is that the issue of protecting the environment is, 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, reading joy 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 nations and may be exploiting it in a pretty and 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 size you said 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 moment of the degradation all around us is because of the choices we have made over the last few decades and centuries. it's the but i think on the economy that

has driven the environmental degradation and the climate crisis. both of us, the crisis, or even the energy crisis that we are facing at this moment. so it's all the comic policies that have been responsible for disability crisis that the board is facing right now. and not only people in the developing boards, 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 hands. and when we talk about protecting the environment, we would like to see genuine efforts made by a government to put a mom and ecology at the center. all 5 development better, di it as a fall, as uh, you know, they quoted me to look at. and my mentor and development separate the not you mentioned the word,

political economy and we will focus on the few later. but i think there is a much larger question that many of our our society is 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. and you are absolutely right on the part of that the, the kind of develop an model that has been promoted, which encourages ordinary citizens to or consume 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. even personal how, for example. exactly. and, and the way our, our health systems are affected. it's the way our society is being disrupted. all

of that is because of the economic model that promotes or consumption. and you know, if that is a metric portfolio issue date, which tells us that, you know, by the time that each half of the calendar year, oh, be start extracting more than allowing natural resources to regenerate. so that's the state of affairs and we've got all the living tools, the 6 mos extinction, and it's solid caused by human beings, and are full for development of the model. assisting you often 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 don modal says something to emulate or per train themselves to be a climate consider as a climate leaders. and as frustrating as it is, history doesn't come with file a complaint or get their re burson, and options. i mean, it is what it is. why is any discussion about the by gone to about the winners and

losers of the industrial era relevant to the present? oh, so you're lost a number of things. let me try and, and respond by saying that the most important thing that we look at been the talk about climate action or other kind of justice is equity. so who is 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 the reality is that the united states and european union of cumulative lead responsible for more than off of the greenhouse gas emissions in the most fair, which has cost the problem in the 1st place. there is no doubt that the balance has shifted. now, developing countries are producing more of the in house gases, but the, the ality is that we knew about climate change of 50 years ago that it's fossil fuels, which are responsible for the extraction 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 the country is not only to reduce that emissions, but also support developing countries to take a green box fixed that has not happened. so developing countries have been left on that on and on the resources that they had in terms of fossil fuels and they started using those. and that's why no more than we should start coming from developing countries. but it's important to recognize that as happened because no financial support and technology was provided to them and which countries continued to increase their emissions and continued to the lot that extract the development model. now i also heard they say it in, 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 block or undermine this initiative. that is to bring some sort of not only environmental accountability but also an environmental transition transition to a different modem. in what way has washington drag bits feet right from the day one been even the convention was being drafted in early ninety's. the united states was very clear that different not take any action, that's what the effect of its economy and senior bush was northwest saying that america and lifestyle is not on the table for any kind of compromise. not, not totally. they continue with the big data side consumption, economic models that promoted it as bad, and they did not allow climate negotiations to make progress. and they did not take strong targets based on that fad. shared based on data started collaborations that

are either because i can defeat a gift, but the responsibility on china and india and other developing countries instead. but they should have done was to share this all says in terms of finance and technology to help developing countries. we'll just began industrialization 30 years ago to start using green technology light from the day one. and it has been blocking negotiations to talk about the strong mitigation targets, the concept of operation. they have not provided a need to saw, says to community that countries do now. david comic and back. and i have been a witness to lawson damage negotiations for the last 15 years. how that blocked it systematically. they did not want to be a single penny. and they did not allow developing countries to even have 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. and i asked her, 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's going know for this is not the 1st time us has been to have the getting gets responsibility for the years and decades to talk about child lights, i mentioned you talk about human rights. you talk about the enter new can you movement us engages to what that down. but in the end it does not. it will agree to that to your agreement and, and it doesn't really end offset. so that's the idea of what united states, because before the focus of the us is to continue with that, it's hedging money, continue over, that's for, that's economic might. and that completely ignores all the important issues for

the society and of environments. so this has been a study got attracted god off the us to not walk, but a internationally you know, to, for the greater pauses. but there's this thing that i think there is also, uh, major legal issues here, not only with the american society, but with menu, western societies where because they have these multiple national corporations that operate all around the world, the plunder off 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 and leads and provide the or sort of push for the agenda. and i wanted to how do you visit it? even if, let's say the united states is changed into cooperation, although it's very unlikely. but let's assume that's the case. how do you see it happening? because i, 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 or x and mobile has coal somewhere. why should that compensation come out of his own tax money that we all know that us politics or in most wisdom countries it's, it's going to put ations what calling the shots patients in their 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 west on 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 don't have not taken such strong actions. so the have to, you know, call out those companies. and there's no doubt that there are many people in the

developed world. we're also suffering from time with impact. 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 saw for industrialization, which has happened at the cost of the global legal system. so there's that responsibility on the part of the good there governments, i'm not saying citizens that governments bear for the damage to help in 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 devices, 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 in our interest. i know it doesn't the interest of the developed countries

citizens to support developing countries so that they can also adopt that cleanup oxy. 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 their 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. okay, well, mr. st, we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments that june. the take a fresh look around his life. kaleidoscopic isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power to division with no real opinions.

fixtures designed to simplify will confuse really once a better wills, and is it just as a chosen few fractured images presented to this, but can you see through their illusions, going underground? can the

welcome back to the porch with her g. it's think 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 padgett 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 and more 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 look house. what do you make of a disposition? as science has proven that i know many to box, 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 the new but the analogy such as wind and solar and it is absolutely possible. so 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 there's thoughts 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, but we cannot move away from fossil fuels and saves them out more people 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 sun life. they are sure russia could find alternative sources and it's been developing, let's say, before nuclear energy. but again, uh, 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 unknown 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 talking about about 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? hold on. i must say that this is

a sort of lutely 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 needs 600000000 people who do not have access to energy. more than a 1000000 people who do not have access to paint booking sources. only 2 percent of renewable energy investment has gone to africa. so now that people are discovering the fossil fuel sources in africa, they would like to invest because the supply has been disrupted and needs are increasing. why i'd be not investing in the new but an energy and especially in all that we had at the point that the cost of the new but an energy is cheaper than fossil fuels. it's a long per text to say that fossil fuels are cheaper because we have not taken into account the extra analogies and the other and mom and the cost of fossil fuels. 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 cost, the economic cost. that'd be a thing, because if i continue as you will, the force of the fuse, i've not taken into account, we have no option but to shift to the new but an energy effort that has a huge the potential. why it'd be not investing money on the new, but 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 shorter 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 a direct to you. what makes you believe that with the current state of affairs and you know about the old, 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 this there. and there is a world war which can destroy the world much faster than any climate change. but it is an absolutely sad reality that now the sources are going into wars which are causing the destruction, which are we are not taking, you know, send lives. and we are also taking the, 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 we need a fossil fuel, long body physician to much more than ever. because we have awarded a for this big conversation on fossil fuels and the address recognize that we also have that fossil fuels of 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 their 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, dimension did not talk about the fossil fuels so via have to talk about that. do you know the brief mention of transitioning away from fossil fuels without much details without providing sufficient financing technology? we will not be able to do it just maybe we'll be meeting off that any of the oaks on a do realize that we are in a part of the situation. if you don't have a global frame book to understand who needs support. we know we started our conversation, but equity, who 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 claim book in the form of a fossil fuel treaty that is going to look into all these issues. i would say they

need the treaty more than ever because guys lacking global cooperation. and that's why we need to come to the table to come up with a plan for that because for those communities and countries. now speaking about the treaty and the last you in line with 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 was like you perhaps wanted, but you know it's, it's a step forward. but 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, one producing state would see what's just been, what's equitable in predicts, you know, diverse terms simply because the circumstances are 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 the reason, but the get them displays as lowest common denominator, which means something which everybody can agree to. now, how can i and nations who are suffering do that of climate change, who are on the front line, who are seeing the categories being, being, you know, some most into see and, and houses 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 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 would depend on the cost of the fields. so that's where those key words that you

mentioned, just decorative with 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 does support the equitable means. countries who are most responsible have to do a lot more than lot faster and sort 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 work as and that it's what they need support to that position. so it has to be orderly because he cannot afford to cause sources, then he cannot make disruption. but again, countries have a much greater responsibility to enable that just equitable and orderly transition out most. i think i have gone for just one question and given that uh you know,

everything being discussed how difficult it is to bring the rich countries to the table. because the ultimately i think they, they don't want to part ways with that own kind of ledges and 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 or you are absolutely right. as you know, uh the, to the shadow of this compound is led by countries we'll have 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 the model of state and columbia, what dependent on fossil fuels for the economy, and that what,

what makes it absolutely, really. so when the country's leading on demanding the need for the treaty, then a countries level, i'm guessing we have shown that, but it goes where we want to move away from fossil fuels may 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 to craft. now the language of the treaty and then forced to have 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 to get done with never have a strong leave the same go up. that's what is needed for the leadership has to come from the one of the countries i'm, you know, the next producer countries need to join and then agree to the, to the treaty. and i would have to them them, give them your political shifts and 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 and perhaps all those funds. you know, that on political reasons. but uh, you know, its, uh, the way you deal with design guys, but i think that's, that's important then, unless you saw that the if can be donovan. now those who are not yet willing to join, we have to live in there, but it's been immense. 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 hope to see her again on the wall, the part the, [000:00:00;00] the,

[000:00:00;00] the, the old wanted to come here since i was 121. my grandfather told me that his mom came from russia that we were, i was part russian. i didn't plan on staying as long as gonna look around. i was gonna see if it was for me, but then i came and then i was like, i don't remember when i go home. i've never been happier than i am here. so i've only lived here a few months, but i wanted to tell you what fascinates me about russia and share the stories of other foreigners who lived here like jay who worked as

a chef and now raises goats and mix cheese in the countryside series. like chad who has been granted political asylum because he's being persecuted by the f. b. i. us, embassies. and for countries that come after me it's, it's wild like an american family that recently moved to russia with 6 children. i've never felt safer atlanta higher life than living here. the high i'm actually i have to and i'm here to plan with you whatever you do. do not watch my new show. seriously. why watch something that's so different. whitelisted opinions that he won't get anywhere else to give it please. or do you have the state department to see i a weapons bankers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. change and whatever you do. don't want my shell stay main street because i'm probably going to make you comfortable. my show is called stretching time. but again,

you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the way you the breaking news on artsy disturbing images from africa where our sources confirm the presence of ukrainian mercenaries of wagner. p. m. c fighter. looking to show the evidence died in the recent clash is really security cabinet concludes this up to prime minister netanyahu and the as really defense minister as to how and when to strike has blocked. the decision is supposed to be a response to the deadly rocket strike. on the is rarely controlled to go on heights, which they claim the lebanese army group committed. also, if the united states of america implement such plans, we will consider ourselves free from the previous in the assume, unilateral motor authority,