the the, the welcome to the part is miss on to is a terry because, but in the final analysis we are all children on thing earth, all our access to its reaches and our exposure to its ralph and differs immensely. not only because of sherlock for the past couple of centuries, the resources of this planet have been eagerly and often wastefully explored in 5 days. so cold developed countries living the rest to pick up the pieces. the toll

of such an approach is broad may recognize, but why has it not materialized yet into any practical form of environmental accountability? to discuss that i'm now joined by 100 thinks a climate activist on global engagement director. and they also feel non proliferation treaty initiative, which i think it's great to talk to. thank you very much for your time. thank you so much for having me. let me 1st start with the difficult question because i think that the issue of protecting the environment is it is a very complicated one. on the one hand, it's practically relevant to each and every one of us. it's the air we breathe, the water we drink, the weather, re enjoy or suffering, but on the other have it's, it can be very abstract, very elitist. i'm very political. and i know that there are concerns in many countries that latisha's a whole nice since and may be exploiting it in the put

a manipulative way. and i wanna ask you personally, how do you distinguish between what's january and then what's manipulative for self serving in the current environmental debate? what's on i just said, uh, this is deeply political, but i would slightly different say it's not abstract. i think it's absolutely pill the reason b, c and my mentor degradation all around us is because of the choices we have made over the last few decades and centuries. it's the political economy that has driven the environmental degradation and the climate crisis. both of us be crisis, but even the and other devices that we are facing at this moment. so it's all the comic policies that have been responsible for despite the crisis that the board is facing right now. and not only people in the developing board, but also in the develop societies,

they are really struggling to make the ends meet because the money is now far more concentrated in a few hinds. and when we talk about protecting the environment, we would like to see genuine efforts made by governments, the book and mom and ecology at the center, all 5 development better thing. as a source of you know, dichotomy to look at. my met the development separate, the not you mentioned the word political economy and we will focus on the few later . but i think there's a much larger question that's many of our, our societies leave within the economic system that encourages over consumption. that encourages over production. and that in itself, drives a need for fuel. sure, that'd be addressed 1st before we switch to the particulars of which kind of fuel we are going to use. the absolutely right on the part of that uh,

the kind of develop in model that has been promoted uh, which encourages ordinary citizens to work as you own without realizing that our actions have a huge impact on the environment, the ecosystem that eventually us look at how climate crisis is affecting everybody, including human beings, absolutely different personal health, for example. exactly. and, and the way our, our health systems not affected, it's the way our society is being disrupted. all that is because of the economic model that promotes or consumption. and you know, if that it is a metric bought over short day, which depths us that, you know, by the time be the top of the calendar year will be stopped expecting more than allowing natural resources to reach under it. so that's the state of affairs and we are all be living to the 6 mos extinction. and it's all caused by human beings and

our full course development model. assisting you offline, talk about how rich countries don't fully appreciate that their development has come on the backs of poor countries while at the same time promoting dime models as something to emulate or per train themselves to be a climate trendsetters of climate leaders. and as frustrating as it is, history doesn't come with file a complaint or get their reimbursement options. i mean, it is what it is. why is any discussion about the buy guns about the winners and losers of the industrial era relevant to the present? oh, so you lost a number of things, let me try and, and respond by saying that the most important thing that we look at been be talk about climate action or other kind of justice is equity. so who is the responsible for the crisis? who has the biggest responsibility to fix it and who is suffering?

not. that's what is justice that we talk about. and do the oddity is that the united states and european union are cumulatively responsible for more than off of the greenhouse gas emissions. in the most fair, which have costs the problem in the 1st place, there is no doubt that that balance has shifted. now developing countries are producing more of the in house gases. but the reality is that we knew about climate change of 50 years ago that it's fossil fuels, but which are responsible for the x direction and bunting. yet, we promote that the same model of development. and despite having a convention in 1992, which clearly states the responsibility lies, mostly this country is not only to reduce that emissions, but also stop or developing countries, particularly in a box a dock has not happened. so developing countries have been left on that on i wonder

the sources that they had in terms of fossil fuels and they started using doors and that's why no more machines are coming from developing countries. but it's important to recognize that as happened because no financial support and technology was provided to them. and rich countries continued to increase their m tense and continued to the lot that extract the development model. now i also heard they say it in, and now they're entering into the united states, which is the world's largest oil producer. and historically, the biggest emitter has also done the most in order to blog or onto mind this initiative about things to bring some sort of not only environmental accountability but also an environmental transition transition to a different modal in what way has washington drag that feet right from the day one been even begun mentioned was being drafted in early ninety's. the united

states was very clear uh that different not take any action that would affect the economy. and senior bush was northwest saying that american lifestyle is not on the table for any kind of compromise, not, not totally. they continue with the big data size consumption, economic models that promote that as we had ended in not allow climate negotiations to make progress. and did not take strong targets based on that fashion based on data started the emissions, but rather they kept dragging their feet as gift. but the responsibility on china and india and other developing countries instead, but they should have done what's the share this all says in terms of finance and technology to help developing countries who just began industrialization 30 years ago to start using the green technology light from the day one, and it has been blocking negotiations to talk about the strong mitigation targets,

the concept of other operation. they have not provided any to saw says to community that countries do not be the time of impact. and i have been a witness to lawson damage negotiations for the last 15 years filed the blocked it systematically. that did not want to be a single penny. and that i didn't know, not allowed developing countries, but even had it on the agenda. i've seen it happening, you know, in front of my eyes. so us has been the biggest doctor and has been obstructing negotiations. can i ask you, how do you understand this here, since the resistance isn't because the americans don't want to be bound by any international treaties. or is it perhaps because they want to continue with the same sort of modus operandi? seeing the rest of the world as dire, restores based and seeing themselves as entitled to, you know, the best quality of life the world can offer. this is not the 1st time the us has been a big i think it's responsibility for the years and decades. we would talk about

child's rights then mention you talk about human rights who talk about the end to new can new movement. us engages to water down. but in the end it does not. it will agree to that a treaty or agreement and it doesn't really end dos it. so that's the idea of what united states because before the focus of the us is to continue with that, it's had you money, continue over. that's. but that's economic might. and that completely ignores all the important issues for the society and of environmental. this has been a, his body contractor guard of the us to not operate internationally, you know, to, for the greater pauses. but there's this thing that i think there is also, uh, major legal issues here and not only with the american society, but with menu, western societies where because they have this multinational corporations that operate all around the world,

the plunder on the world's resources. but they're separate that formerly separated from uh, you know, national governments, although they're open access emissaries of, uh, you know, western leads and provide the or sort of push for the agenda. and i wanted to how do you visit if you want to, if let's say, do you know, did states is shamed into a corporation? although it's very unlikely. but let's assume that's the case. how do you see it happening? because i can imagine, let's say a poor or middle income person in ohio, who would tell you that, you know, he or she has nothing to do with the profits or harm the chaperone know x and mobile has to go somewhere. why should that compensation come out of his own tax money? we all know that us bought a text or a in most wisdom countries it's, it's corporations was calling the shots. we have bought additions in the pockets. and that's how policies are cut off that. and you know,

let's talk about climate data. only a 100 companies are responsible for more than 70 percent of cumulative emissions. that's the reality. and most of these companies are based in the rest of the board . they did not want their governments to big strong action. and that's why these, like the united states, all european union of the large extent, you know, have not taken such strong actions. so the have to, you know, pull out those companies. and there is no doubt that there are many people in the developed world war also suffering from time with them back. they need to be supported. but then government savage and they can support. i think what people need to realize already citizens in the us and european union, that they have enjoyed the food stuff industrialization, which has happened at the cost of the global eco system. so there's that responsibility on the part of the god there, governments,

i'm not saying citizens that governments to bear for the damage to head into the bed. and this is why there is a responsibility or fits countries to support developing countries. and i must also mention that we talk about climate crisis, which is a global phenomenon. and only us taking action domestically. also, it's not going to be enough. as i said earlier, if no more emissions are going to come from developing countries, you know, it is an odd interest, a no, it doesn't. the interest of the developed countries citizens to support developing countries so that they can also adopt the green boxing. because we all have to protect our global climate system. so it does not need that. are people who are the developer. they also need to be supported, but the documents are rich and can afford very nice people in developing countries are doubly typically marginalized because they are not responsible. they don't have

it as sources. and the governments also don't have the sources. ok, well mr. think we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments. they tune the, the out probably her my little story. okay. the model girl that i got you. no problem seeing that on the out of the arguments. yeah, side of the drive i showed my brother through he was sudden to help people for a lo so now i never looked at searches as being the same. well, i guess on my list that's the outcome of

chicago police. it'd be gang chicago is like, you get a photo of that police. you really think your life as another crime, say another this could have been a doctor. a nurse could have been the next president. ok, keep losing people out here. the welcome back to world reports with hardships things global engagement director at the fossil fuel nonproliferation treated initiative. because i think i come from russia, which is also a major oil producing country and like many uh petra states, it has a somewhat had you position on the street. because on the one hand it recognizes

the need to limit the negative impact on the environment. and assist developing countries in acquiring more modern were environmental friendly technology. but on the other hand, if it doesn't support or i think even doesn't believe in the phasing out of fossil fuels completely or speedily claiming that it's simply not feasible in some locales. what do you make of a disposition? a science has proven that on all, many to boards, including the biggest a party on climate science into the panel on climate change. making it very clear that the need to move away from fossil fuels. and we need to be investing much more and a new but analogy of such as wind and solar. and it is absolutely possible to as fossil fuel, non proliferation. take the initiative, we have also come up with some of the boards by well known scientists clearly

claiming that there is enough for the sauce that can be deployed to promote renewable energy. there are some difficult sectors such as steel and c meant, and they're also technologies are evolving to displace the use of fossil fuels more. they keep saying that they cannot move away from fossil fuels and face them out more. they will continue to rely on these dangerous technologies and, and fuels which have caused the problem in the 1st place. well, most of the things, i'm frankly not fully persuaded on the why the availability of solar and wind energy coming from the north of rush. i can tell you that we do not get much sunlight. they are sure russia could find alternative sources and it's been developing, let's say, before nuclear energy. but again, it, it takes a lot of investment. it takes a lot of attention and i'm sure you're aware of the congo political tensions that

surely diverted budgetary resources to more pressing concerns. but that's even beyond the point. i think the russians have warren, that a speedy fossil fuel phase out with, for not only their economy, but 1st and foremost, people in south africa in south america rather in africa. in asia pacific, where allergy sources cheaper than high to carbons and not rationally available, um that have massive populations that need access to fluid. uh, transportation energy, uh, other public services now. and it wouldn't be immoral to ask, you know, people who are already leading compromised lives. to tighten up the valves for the sake of saving the planet for future generations in reach countries somewhere, you know, on the ha ha, on the other side of the world. what do you think about that? what's on, i must say that this is a absolutely wrong matter too,

and i can, i can prove it by saying that now the board is talking about africa needs energy. tell me what has happened in the last 34 decades to bollard off it off with the kind of energy it needs. 600000000 people who do not have access to energy more than a 1000000 people who do not have access to teen booking sources. only 2 percent of renewable energy investment has gone to africa. so now that people are discovering the fossil fuel source as in africa, they would like to invest because the supply has been disrupted and needs are increasing. why i'd be not investing in a new but an energy and especially now the point that the cost of the new but an energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. it's a long protects to say that fossil fuels are cheaper because we have not taken into account the extra analogies and the other unlimited. the cost of lots of deals. you're going to know to ignore that. look at,

look at what we are facing at this moment. the kind of flux that we saw in delay are unprecedented. and it's a bit of clear link to climate change, the human costs, the economic cost that be a bang. because if i continue, as you will know, fossil fuels, i've not taken into account, we have no option, but to shift to, to know whether or not the advocate has a huge the potential to hawaii. that'd be not investing money on the new. but in the why, why are we not investing? uh, let me try to uh, respond to that with a hypothesis a as to why i've been covering geo politics for like 2 decades. and i've never seen the international solidarity in uh, in a shoulder supply than right. now and i think you would agree any tricky, a let alone such a far reaching one requires consorted effort and genuine. so direct to you. what makes you believe that with the current state of affairs and you know, about the, all the conflicts around the world and, you know,

all the power struggle around the world. what makes you believe that, you know, those divides can be breached when in fact, most of the analysts, political analysts right now are discussing the potential for a distort. and there is a world war which can destroy the world much faster than any climate change. it is an absolutely sad reality that now the sources are going into wars which are causing destruction, which are, which are not taking, you know, st lives and richard also taking the but the pension of a from bought is absolutely need to respond to the climate emergency so in fact, i would argue that this is the point that the need of fossil fuel, non bloody physician to do much more than ever. because we have awarded a for this big conversation on fossil fuels. and let us recognize that we also have that fossil fuels on the company that has caused the problem in the 1st place. but we also do realize and acknowledge that millions of workers are dependent on fossil

fuels for the jobs. we also recognize that you cannot stop the use of fossil fuels immediately because that's and boss, economic and social disruption. so what do we need? we have awarded a little conversation on phasing old fossil fuels. look at what by this agreement has done, did not even mentioned the goal, i guess, you know, the mentioned and not talk about the fossil fuels so via have to talk about that. you know, the brief mention of transitioning of your from fossil fuels developed much details without providing sufficient financing technology. we will not be able to do it best. maybe we'll be meeting off that any of the oaks on the. a that we are in a possible situation if we don't have a global frame book to understand who needs support. we know the started conversation, the equity was responsible for the prices who has glossed in the 1st place who needs to provide more resources. and that cannot happen unless we have a global string book in the form of a fossil fuel treaty that is going to look into all these issues. so i would say

the need the treaty more than ever because guys lacking global cooperation. and that's why we need to come to the able to, to come up with a plan for that because for those communities and countries. now speaking about the treaty of the last year in climate summit comp 28th, an agreement was reached. i think you're basically your reference it for transitioning away from fossil fuel in energy assistance in adjust, orderly and equitable manner. it's not exactly the phase out that the environmental is like you perhaps wanted, but you know it's, it's a step forward. but i, i do want to ask you specifically about these 3 adjectives, just orderly and equitable. it's pretty clear that some island nation and some of you know, all producing states would see what's just been, what's equitable in predicts, you know, diverse terms simply because the circumstances that a very different i know you've been

a part of many of these discussions. i wonder how does it even look like, you know, those countries sitting together in one room and trying to point out the compromise when that positions a so polarized. this is the biggest problem that the face of the united nation. same book i mentioned on climate change you enough to, to policy because every decision has to be id by everybody. and this is, that isn't about be getting displaced is lowest common denominator, which means something which everybody can agree to. now, how can i, the nations who are suffering, do that of climate change, who are on the front line, who are seeing that a category is being, being, you know, some most into see and, and also is being swept away to agree to a transition that's going to take, you know, now, decades knowing that fossil fuels have caused the problem. whereas that are the countries who are so heavily reliant on fossil fuels, you know, for the economy or jobs and the countries large number of companies in between or depending on the cost of the fields. so that's where those key words that you

mentioned, just equitable in an orderly, unimportant sylvia, please deduct those words, but mentioned because that's what we also have been advocating for. it has to be done and adjusted by next. all countries will need support. they need that kind of, you know, financial and technology. the support of equitable means. countries who are most responsible have to do a lot more than lot foster and support of the countries and orderly because we also need to make sure that, you know, people who are depending on those on those of fossil fuel, other sources. and i'm particularly talking about people in developing countries on and look at them that it's what they need support to that position. so it has to be orderly because he cannot afford to cause social and economic disruption. but again, countries have a much greater responsibility to enable that just equitable and orderly transition out most. i think i have done for just one question. and given that uh you know,

everything we discussed how difficult it is to bring the rich countries to the table. because the ultimate lay, i think they, they don't want to part ways with the own privileges and the unfair competitive advantages. but given how difficult it is they are unwilling to participate authentically. do you think this initiative stands any chance without them with other countries? take it forward and perhaps then uh, put reputational pressure on the west, then other parts reach far as of the world to join in. that's exactly the taking looks on. are you absolutely right, as you know, the, to the shadow of this comp in his leg by country is what most one of the books. so the leadership came from the pacific nations. countries like one lot went to one who loved it. and many nations joined. and then we also got entries like to more or less, they had columbia for dependent on fossil fuels for the economy. and that what,

what makes it absolutely there? so a little bit of countries leading on demanding the need for the t t. then a contact level, i'm guessing we have shown that, but because then we want to move away from fossil fuels. we need a little bit the same. but so what we want to do is to actually create and grow at this point, nation of veiling craft. now the language of the treaty and then forced to us countries was sitting on defense or trying to reject the idea to come on board. but again, they don't want to follow the same model that you have that you end up ccc, that everybody has to agree that you will never have a strong leader for the envelope. that's what is needed. so the leadership has to come from the countries and, you know, the next producer countries need to join and then agree to the treaty. and i would add to that then given your political shifts in the world. uh, it's an a, you know, a pretty good time for that because many uh, big countries like russia and china also, uh, you know, trying to search for good graces on the global south than the developing world. and

they may, you know, join the initiatives. so, you know, all of them that own interest or perhaps all those funds, you know that on political reasons. but the, you know, it's, uh, the way you deal with design guys, but i think that's, that's important then, unless you saw that the, it can be done without those who are not yet willing to join. we have to live in there, but it's been advanced. right. pleasure for me to talk to you. thank you very much for that. thank you very much for having me. and thank you for watching 12 the sir again on the was a part the the

the the the

the .