ago it was

(19:40):
Madrid, a cop conference, Trump first administration pulling out
of the Paris Agreement, blah, blah, blah, and high level
delegations. Nancy Pelosi was giving
interviews to every local radio station, every local paper on
the conference, on conference floor to make a point.
That won't happen in the same way this time around.
But yeah, the shift is to China.I mean, that's true, isn't it

(20:01):
Andrew, that the pendulum is notgoing to generally go Trump's
way because China and India are are not going to agree
ultimately because they know it's in their interest to pursue
a renewables, you know, agenda, not least for domestic economic
reasons. Well, there's no question.
And now we get back to the the question about tariffs.

(20:23):
And, you know, if you live in a tariff world, what that
ultimately looks like if, if there is this sort of breakdown
in globalization, what does it mean for the United States to
even compete with China or for China to compete with the US?
And if you're implementing all these tariffs around, you know,
it it, it fundamentally changes the dynamics of competition.

(20:44):
You know, by the way, back in 19291930, we had tariffs in the
United States and it reduced global trade by 60% within 12
months. And when that happened, I think
there was a real wake up call actually about globalization and
about what you would actually want in the context of
competition. Yeah, I mean, I'm glad, I'm glad
you took us to to your book because I was about to do the

(21:06):
same thing. I mean, wait, wait, you're
looking at, you know, the, the circumstances that led to the,
the crash of 1929, which is, which is probably not really
widely understood by most people.
We just kind of, we know there was a crash, but we're not
really sure exactly why, you know, to what extent are the
current circumstances similar? What was happening back then?

(21:30):
Well. Unfortunately, you know, and it
was not my intent when I startedwriting this book, I was trying
to bring people inside the room so they could understand what
that crisis looked like. The parallels are quite shocking
because it was all of the same kind of euphoria that we're
living with today. All of this excitement in the
marketplace around new technology.
Back then it was telecommunications and radio and
automobiles. Today it's AI and this this view

(21:53):
that it's going to change the world and it probably will
change the world, but it's bringing in all of this
investment that is almost indiscriminate to some degree.
And as a result, it also comes with leverage.
There's so much, there was so many loans being brought into
play with AI, but back in the 1920s being brought into play
because investors were actually taking out extraordinary loans

(22:13):
to bet on all of the stuff in the stock market both in New
York and and here in the UK and around the world.
And so the real question today when we're looking at sort of
where things are, by the way, this relates actually to some of
the renewable efforts as well ashow much leverage, how much debt
is there in the system. And the truth is, right this
moment, I don't think we know so.
Do you think if we got towards another, well, I mean, you know,

(22:36):
maybe not a crash, but a mini crash does that, does that, does
that strangle off the climate agenda in developing countries?
Well, look. Yes, arguably there's been an
argument for years now that, youknow, we've been living in, you
know, anytime we have boom times, we're able to afford to
do things that hopefully move, you know, the human race

(23:00):
forward. Renewables may be one of those
things, you know, when you get into a moment of a crash or some
kind of austerity, investments in things like that seem to
dissipate. The real question, and this has
been the big issue at COP for years is can you make renewables
more economically viable than some of these older, older, you

(23:22):
know, CARB carbon fuels that we've been living with for
years. And in some cases we have done
that, in some cases we haven't. And that's really, I think,
going to be a huge dynamic goingforward.
Yeah, I mean, Alex, I mean, the the promise of making renewables
more economically viable than fossil fuels has been greater

(23:45):
than the delivery, hasn't it, sofar?
Well, it depends which dimensionyou look at.
I mean, Cop is the last place that you're going to look to
affect a, an economically viabledowngrade in the prices that
solar panels costs or the bladesfor wind turbines and so forth.
But the market and competition and technology will absolutely

(24:06):
do that and absolutely is doing that.
You only have to look at, well, anything you want to choose.
Let's choose those two examples.The cost of a solar panel, for
instance, the cost of a blade ona turbine, wind turbine, for
instance. Look, just go and look at the
cost of those and there's your answer.
They're coming down, down, down and dare I say down as against
oil and gas. I mean, oil and gas is a finite,

(24:27):
filthy resource. We're going, it is running out.
You know, certain parts of the British political establishment
talk about getting North Sea oiland gas out of the North Sea.
While a lot of it isn't in the North Sea, it's in the northwest
Atlantic, West of Shetland. It's a long way out there.
It's a long way down. There's hardly any oil anyway,
so you're looking at gas. So that's, I just throw that out
as an example of what is effectively just in resource,

(24:50):
simple resource terms, forget economics and politics, simple
resource terms some which is obviously mid long term a sunset
industry. The exact opposite is happening
in renewables. And Andrew is right, yeah,
that's going to be likely impacted in some way should
there be God forbid some kind ofeconomic crash.

(25:11):
However, the good news is as those prices have come down and
that trajectory continues, we would hope there's some
insulation to that attack. And Andrew, just finally, I
mean, what would the big risk bethat all it's the big
infrastructure cost that could no longer be financed, You know,
it's, it's building these things.
Right. And and this is how, but it
connects back to energy. So there's a huge infrastructure

(25:32):
cost right now and a lot, you know, hundreds of billions of
dollars moving towards building these data centers.
It's not just the data centers themselves, it's actually the
energy that's going to power these data centers.
And so the real question is whenyou have, you know, large
language model companies and these tech companies that have
not become profitable yet effectively making commitments
to buy things that they actuallyneed cash for, whether they're

(25:54):
going to be able to make those cash payments in the future.
And if we get to a point where they can't make those payments
and they've taken on extraordinary debt and there is
a crash that actually will set back not just AI, but we'll set
back, I would argue the the energy complex and some of the
renewable efforts as well given given how connected those

(26:14):
markets are. Well, we'll leave it there.
Andrew Ross Sorkin, thank you very much indeed for joining us,
Alex Hanlakop. And we'll speak again soon.
That's the forecast. Bye bye.