Kyoda. I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. Climate Change Conference COP twenty nine has wrapped up with a significant but controversial final agreement. Negotiations came down to the wire over a one point three trillion US dollar deal to help finance poorer countries to deal with the impacts
of climate change and to cut emissions. But only about three hundred billion dollars of that target will come from direct payments or loans from richer countries, which has sparked backlash from nations in the direct line of fire from rising sea levels and increasing temperatures. So what does this deal actually mean? And is getting a deal better than getting no deal at all? Today on the Front Page, University of Canterbury Professor of Political Science and International Relations,
Ronwin Hayward is with us to discuss the details. First off, from when for those who don't know what actually is COP so.
The Confidence of the Parties is a term that's used for all the world's countries who've agreed to come together every year to discuss progress on protecting communities and also reducing emissions as a result of climate change. So that's
basically what it is. And they've committed each year to come together to review their progress, and they've made several pacts and agreements, so one of them being the Paris Climate Agreement, where they've agreed to take a series of actions to reduce emissions and to invest in adaptation or actions to protect people.
So at COP twenty nine, what was the agreement reached at the weekend?
The big agreement around this COP has been around how much countries would contribute to support those who are on the front line of climate change, particularly the poorest countries and the small island states. So the big number that was arrived at was US three hundred billion dollars a year, which is to both help developing countries to reduce their emissions but also to protect themselves from climate And it
is an eyewateringly large amount of money. But when you think that something like the Tairafiti Hawkes Bay Gisbin cyclones cost us in New Zealand alone three billion dollars, you can see why all of the countries that are facing really significant extreme events every year are saying that actually three hundred billion hardly touches the sides because most countries now would be experiencing at least a three billion to
five billion incident. What we know will happen is that as our temperatures rise over the one point five degrees of warming we had back in the eighteen eighties and eighteen nineties when we started emitting lots of fossil fuels, we are going to see about a fourfold increase and extreme events. So these countries are really anxious not only about the disasters that they're already experiencing, but how they're going to afford the disasters to come, so they're actually
asking for much more. They're asking for at least US one trillion a year now. Of course, right now every country is incredibly strapped for cash, and developed economies are facing, like ours, really high bills and challenges to meet basic infrastructure needs, protect their own populations, provide education, health and housing, and so it's a very difficult time to be asking
for a lot of money. On the other hand, it's never going to be an easier time as well, so this is a very fraught time and international negotiations and we've got big wars going on in the background and looming, so it's been extremely fraught.
It's a gift of the God. Every natural resource where this oil, gas, wind, some gold, silver, copper, all that unnatural resources, and countries should not be blamed for having them and should not be blamed for bringing these resources to the market because the market needs them, the people needs them.
Was it always going to be quite difficult? Given the president of this year's host country, Azerbaijan, described oil and gas as a gift from God.
It was going to be a disaster. Really, it's like we're looking at a slow train wreck coming. When we have oil states chairing these meetings, you've really got to say, it's like a turkey chairing the organization of Christmas, and it is an extremely difficult situation. But not only that, but we have a lot number of fossil fuel interests in the room as lobbyists, and they are out numbering
the number of small states. For example, the small states like the Pacific are very organized at the moment, but still it's extremely difficult to get an even playing field and have sensible conversations about how we can actually move forward, protecting people, developing in a way that brings everyone with us, protects people's economies, but also protects children and future generations in the long term.
Well, during the talks, representatives of dozens of climate vulnerable islands and African nations stormed out the likes of Sarmoa's environment minister. For example, they were furious their calls to have a portion of the fund allocated to them have been ignored. Surely we should listen to these smaller nations though, right, given it's their shorelines already being lost to sea level rises and as such.
Yes, it is really crucial that we support particularly the Pacific, and New Zealand has taken up a position successive governments of the left and right that we will support the Pacific, that the Pacific are our neighbors. But it's made tenser because there's a big Cold war going on really between
the US and China over influence in the Pacific. So, even though it's extremely expensive and the Trump administration may not want to spend as much or any money on international aid to help other countries, even the US will have to pause and think carefully about its presence in the Pacific because it wants to make sure that it supports its allies and it has good relations in the Pacific, which is an extremely strategic area of the world as well.
So for many of the governments in the Pacific, that's really besides the point. Though. They're already having to move populations inland. We've seen in Fiji many small communities have had to relocate. They're already having to think about what ways in which they will be able to move large numbers of people and protect them still stay as an effective community. So those are really hard decisions. We're starting to see some of those hard decisions being made here
in New Zealand. One of them is in Westport, and we know how expensive and difficult it's going to be to move a town that feels very attached to its place and very proud of where it is. So these are issues that New Zealand shares with the Pacific.
We're developing countries almost compelled to accept this deal. Given next year, of course, Donald Trump is back in the White House and so it's doubtful they'll get anything better.
There's more a case that diplomats, especially from Europe, were extremely anxious to make sure that these talks didn't fall over. So a lot of the protesters that were outside in the halls where I was watching virtually as an observer go to cops, but as a researcher, I was interested in what was happening. So outside in the halls, they were protesting to say, no deal is better than a
bad deal. So that was a kind of hard line for many of the small island states and Africa was prepared to walk away and allow the talks to collapse if they weren't getting adequate recognition. Now for Europe, that would be a disaster because we're in a time where actually the wider world needs to be collaborating. It needs to collaborate, not just over climate change, but it needs to collaborate over really difficult issues like the war in Ukraine.
So there are lots of political reasons why Europe is desperate for a deal and desperate to make sure that people stay in the room and keep talking. And that's actually to the advantage of everyone. But small island states and Africa really did make an effective stand say, look, we could leave and then you don't have to pay anything, but we would be in chaos really because once we stopped talking to each other, we've only got war as
a way really of sorting things out. I think one of the wider questions that the United Nations is going to have to face is how is it going to make these decisions in the future. Because one of the things that was really making small islands in Africa anxious was the way in which oil states, and there were thinly veiled references all the time to Saudi Arabia, were
able to block progress. Every time the EU and the small islands of Africa had nearly reached an agreement, there was a block on progress by one country vetoing it, and usually that was an oil state. Now we have to think differently about how we're going to make decisions so that we're not just protecting oil economies at the end of the day.
The BBC's Environment correspondent Matt McGraw, he wrote, the Big Fight over Money reopened old divisions between rich and poor with an anger and bitterness I have not seen in years. Would you agree with him?
I would agree with him, but I would say that it it's not new. In my experience of having to give evidence at international meetings for climate over the last three years, I've seen a real escalation of this tension between yes, poorer nations on the one hand, but also countries like China and Bolivia and Russia and Saudi who
as a block of countries are often collaborating together. And then Europe and developed economies who are saying, well, we can't afford to keep supporting the rest of the world if some of these big economies that are developing rapidly,
including Brazil and China, are not also contributing. At the same time, India is arguing, well, they have been exposed for many, many years to really significant floods and disasters have been exacerbated by this climate created conditions of when countries are using lots of fossil fuels, they should be exempt or at least they should be an understanding the historical impact of some of those developed countries and the effect that they've had over time, and these have become
extremely tense that you only need to look at the world at the moment, and we're an extremely tense situation. So finding a way in which we can act together is going to be very hard. But the world has been in this situation before. When I think back to my grandparents understanding of what it was like around World War One World War two. After those terrible periods, the world came together Let's hope it doesn't take a world war to end some of this incredible tension that we're seeing.
But certainly the cop talks are part of a deepening polarization and growing nationalism that we're seeing around the world in all sorts of ways.
More than two hundred people have died after the Blancia region was hit by the worst flooding in decades, and many locals say they're frustrated by the lack of warn and support build as a multi hazard weather event, this storm has come with a heady blend of rain, wind and snow that's attacked almost every inch of the country. Arctic blasts hit north of West Yorkshire first thing, bringing with it five hours of heavy snowfall.
Emergency services in the United States have rescued thousands of people from flooded parts of Florida after Hurricane Milton crashed through the state yesterday, killing at least sixteen people.
When it comes to climate change, surely richer countries want to tackle this issue as well. We've already seen major damage caused by back to back hurricanes in the US, Spain was devastated by rain earlier this year, and right now, Storm Burt has caused chaos across the British Isles. Why is there still this kind of resistance towards something we know is happening.
Partly it's just economics. Partly it's because countries are having to appeal to their own local voters who are very
concerned about their own local disasters. So we know after the wake of any of these disasters, we see a surge in people understanding the impacts of climate wanting to spend money on disaster protection, but disasters elsewhere feel distant, and being told that you're having to spend more than two hundred and thirty five million a year to support other countries at a time when your country feels under
pressure is really difficult. So we need governments to be able to find a way in which they can act together so that they are encouraging their voters and their communities to see that this is something that we are all in together, that we are all helping, which is why the world's governments have often relied on the United Nations and often relied on doing things together. Right now,
that's very difficult when we're seeing this growing nationalism. But yes, one thing that is for sure is that most countries accept that climate change is happening. I mean Trump accepts climate change is happening. Now the debate is how much is he willing to pay for it? And this time if he pulls out of the Paris Climate Agreement, it will be because he doesn't want to pay for the
restoration and support and protection of other countries. So that's a very different debate from saying I don't believe climate change is happening, but actually having to protect our world from the impacts that we're having on it is becoming a real reality.
The Guardian reported that apparently New Zealand was one of the countries resistant to increasing the contribution to three hundred billion dollars US a year from the initial two hundred and fifty billion dollar offer.
Does that surprise you, No, it doesn't surprise me. One of the questions that I would probably ask is why is that. I think part of the reason is that just throwing money at this problem is not necessarily going to solve it. If that money comes in the form of loans with very high interest from commercial organizations and banks in that situation, then you're only going to trap
poor countries in greater debt. So I think it's quite important that we think carefully when we're tossing around large figures of finance about what form is that finance going to be delivered in and how And this is unprecedented really for the United Nations. They haven't haven't got a structure that is sufficient for really dealing with how to financially support a large number of highly vulnerable countries all
at the same time. So part of the reason for being a little cautious is to make sure that we have a good structure in place and that we use things like our losses and damages mechanisms and get them working as well. At the same time, I think New Zealand's priority it seys itself as supporting in particular the Pacific, So I hope that is an area where New Zealand continues to really be a supportive player in our region of the world.
In other deal news, New Zealand's Climate Change Minister Simon Watts he was co chairing Carbon market deal negotiations. He said after years of negotiations, international carbon markets under the Paris Agreement are now fully operational, resolving one of the most sophisticated and technical challenges in climate diplomacy in layman's terms, what does that mean.
It's called an emissions trading scheme, and I must admit I'm a bit in two minds about them. It's where a country is able to pay another country to reduce emissions and then use that towards their own actions. So it might be that you pay another country to plant a forest or to not develop a particular project. The difficulty is that it is hard for countries like New Zealand, where we've got a very high meetane impact, it's going to be it's very hard for us to reduce that
methane impact. We're going to have to think very carefully about how we do that. It's the same with our carbon impact. So for countries, they are often looking at ways they can invest overseas to also make a difference and reduce their carbon impact and their methane and greenhouse gas impact overall. The difficulty is that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade has had is to try and get rules and regulations that everyone agrees to around the
world that can keep this transparent. We've had some disastrous investments ourselves in New Zealand. We've invested in the past in Ukraine and very dodgy deals that turned out to be really not worth the paper that they were written on. And so making sure that there are good regulations in place and that these kind of schemes don't become just a slush fund for moving money around and doesn't make any difference to the climate is essential, and that's why
it's been so hard to negotiate. So a lot of the key parts of that have been nailed down. There is still some concern that there are some significant elements of nation to nation agreements that might enable some greenwashing to go on that needs better scrutiny and transparency. But certainly in New Zealand has played a huge role in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade over over a decade trying to get these laws and regulations right.
We need to stop pretending that's these conferences that are being held again in countries with no respect for basic human rights, that they these countries who get to set the agenda, that their interests are people and plan as well being. Of course, that's bullishit and we have to.
Call that out.
Ron When every time cop happens, it kind of gets dismissed as just a lot of hot air. You've got thousands of people traveling via planes to discuss reducing emissions. Deals get reached, but then your trumps of the world come along in exit agreements. Is there's still a purpose to these meetings, do you think? And are they having an impact?
I think that there are two parts of that argument. So on the one hand, I tend to agree with people that say, why are we all flying everywhere? So for somebody like me who's a researcher and a political scientist, I'm interested in these negotiations. I can watch them online. I don't need to physically be there. But for negotiators who are in the room, especially trying to get tight rules around how we use money, that matters that they're there. And there is a role for some of the community
groups and organizations to scrutinize what's happening. So just this week, for example, we've seen community groups really putting pressure on the international community to support small island states to do better into the future. So it does matter that these aren't closed door meetings that the public can go and
can watch and can see what's happening. And also at the same time, we've got to be very careful that we structure these meetings in a way that is actually serving its purpose, which is to reduce emissions and to protect people. And when these meetings are held hostage oil states who can hold out the last minute on a decision and veto it and then we can't make any progress,
then that process of making decisions needs an overhaul. But if we didn't have the international community, then it's important to remember before the Paris Agreement, we were looking at a five degree warmer world, which is unimaginable in terms
of how disastrous that would have been. So, for all its flaws, bringing the world together, focusing our attention for a week at least on our climate and on what we can do about it, and trying to hold governments to account, and trying to remind populations at home that it's not just their government that's beating us drum. Everybody is affected by climate. This isn't something made up, it's something that actually is a real issue facing us. That's important.
And while the Paris Agreement is really struggling now without successful strong international leadership, it is at least holding us at about two point seven worst case to AR scenario two point seven degrees warmer than we were back in the eighteen eighties, which is better than the four to five degrees we were looking at, but it's still terrible.
It still means for a child that was born in twenty twenty, that child in their lifetime will see four times the number of extreme events that I will see as somebody who's fifty five and twenty twenty for the
remaining part of my life. It's almost unimaginable the kind of disasters that we're now looking at for our children and their children, And I think it's extremely important that we keep doing everything we possibly can to keep people in the room, keep focused on this issue because it really matters in the long term.
Thanks for joining us, Bronwini look, thanks for having me. That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You can read more about today's stories and extensive use coverage at enzherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Ethan Sills and Richard Martin, who is also a sound engineer. I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.