the the . ringback the division as an agreement is just about how about out of the cult $29.00 summit for developing nation, say the annual $300000000000.00. pledge by welfare countries to help them cope with climate change is nowhere near. and so how significant is this field that is inside the

hello? welcome to the program on pernix me. so after 3 sleepless nights of back and forth among negotiators, a contentious deal on climate finance has been reached at the u. n's comp 29 summit . but deep divisions remain so significant with a different size, but at one stage, the gathering of more than 40000 delegates nearly broke up without any agreement. developing nations say they've been forced by richard nations and to accepting a bob deal with the money pledged nowhere near enough to effectively fight climate . change your opinion welcome. the agreement is the start of a new era, but it coincides with another new era. the return of donald trump, who believes that climate change is a hoax, i'm was always main for the fight against the global climate crisis will speak to august shortly. but 1st, this report from uncle, some sherry and i had to be invited the same way to adopt a draft decision contained in document see

a deal agreed and over time of the un climate conference in baku as a bad job. which nations have pledged to give developing countries? phones will $300000000000.00 a year by 2025 to help them cope with the effects of change the climate and exchange. but it's not quite the agreement. some developing nations had been negotiated for the disappointed with the outcome which clearly see daily brings out the i'm pulling this up, the developed country by these 2 points. she said as possibilities the data follows 2 weeks of intense negotiations and high drama representatives from in the lines of small island states stage to walk out on saturday, dismissing an initial offer of 250000000 dollars. the stand of bush, the cop $29.00 summit to the brink of collapse. the final

d at $300000000.00 a year is fall short of the $1.00 trillion dollars a year. you and experts say is needed to fight climate change. that's the estimated costs, developing nations, boost phase, and switching to clean energy sources and dealing with the impact a fixed rate, whether some delegates say they've given little room to negotiate and we're forced into accepting of back to here. here's where they always go. you know, they throw tags at us or the last minute show down our throat. and then for the sake of multilateralism, we always have to like a separate and take it otherwise. but the climate make any sense. we'll go into like a, a horrible dallas spiral and a no one except the others will holding the dns senior pages more money will $29.00 will be remembered as the start of a new era for climate finance. we're tripling to 100000000000 goals and we feel it

is ambitious. it is needed. it is realistic and it is achievable. china was the 2nd biggest economy, and 2nd biggest image of greenhouse gases has a free to contribute to what's the deal with a high stake stokes and bosses have been overshadowed by donald trump's re election as president of the united states. trump is full climate change of hope and good choosing us from the 2015 landmark habits of freeman on tech and get getting his 1st term as president. but other countries say, disagreement is a step in the flight direction. it's an 11th hour deal. at the 11th hour for climate and for keeping $1.00 degrees alive, it's the right thing to do for britain and the right thing for the world. the buck who code is not legally binding, but it comes at a time when exposed to seeing the coming year is full cost to be the plan. that's

hottest and rick on the consumption ease, which is the, the inside story the . all right, let's begin. i guess in london we have a side ram and he's the executive director of war on want the south on the co, 29 coalition steering committee, a global coalition, the brought together civil society groups working towards comp 29. still in bucko, he's hodges saying he's the global engagement director of the fossil fuel treaty initiative, and also in london. graham gordon is the head of global advocacy at christine a. welcome to the program, a festival asset. i'll start with you $200000000000.00 schultz. of what so the developing world was asking for from the developed world, what are the real will consequences of that's going to be the real consequences of that countries are already being overwhelmed by climate impacts by the devastation

that we're seeing from california. drives by means will not be able to long cut their own emissions to these changes. pay for the cost of all of these extreme weather events, which of which are of course, not their responsibility and be able to safely and cleanly transition their economies away. okay, i, i think what is really important to is to say that the, even that 1.3 trillion figure that was put forward by developing countries that was a, must have compromised the un estimates. we'd need at least between 5 and 7 truly. and again, i mean the cost of the damage is not being caused largely by the options of rich developed countries which of pollutants historically the most. and they've got rich from it is immense. and so what was put on the table, you know, in the words of developing countries negotiators was insufficient, and i did put on an insult and many people said it was a job. police,

a deadly joke for both people. i'm funny. hodge, it was. it's a, a frustrating to be there in bar code at the end of this when not to think it was announced a split up. similarly the, the reject the outcome bits of the trailer. and as i've said, this is wilfully united. good. be the other to use that. developing countries have put that and be shift plans on the table. they are showing so much off board and this and garbage to move away from fossil fuels, despite also facing the rising plumber, 10 bucks. and they end up spending their own money to adapt and recover from from these increasing disasters. but the ality is that developed countries have not paid the fash at all climate finance, so securely and less than what developing countries demanded. and we need much more money and the cost of production isn't trillions. and also the deal is not clear and it's the day is not, it really takes the gun down the road that does little continue to provide the

$300000000.00 annually by 2035. and they have all of these play games with the legal interpretation offline, but then something that they would also trying to do to the intellect about it, so to be mentored so. so we are deeply disappointed, of course, we'll continue to fight back, but this is not a holiday. we should have left buffalo and the there's a big question marked, i won't be in timely delivery process. graham, what do you think the real world consequences of this are? and is there a question on the, on the future of this multilateral process, as well as a developing countries kind to these talks already adapting to climate change. so it's, it's a real life issue. so in the islands like to body leading people to it from the coastal areas or even to other countries in comes in kenya, adapting systems to be more resilience and routes and floods and in brazil. but getting titles to indigenous land,

so you can better protect some of the rainforests. and i think developing countries came asking for as soon as i repeat upon the ship and they weigh the time. one thing, so is the realize consequences. they won't be able to adopt any further, and they weren't able to transition to renewable energy on the scale that we need. we know, for example, that in belgium there was more solar panels belts been installed. last year said throughout africa i'm actually, we just need this kind of investment. we need investments. foundation is it one of the benefits of in the west? we can adapt to a certain extent. it's not going to go was the same amount of loss of life as it is in developing countries, but estimates around 300000 people who lose as long as you do to climate change. that is only gonna grow the longer we put off action. also, one of the suggestions was that to meet this short full developing world countries,

good approach into the optional lenders. for example, i'm borrow the money they need. is that how this is going to have to happen? i mean, let's just have this done. uh, this is equivalent to an awesome is brand new dining your home tourney, who's back and then 2nd to the victim. now you to barbara some of that created 2 laws for me to fix the problem. there is a legal obligation for developed countries to provide this finance and well developed countries. basically the sites of developing countries is you know, we're going to refuse to pay that money in that 300000000000, for example, is not drawing based money. we, nobody knows actually what, what, how much of it won't be corrupt based type, which will be that creating loans. what we do know is in the last 5 months ago, that was promised a $100000000000.00 less than $30000000000.00 plus was actually a new and additional finance developed countries. double counted existing finance polls that will come to put you much. i just didn't expect them to kind of the

kitchen sink in this. so looking to the private sector, particularly those who want to profit from disaster, but there is no profit to be made in helping. many people survive the impacts of climate prices. yes, there are such as where the private sector can come in, but what this really requires is state intervention is new. is chronic based finance. when these disasters happen in the global know, the global nose doesn't look and save by score and borrow more money or look to a private sector that they look to the government and the government intervenes. and you don't want to just looking at the united states, for example. you know, in recent years you've spent over $1.00 trillion dollars, federal money in, in addressing these climate impacts. what they're saying to developing countries is, um, you won't have that. you have to go and create both that create a borrow more money from the markets and that creates a loss and got to remember, many of the post countries are already tracked because when just that tax and trade

and they locked into poverty, this is simply overwhelming them, he's passing the book to developing countries for problem. they didn't cause the hodges, the indian representative was very particular of the sit for a search on the rhine. i called the process stage managed and said the agreement was nothing more than an optical illusion. was it is hard to find anybody that from the developed bill that was satisfied with the best it, was there any one such as spots of at least they got an extra $50000000000.00 more than they were asking for? well, that's exactly what's the game plan of developed countries when they dropped the number on the last day of cost to design negotiation and just imagine they have been working on this goal for the last 2 years. we had school meetings and high level dialogues that yet developed countries never disclosed. that was among data that actually coming up bit. so on the last day you dropped the number,

you offered 250. and then after the uproar and, and the kind of response to got the increase in by, by $50000000000.00. that, that's the kind of game to have been like been to know the needs of running and $3.00 and $12.00. and the indian delegate was that likely extremely concerned that this money is also full of loans. and that depending on what the bands like the water band that i am at, which have a history of not totally promoting fossil fuel extraction, but also um boosting developing countries to the policies that made them far more level. and they have extracted data sources. so the entities that this goal itself is not really and of you know, what happened, but a $100000000.00 target. then by the own admission, 69 percent was low. and so we need to recognize that it is intensifying that crisis and another connection that we should receive, which is kind of which is linked to the climate impacts. and fosters will expection

many countries like ecuador nigeria shoot long cub august on. we're going to be are going to be stuck with fossil fuel extraction because they have very high index lenses. so what we are doing by offering loans and not good ons, we are actually making things was for developing countries. and so many days, b, it's been debt prices and also accessible. i think the climate classes great and you with that in the back end for the, for the 1st week, was there an expectation from developing countries that the developed well the, the most to create the greenhouse gas. these are the consequences of which we're now living with might have shown a bit more solid directly with the challenges the developing world now faces of from the consequences of climate change. lindsey, this quote, was unusual in the right from the start, the expectations. well, no, and the cult presidency didn't help by talking about the fossil fuels of being a gift from god and to be expedited. and i think it started off in but phase they

started off without the use of negotiations that shouldn't be happening on finance . and then that is not to be is no surprise that we came out with with what we did . so i think it doesn't mean that the multilateral system is broken, but it does mean that we need to think about how we do cups differently. is really important. presidency is the pads, i think the presence of fossil fuel companies, nearly 2000 delegates low being to the rail, a deal low being to remove mentioned the fossil fuels from the final text, doesn't birdwell. and i think we have to make sure that phase where these negotiations are actually driven for a deal. and in the end, i think it was politics and profit that trump's a nice livelihoods, and we need to recruit. and we need to work with brazil gets a call 30 until may. so that saves the issues that was addressed the way to get the

money from either realistic way, like level tax on and maybe a said or the fossil fuel profits, or even redirecting that the billions of fossils you subsidies at western countries spend each year. we need to really dig down into those because the money is available. it just wasn't the well to put it on the table. and i think developing countries really go away disappointed, but we need to regroup. and we need to keep fighting for what is needed because it's, it's not also money. invest enough, count me forward. it is a question. can we afford not to act as quickly as we need to solve? just touching will all well, graham was saying that doesn't comp remain, i'm holes. and for them though, particularly for developing countries who this is why they get to have the voices her there is still, you know, the developing will turned up. it shows a commitment. does it not to the power responded to power as far as the cold. you know, absolutely. look,

the comments folks are critically to the only place where every country has a voice where we a civil side to also act as the is the voices of all the people on the front lines of, of the atomic crises. it's not the call itself. that's a problem. it's the politics of rich developed countries coming that we are the dia awarding for the un just before we enter this talks where the 1.5 degrees is on the life of life support. we're going to bus between the 2 degree target and head towards 3 degrees by the end of the century. we sold that when the reason of the heading in this direction is because the united states was determined not to have science based on equity based. find deep targets for want to play just those plugged as a lead and this to 3 degrees now wants to do the same to finance instead of heavy binding talk, it's a real clear commitment. it wants to make vague promises. the private sector will provide this funding, and if we don't have this money use website,

the cost of adoption is going to be devastated. not just single lives loss, but in the consequences, frank global economy. but the countries will, will make the last crises look like it was. uh, you know, i mean it's gonna drop anything that humanities ever face before. and so what we need is developed countries in the us, but also the united kingdom and the european union to hide in the shadows of the united states. don't speak, i don't distance cells don't point the finger at the united states and say, we've got to step up and take legal responsibility. what's happening here is people are trying to basically burned down the power of supreme. and it's so rich developed countries because they think that that's the way to get out their obligations. audrey the thing is you were going to have a us president soon, who is a climate change? deny of. there's no getting around that. how do you mix the gate so that

the trump coming back is bad news for climate action? bad news for the global cooperation and bad news uh for the planet. uh, not because the us has been doing the lot, but we cannot let the big gift historical image done in the fossil fuel producer off the hook. and trump is going to cause a massive us a lot clean energy policies in the us, undermining the hard one gains of the last few years. and he's going to go much more for fossil fuel production. and he already set it in his so called a big lease beach. that is going to go for the baby drill. that is not going to provide an economic finance. i think this is read experience sponsibility of the states feeling throughout these civil society. and even businesses will believe in climate change. the must step up and we need a movement in the us, which actually makes people aware of the historical responsibility of the united states, which governments have not done. over the last 30 years we have seen more of struction from the us in the respective of,

of governments. so drunk cannot just be an excuse for i would say the larger us population and defend bots of the society do not meet the global responsibility. they now have to step up much more than just depending on the federal government. because as a nation, they have a huge responsibility towards the global solve to help them transition away from fossil fuels and also respond to the lies in climate impacts. graham, if trump pulls out of the power as climate, the cause of many cups funding for ukraine, your, it's going to have to pick up the slack on the money missing for ukraine. was the money going to come from to, to come to, to fill a gap left by a cop $29.00. but i think in terms of finance is awesome to trade as possible between i precious a money. i'm calling in the private sector, which is odd. you will only bring in money for mitigation and when there's profits

and, but there are various other options on the cause of take a brazil is pushing them. so things like a country can read. i that, that, that fossil fuel is currently around 280000000000 in the air, i think. and the western countries are low. we kind of look at taxing label. well, so we can look at tax a profits, 1st of the companies. and a lot of these kind of produce around 500000000000 a year. so there are ways of getting money if countries will work together. and if we will move beyond the kind of technically feasible to the politically possible. and i think for me, i can't drive the, there's a, there's a kind of confused, just as no surprise to financing saying we kind of stretch the public part. but actually, global credit corporation shows that we can't do that. additionally, debt relief is not new money, but actually the relief and many other countries is diverting money from climate action. so that cancellation,

making private creditors come to the table of debt release their various options on the table. we stay and we start how full of exactly on us politics and what. ready us does and then just finally unsigned was stepping up china and as recognizes in his own economic self interest to really push that clean energy transition. it needs to put a little more forceful truth divided, but that is planning for the future. but actually you can get sort of these money as well as other money to be the best thing is some of the, some of the transition as well. so there are various options on the table, but countries need to not quite behind the us and the not to think it's all over because the us might be coming in a different type of action. i said graham just talks about china that, but it raises this question about what a developing, what a developed country is. and that was a discussion, wasn't it? because developing developed countries of pops and old fashioned definition. a new,

a rich, newly rich countries like china, like saudi arabia, basically resisted attempts to put them in the developed category. that's not helping either. is it there a clear cut, surprise, ations, right? i mean the, the, the problem with dealing with now is not of just simply by to submit to today or in the last 5 years. it's because of who's been limited for over a century, a 150 to introduce who's got well, i'm not actually categorization hasn't really fundamentally change what coverage or emissions are still greater in the global know than they are in the global side. even with china renamed, you had nearly emerging developing economies that she started co responsibility still greater in the global north and the east end, the global side. so yes, there can be some conversation set some dimensions to do that. that's not the real problem. the real problem, these, but there is a legal obligation under the composite convention under iris agreement for

developed countries to provide and developing countries because they are co still chuckling. issues of, of a nicole to publish. do you mean a jeep will tell you, people talk about india is a developed as a major economy still has hundreds of millions of people try to publish. there are many domestic cultures for developing countries that they're also daily, but they come come to be. and in fact, they all come to be to china and other countries are putting model or climate find on the many developed countries. you've got the legal obligation project. can i ask you about this deal? i'm, i'm call, but carbon credits because that now allows countries to bring in these credits to offset these emissions or trade them on a, on a market exchange. and this is supposed to be a proper way of measuring them now. is that at least helpful or no, you're shaking your head final but not my expressions. do tell you the story. the fact is on the very 1st day, the bost, some of the standards which are slow leak,

that doesn't allow the counting, doesn't allow for solutions on what we call them, dangerous destruction. and not just that they're going to start counting the carpet market trading also as part of climate finance. you know, that's like a double devoted deal party that we are looking at. so, and you don't regulate markets. so the committee that was supposed to start the standard itself did not follow the brother, the process of reaching out to all countries to plus a lot. then luckily, then just around and get through one day one. so if you have a huge concerns about the very common markets are being created and the way the celebrating, fussing the lose, the know that that's not going to have. and the history tells us that common markets have not been successful if that had been the case. how come our emissions continued eyes and how come getting not gender did enough, but as sources of to support countries in, in moving away from fossil fuels. so common markets are not the solution,

in fact the false solution and the must reject them. what we need is stronger regulation, but the need is getting financial support to smaller businesses. what ready to make a transition, but do not have access to technology and finance. so problem markets are nothing but pollution. bottom is that the promoting red lodge corporations instead of making a shift to us to clean energy, are going to buy these cheap pollution permits and the whole class of a decline, the prices time. is it gas is unfortunate. but graham, could i quickly ask you, is this 1.5 celsius goal? still attainable in terms of limits in the level of global warming. it is still a tight nibble, but it's going to need a lot more work certainly seen. so i mean, sometimes i poke some to grab onto it, just try you and kind of just said they wanted to see strong language on fossil fuels and they are too big polluters also feel developers. so countries like those

that actually push for that i can drop as you would use. there are also seal development. then we have, i also have quickly from you. do you think it's assignable? it requires a much more honest conversation in the global know about the fact that that we need to be real 0 cuts and emissions by 20 to 30 if we won't have any chance of limits and temperature global like flights. at the moment we're probably going on, we should be on proven and dangerous technologies sometime in the future. it's uh, i'd say at 1.5 years on life support and very quickly, less than so from you hodge. what do you, what do you think that you really want to stay with the 1.5, we have to support developing countries and making that transition because that's where most of the people live and that's where most of the mission side will come because they are still into sliding and they have to provide jobs. it will be sweet side of if you do not support developing countries because emerson spending the affect everybody. so it's in the enlightened self interest for developed countries

to actually act as a actor, sponsibility or developing countries. so that'd be all okay. and so like on this planet. all right, thank you very much to all of our guests to offset rather than to 100, saying and to graham gordon. and thank you to for watching. you can see the problem at, at any time by visiting our website, our 0 thought. com on the further discussions go to our facebook page about facebook dot com, forward slash ha inside story. you can also during the conversation on x, we all at a j inside story. for me, fun at smith and the whole scene here. fucking the a unique perspective. we don't want to head to well, but we no longer have any private spaces on the incident. that's a scary well on heard voices a year into this genocide,

it still remains large. one section connect with our community and tap into conversation if you don't mind elsewhere, but humanity, the number of people who want to stop sending weapons has gone up and up despite what they hear in the mainstream media in the united states. the stream on out to 0 on counting the cost of the us dollar has been on the road. but why should the rest of the world be worried? personally is under pressure to choose between the american and european economic models, but should it have to plus point into things. yes, middle class is shrinking counting the cost on i'll just be around the

. there's no limit to have a dream container stuff in your own event, you know, counter and things the hello, this is in these, our on algae 0. i'm fully back. people live in the hot coming up in the next 60 minutes. more than 250 rockets a fide into israel from lebanon, forcing millions of his release into shelters and israel's farms continue.