>> now or never, the un's as drastic action must be ten to commit to net zero by 2040 as the world approaches irreversible levels of global heating. but is this process to be those goals the purpose? this is "inside story." ♪

>> hello and welcome to the program i'm nick clark. the world's leading climate scientist have issued a warning of devastating extreme weather events will only get worse unless the world ask now to secure a livable future. what's being termed their survival guide for humanity, the predictions are laid out that aims to shape climate policy in the years to come. in the last 10 years there have been 15 times more deaths from different -- from droughts, floods and storms in vulnerable reasons. -- regions. emissions need to be cut by half by 2030 if global warming is to be limited to one half degree. to help reach that goal developed nations need to give hundreds of billions of dollars every year to vulnerable countries, something so far they failed to do. >> we are working when we should be -- we are walking when we should be sprinting. in 2018 they highlighted the challenge of keeping warming to 1.5 degrees celsius above

preindustrial levels. pfizer -- five years later, the challenge is even greater. ♪ nick: let's take this on, for more on this i'm joined by our guests. we have the director of international -- the international center for climate change and development. in dead, greenpeace chief scientist, his work focuses on by mid change in transitioning from fossil fuels. and we have the regional head of disaster risk management. gentlemen, a warm welcome to you all. if i could start with you, bottom line is, outlook is bleak unless we act fast. it is literally now or never, is that it? >> it's actually never in now because we have already entered what i call the era of losses and damage from climate change impacts. right now mullally has lost 400 people from hurricane freddy

that hit it twice. that's climate change already happening. it's happening. on the other hand, we can prevent the really bad stuff from happening in the long term if we reduce our emissions rapidly as we have been told to do. we haven't got out of the woods yet, we are still in the thick of it. nick: almost every day we are reporting on climate catastrophes from somewhere in the world. of course, it's those who did not contribute to the problem who were the hardest hit, and that applies to nations in africa. >> yes, you are right. africa is the least polluter, yet it bears the largest impacts in terms of climate change. and as you have rightly put it, as we speak now in kenya, and p op a and somalia, we are facing the worst drought in 40 years. this is something that is really driven by the impacts of climate

change. we have seen the frequency and the severity of droughts really getting worse over the years. in the past we used to have droughts every 10 years, but increasingly, they are becoming more frequent and more severe. as we speak, 22 million in kenya, ethiopia and somalia are facing severe --, which is caused by drought. 5.1 children are malnourished as a result. and as my other guest speaker has spoken, and southern africa, cyclones are becoming more severe and more intense. cyclone freddie has just hit twice in over 400 people are dead in that location, so it's getting serious. nick: let's cross to the u.k.. and it says we are approaching irreversible levels of global heating, if we let that happen, what does that actually mean? >> it means that this sort of --

the sort of impacts that our colleagues on the panel have been outlining, have been baked in and there's not much you can do. already we are at a point where on a human timescale of the things we are seeing across the world are going to continue to happen. and they are going to continue to get worse. the question is how fast we bring down carbon emissions, in particular, so that they don't continue to get worse, and that they might even start to drop. but we are a very long way -- sorry, the levels in the atmosphere might start to drop. the are a long way from that because at the moment we are still going up at a very dangerous rate. nick: this target of one and a half degrees celsius is not arbitrary and now they say we could hit it i-20 30 to 2035.

how serious would that be? >> it would be serious. the 1.5 target -- yes, it's a political target, but it is based on the scientific issues that arise from a recognition that the risks to human and natural systems increase rapidly after you go above 1.5. 1.6 and 1.7 they get worse. and we are already seeing bad impacts as has been impact at the levels we are already seeing. it's going to get worse because 1.5 will be worse than 1.1, just where we are. 1.8, if we got to that, would be worse than 1.5. a lot worse. the risk of irreversible things that are irreversible, like the melting of the greenland ice cap, the collapse of the antarctic ice shelves and what that implies, these become more likely once you get above the

1.5 limit. nick: the you and turkiye general is now urging countries to commit to net zero by the earlier date of 2040. originally aiming for 2050. what you seen at the beginning, what you've heard and what you've seen so far, is that possible? >> it's absolutely possible, what we lack is the political will by the big emitters, by the polluting countries. if they decide to do it, and they can decide to do it, then it can be done. the problem is that they promised to do it but they don't keep their promise. nick: this lack of political will must make you angry when it's mostly coming from developed nations who can spur the kind of change that we need. >> it is a huge challenge, as you are mentioning. it is a huge, huge challenge. from the way i see it, and terms

of responding, if i just give you the statistics in terms of the impacts on women and children, we are seeing huge numbers of -- of children. in the horn of africa where we are having the drought, the numbers are struggling, and most of the girls are being forced into marriage because families cannot afford food for their households, so they are marrying off their girls so they can get food to feed their families, and it is really sad when you see such a situation on the ground. in my plea would be that we invest -- the global community invest in addressing the impacts of climate change so we don't see the impacts we are seeing where we are losing a whole generation of girls and children because of the impacts of climate change, because of droughts and cyclones, this is

something we need to rededicate in terms of national support. nick: it's a similar story in bangladesh, in your region of the world's? >> absolutely, our country is one of the most vulnerable to climate change. it's not so much of droughts, it's more floods from the major rivers and cyclones that hit us from the bay. we are extremely vulnerable. we have one of the best adaptation programs in the world, and our people are quite resilient. countries can do better to prepare themselves, but ultimately, the impacts are still -- nick: have we not heard this message before many times? last chance, code red antonio guterres said. we need to act time and time again in the world has not acted. there is another message we must act. do you have any faith in the process?

>> two things give me some optimism about where we might go. firstly, as the report has been a pain to outline, there isn't even an objection around costs now to delivering the kind of transition that we need. renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels in most countries around the world, if not, all of them with fossil fuel prices. we know that the technology of electrification of vehicles and saving energy and buildings are cost-effective things that already makes sense economically. and so, the argument about cost is nothing like it used to be. the second thing, unfortunately that we are now starting to see real impacting real time, china had a massive drought last year, europe had a massive drought last year.

see extreme weather events in latin america and north america. in the ideal that climate change is a key radical thing for our kids to sort out is not tenable. and as was outlined, it's happening now, it's happening in real time. and i hope that this can inject some kind of urgency into the current changes that, as i've outlined, are now cost-effective. for developed countries to be making and contribute to their capacity building that is needed in developing countries through the existing mechanism is now being set up through the climate talks. so there are strands of hope in there, even if the situation is already looking dire. nick: i want to run this short clip, these are words he spoke addressing the u.s. senate committee way back in 1988. >> this evidence represents a

strong case that the greenhouse effect has been detected and is changing our climate now. nick: there you have it, we knew, but did not act. >> absolutely. we've known for a very long time. and i think the reason for not acting was, firstly, the leaders discussed it as something that could happen after they are no longer in power because it's a short term. and also because the fossil fuel industry also knew the science at that time and decided to ignore the science and just make people making money by polluting the atmosphere. so they have a lot to answer for it to having caused this problem over these years. but nevertheless, we can still take action right now, and i hope that this will happen, and

i hope the interesting feature that might get the developing leaders to do the actions that they know they need to do and promised they would do that they are not doing is the fact that they are hit by climate change themselves. terminally -- germany lost nearly 200 people from a flash flood. in bangladesh we know how to deal with floods, we don't die from floods like the germans did. right now california is having a slow storm after they had a flood. california is the warmest day, is the sunshine state of the united states and its having snow storms and flooding. these are things hitting all countries, including the developed countries and they will have to do something. they cannot ignore it anymore. nick: they mentioned the oil companies whose profits are rocketing, as our emissions as temperatures rise. how angry does it make you feel when you see those profits

increasing and yet the people in vulnerable countries like african nations are those that suffer? >> you are right, it is a challenge, as i mentioned earlier, but there is a glimmer of hope. there is a huge glimmer of hope. we have moved largely from that state of where there was doubt about climate change, we have moved into a time where countries are slowly, even if it's baby steps, they are investing in greener solutions. it is becoming the order of the day, even in kenya and south african countries, you will see investments in solar. there are investments in renewables, whether it's electric cars and things like that. but at the same time, the investments are not keeping to the pace of climate change. so the problem is huge, but the

investments are insignificant. we need to focus so we can have a situation where we can help the catastrophic effects of climate change. there's hope. nick: but it does depend on billions and billions of dollars in climate finance. do you think that's likely to come towards the end of the year when we have the u.n. climate conference coming up? >> i would really wish that it happens because when it comes to the political positions, those are higher up in the latter, so our own appeal is basically to the political leaders to really take this as a serious commitment, and invest in the funding that is necessary to help the poor country so that they can start to invest in more light scale, greener conditions,

which will help us with the impacts of climate change in the future. nick: do you think the u.n. climate system is fit for purpose? we fed 30 years of climate conferences and james hunt predicted what would happen all those years ago and look where we are at now. it just hasn't worked, has it? >> i empathize with him. i think my first tract on climate change was 30 years ago. but for the reasons i've outlined, it's a different context now. the thing about climate change is i've witnessed many c.o.p.'s going back to 1992 and i understand why people are saying this is a working and it's not fit for purpose. the thing in -- is, it's a global problem and nations need to be held accountable for this dedication a climate change so other countries can push the big polluters on what they are

doing. so, if you scrapped the u.n. climate change process, you would rapidly find you have to reinvent something that looks like it. otherwise nations will do what they want and they are not held to account by other nations around the table. so, yeah, i can understand the frustrations because i found myself deeply frustrated by it as well. the process is slow. we look for leadership coming from elsewhere but we have now got some kind of naming of some of the fossil fuels like coal, we have potentially a loss and damage fund that can address the climate injustices we've been hearing about. there are things that can happen throughout the process that's inconceivable that they would happen otherwise. nick: the problem was that the last climate conference in egypt, we had no end of fossil fuel lobbyists there.

at the next one there will be -- the president of c.o.p. will be the president of dubai's uae oil company. >> i'm with doug on this. i've won -- i'm one of the few people who have been to all 27 c.o.p.'s. i have invested my own time and energy in this process. the reason i've done them, despite the frustration, it's the only place where you can have a global problem being addressed by all leaders of the world. particularly the poor countries like mine and maurice. don't get invited to the g7 or g20 or the security council. c.o.p. is the only place we can meet with the big guys and tell them what we need them to do and hold them to account, and we tried to do that. at c.o.p. 27 we got something that lasted for a long time.

a loss and damage fund. we don't have money yet, for putting the money and we will have to make the fossil fuel companies let go of some of their exorbitant profits that they are making, put a tax on them and put it into a loss and damage fund. if we can generate the political will to do it, it can happen. nick: we had this doublespeak from u.s. president joe biden who is speaking about climate action, but on the other moment is signing off on oil and alaska. >> unfortunately, yes. the oil industry is extremely powerful and they lobby much harder than we, the poor countries are who are experiencing the impacts. they don't care, they just want profits. we should not allow it anymore. nick: it's all about climate justice, isn't it. how important is the issue of climate justice in the transition? >> it is extremely, extremely

important because, as i was mentioning earlier, the countries that are polluting the least in the world is having the worst impact, so climate justice is a critical thing that we need to come up with measures to make sure that we cover the loss. that is a critical next step that we have made a reality. we have been talking about it for a long time but it is now a reality. the key thing is how do we invest in it and emissions that can help the poor countries. nick: you say it's a reality, but it's only a reality in terminology. it's there but the funds aren't, are they? >> the way i'm saying it is we never had that mechanism before, so at least we have something.

that is a movement, that is progress. so we need to appreciate that at least we have that in place now. the key thing is to continue so that we can really start driving it in terms of changing everything. nick: let's talk about progress, where are we at with renewable energy? how well pois are countries with that? >> i think a recent analysis was 18 months ago, so it's probably out of date. 87% of countries, either wind or solar would be cheaper than the fossil fuel equivalent. in some countries we are now finding that solar, in particular, can be cheaper then the running costs of fossil fuel. so never mind the construction cost or the development, but the running cost is cheaper to have

solar then to run a gas plant or a coal plant. so if those things are able to go ahead, and they get planning and connection,, then they will undercut the existing fossil fuel and damage their financial viability. i think that is where we are at the moment. i think there are forces that would be pleased for that transition not to happen, and they do fight back and push against it. things are slower than they should be. on an economic asis there's no reason we shouldn't see large transitions to renewables soon. every step of the way you tend to find there's a fight where communities need to get on the back of the politicians who are making decisions to make a positive case for saying, we want things that make a difference in climate transition. we want our own renewable

energy. it just does not happen automatically because it's economically and environmentally sensible. nick: do you think the current fossil fuel boom will be short-lived? >> i think so. i think the writing is on the wall. fossil fuel companies, without subsidies or without bullying or buying politicians don't have an economic case. i will give you an example in bangladesh. we have more than 6 million households who have solar home systems. they have a panel on the roof, which charges a battery and provides lighting in the evening. quality of life improvement is very significant. about 20 million people in those 6 million households now have a much better life than they used to have before. in megawatt terms, that's not a huge amount. but in quality of life terms, it's a huge improvement in its expanding rapidly and that's the way we need to go. nick: what are your thoughts

about developing nations want to develop and what lives to improve and to come out of poverty. yet they have been asked to make this transition, which comes at a great cost, and they need help from the outside, but it causes issues from within. what do you think about that? >> i think we are in a connected world. we are in this world together. that for me is the most important thing. it's not about others wanting to invest. we are in this world together. climate change is going to affect everybody. even if it doesn't do it now, it will affect different countries. so if we invest in new technologies together and renewables together and make sure they are accessible to the poor parts of the world, that will help us eventually into the future that we want. so i will not really say that we

should not invest because we are having developmental challenges at home, let us focus to make sure we can have a world that is better for all of us. a world that is safer, a world that is cleaner, a world that is better for our children. that is the message we need to focus on. that includes technologies, transferring those technologies in poor countries, whether it's on greener energy, batteries, solar. let's make sure we invest and transfer that technology so we can move together and have a better world in terms of climate change. nick: as we come towards the end of the program, what are your thoughts about why humanity has failed? if there is a meteorite hurtling towards earth, we would be all over it, sorting it out. why are we not doing that with this? >> invested interest.

the fossil fuel industry and pretty much all countries is a huge barrier to change because it's going to undermine their future profitability. in the international for like the u.n. climate talks, it's a countries who are fossil fuel based economies who are the most obstructed. so, in the end, if we were able to escape from that, and you said, what's the best thing for the planet as a whole, for human societies, for nature, what's the best thing, you would say, make this transition as fast as possible and it won't cost you too much and you will get all sorts of benefits like cleaner air, debtor cities, and so on. so there really wouldn't be much of a discussion, it would just

be happening. the only thing slowing it down is the existing interest in the existing way in which we have set up our societies to be fossil fuel dependence. elected authorities need to make that change and to overcome the barriers that the interests stop from happening. and that's kind of it, really. nick: thank you so much for joining us, we will have to leave it there. an important story, no doubt. thank you so much. and thank you for watching. you can see the program any time by visiting al jazeera.com. and for further discussion go to facebook page at facebook.com/ a.j. inside story. join the conversation on twitter , our conversation is that ajay inside story. it's goodbye for mark -- it's

goodbye for now. ♪

qññ o