the, the

the, the welcome to the part is miss on to is a terry complaint in the final analysis we are all children of the earth, although our access to its reaches and our exposure to its ralph differs immensely

. not only because of the share lock for the past couple of centuries, they were sources of this one and have been eagerly and often wished fully exploited by the so called developed countries. living the ras, to pick up the pieces the toll of such an approach is broadly recognized. but why has it not materialized yet into any practical form of environmental accountability? we'll discuss that. i'm now joined by 100 sinks, a climate activist on global engagement director at big fossil fuel nonproliferation 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. uh, 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, on the have it's, if 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 manipulative way. and i want to, i q personally, how do you distinguish between what's genuine and the, what's manipulative for self serving in the current environmental debate looks. and i just said, this is deeply political, but i would slice into further and 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 body going to be an 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 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 hands. and when we talk about protecting the environment, we would like to see genuine efforts made by a government to book and mom and ecology at the center all 5 development saturday. as a source of you know, dichotomy to look at. my mentor and development separate the not you mentioned the word political economy. 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 the need for fuel. sure, that'd be address 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 what kinds 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 how for example. exactly. and, and the way our, our health systems unaffected. 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 bought over short day, which depths us that, you know,

by the time that each off of the calendar year will be stopped expecting more than allowing natural resources to do each end of it. so that's the state of affairs and we've got all the living truth, the 6 mos extinction, and it's all caused by human beings, and our full part and development of the 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 there reimbursement 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 lost a number of things, let me try and,

and respond by saying that the most important thing that the little card when we 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 the reality 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, 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 the, let's country is not only to reduce that emissions, but also support developing countries, particularly in a box a dock has not happened. so developing countries have been left on that on, on the sources that they had in terms of fossil fuels and they started using those . and that's why no more emissions 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 it's countries continue 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 block or onto mind this initiative. that is 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 that they could 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 fi consumption, economic model, they promoted it as where it ended in not allow climate negotiations to make progress. and they did not take strong targets based on that fashion based on data started the emissions. but rather, they kept blocking the feed and camp and put 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, we 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 any to sauces to community that countries do not be with farmers impact. and i have been a witness to lawson damage negotiations for the last 15 years filed the blocked it systematically. they did not want to be a single penny. and they 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 and the 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 you know for this is not the 1st time us has been a big i think it's responsibility for the years and decades to talk about child's rights been mentioned. you talk about human rights, you talk about the enter new, can you movement us engages to lock that down, but in the end it does not. it will agree to that to your agreement and, and it doesn't really end dos it. so that's pretty, i still for united states because before the focus of the us is to continue with that, it's had you money continue, but that's that, that's economic might. and that completely ignores all the important issues for the society and of environmental. this has been a historical attractive guard of the us to not operate internationally,

you know, for the greater causes. 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, i'm a service 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, do you not, did states is changed into 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? well, we all know that us politics, or 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 the 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's no doubt that there are many people in the developed world. we're 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 good 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 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 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 that green boxy 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. okay, well, mr. things we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments fit you in the expansion. 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. several opinions that he won't get anywhere else. welcome to 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. i changed

and whatever you do, don't want my show state main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called stretching time, but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change the waiting thing. the welcome back to all the parts with our jets things, global engagement director at the fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty initiative assess, thinks 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 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 look house. what do you make of a disposition? the science has proven that on all many reports, including the biggest a party on climate science into the panel on climate change, making it very clear that we need to move away from fossil fuels. and we need to be investing much more and a new but analogy such as wind and solar added as 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 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 saves 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, a peaceful 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 a 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, that have massive populations that need access to fluids, transportation energy, all their 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? what's on i must say that this is an 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 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 into by our,

our 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. why it'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 your politics for like 2 decades. and i've never seen the international solidarity in, in a shoulder supply than right now. and i think you would agree any treaty 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 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 the way to go,

i know this right now are discussing the potential for this 3rd. 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 because we are not taking, you know, st lives and richard also taking the, the attention of a phone but as absolutely need to respond to the climate emergency. so in fact, i would argue that this is the point, but the need of lots of fuel bond body physician to do much more than ever because we have awarded a holistic 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 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 a wanted a real conversation on phasing all 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 away from fossil fuels without much details without providing sufficient financing technology. we will not be able to do it best. maybe we'll be meeting off at any us. uh, oaks are driven realize 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 our conversation, but equity was responsible for the prices who has called the 1st place who needs to provide more to sources. and that cannot happen unless we have a little bit of thing 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, 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 28, 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 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 then what's equitable in predicts. you know, diverse terms simply because the circumstances 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 both be getting displays is 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 that the categories being, being, you know, some mice in to see and, and also as being stepped 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 other countries, large number of companies in between with, depending 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. 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 a fossil fuel, other sources. and i'm particularly talking about people in developing countries, i'm and look at them that it's what they need support to that transition. so it has to be orderly because he cannot afford to cause social and economic disruption. but again, the next countries have a much greater responsibility to enable that and 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 ultimately, i think they, 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 like, 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 to more or less, they had columbia, what dependent on fossil fuels for the economy. and that what, what makes it absolutely deals? so when the country's leading on demanding the need for the 3 d, then

a countries level, i'm guessing we have shown that, but because, well, we want to move away from fossil fuels, may need a little bit of a, but still what you want to do is to actually create and grow all of this population 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 you've done to the never have a strong lead the same go up. that's what is needed. so the leadership has to come from the, one of the countries and, you know, the next producer countries need to join and then agree to the, to the treaty. and i would add to that the, given your political shifts in the world. uh, it's an, 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, you know,

out of the own interest or perhaps all, don't 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 i'm lucky said that they the it can be done without those who are not yet willing to join. we have to live in there, but it's been amounts 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, [000:00:00;00]

the, [000:00:00;00] the, the idea has multiple locations in southern lebanon, of a night. following an attack on me is really controlled going and how you claimed 12 nights. also had the united states of america implement such a plan. we would consider ourselves free from the previous to the assume, the unilateral motor authority and on the deployment of the medium and showed the range strike weapons on the rocks of navy day president vladimir purse and prominence of a mirror respond if the washington faces dismiss all in germany and

now the bombshell report by americans on the same harsh,