Kiyota.
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a daily podcast.
Presented by The New Zealand Herald.
The thirtieth UN Climate Conference begins this week.
Nations will gather in Belem, Brazil for COP thirty. And while the.
Trump administration isn't intending to send anyone, the US could still become the thorn in any deals side. So as the world's brightest climate mines converge on the city that sits just on the outskirts of the Amazon rainforest, experts asking whether anything substantial will come from these negotiations. Today on the Front Page, University of Otago Associate Professor Daniel Kingston is with us to discuss how important COP is.
And why we should care.
So, Daniel, tell me what is COP thirty.
So cop COP stands for Conference of the Parties. So just to back up a bit about what that means.
In nineteen ninety two, at the Earth Summit in Rio, most of the world's countries got together and signed a climate agreement called the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and so all countries in the world signed up to that and since that, since that treaty was signed, the signatories to that treaty have met every year since, and so that's a conference of the party who has been COP one, COP two, COP three and so on, and
we're at thirty. The aim of that initial treaty back in nineteen ninety two was to prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system. That sounds great, but was just an intention. They didn't actually define what dangerous climate change was or how to prevent it. So the meetings since have been about trying to kind of, you know, make those definitions. What is dangerous climate change? How ambitious should we be, who should take the lead, who should should
people some countries do more, do less? You know, how can we prevent dangerous climate change? So that's what these these meetings are all about.
Given we've been concerned, at least a little bit concern for decades now about the effects of climate change on our earth. Does it worry you that the UN has now said it's virtually impossible to keep the international target of limiting global warming of one point five degrees celsius.
Yeah, it's pretty concerning. There are about kind of five or six or seven years go now. There was a special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change, looking at kind of what dangerous climate change might be, and in particular looking at the threshold of one point five degree warming and two degree warming, and when we start to get above that one point five degree level is when we start to see some of the more serious
impacts of climate change. So, according to the Paris Agreement which resulted from COP twenty one in twenty fifteen, I think there was an agreement from the world's countries that we would try to limit climate change to below two degrees or preferably at one point five degrees. So for now this report to come out to say that basically we've just about missed the boat, it's hugely concerning, Yes, is.
There any way of backtracking or do you reckon that's it?
To meet this goal our emissions as they were in twenty nineteen, would we need to cut by more than half to stop us reaching that one point five threshold by twenty thirty five That if you kind of think about the way the world's set up at the moment, the kind of the political environment, it's really not going to happen, almost certainly. And so that's that's kind of the conclusions of this report. But then you know, thinking after that, it is possible to kind of pull things
back on track. Okay, just because we've you know, we may end up breaching that threshold, it doesn't mean that we can't pull it back to below that threshold at some point in the future. Right, The key thing is how far we're going to overshoot and how long that overshoot is going to last. For the more action we take, the quicker we take it, the less that overshoot is going to be, and.
What kind of things can be down I guess from a larger governmental level to a smaller level. I mean, is me washing my yogurt caps before putting them in the recycling bin, doing anything to get us below that level.
Yeah, so there's pretty much a linear relationship between more carbon in the atmosphere and more global warming. So from that sense, yeah, everything really does make a difference, you know, whether it's just like turning off a light, you know, when you leave a room, whether that's driving your car less, taking one fewer international flight, you know, right up to the kind of the top of government decisions around you know,
national level emissions. It all makes a difference, and no one's powerless even if it might seem kind of trivial, you know, like recycling versus chucking out your yogurt pots.
Yeah, what's the significance of COP thirty being held in Brazil?
There's some symbolism from it, I suppose, So as I mentioned that first global climate treaty, the UNFCCC, was signed in Rio in Brazil, So there's some history of hosting successful major international conferences in Brazil. And obviously it's home to the Amazon rainforest and majority of that rainforest, which is the biggest rainforest rainforest area in the planet, and it's hugely important from you know, from a biodiversity perspective,
but also from the climate system. It's so big that it effectively generates its own climate and also has an influence on the global climate system. So when we think about tropical rainforest loss, we're actually influencing the global climate system as that system kind of shrinks and becomes degraded. So there's a lot of yeah, I guess, symbolism from holding it there.
And that information that we know about the Amazon is that while we were planting so many trees a few years back, wasn't it something like we were going to plant like a million trees or something.
Yeah, it's not unrelated. So as a plant grows, it sucks out carbon from the atmosphere. So in theory, right, the more trees you plant, the more carbon you get out of the atmosphere. And so this country and others do use that sort of kind of a forestation process to meet some of their climate goals. It's not as
simple as that, you know. It depends what happens once that tree is finished growing, right, if you chop it up and burn it, then you're just putting that carbon back into the atmosphere, so that there's kind of not so much of an overall wind there. Old old growth, existing forests, you know, and native trees are often much
more important kind of preserving what we've got. There's a huge amount of carbon locked up in the Amazon rainforest, and the system as a whole sucks out carbon from the atmosphere at the moment, so it's holding back the level of climate change that has happened. But as it starts to shrink and as it starts to get degraded, it has the potential to switch to a carbon source. Right when you chop down those trees, when you change land, use that area starts being a net emitter of carbon
instead of a net absorber. So yeah, dancing trees is good, but it's not quite that simple.
Looking around the world, what other governments have weakened existing legislated domestic climate targets?
The reality is is that you know, we are reasssing on all countries are continually reassissing the target. So this specific So meny to your question because every country has different mixes. And again, as I see New Zealand's mix is very different.
I appreciate that our missions profile is very different to countries that aren't is relying on agriculture and don't have the renewable energy source.
Sorry sorry, just let me.
Ask that minister that can you name a single country? Can you name a single country that has weakened existing legislated domestic climate targets?
As I said, I'm not aware of that point. But what I am aware of the world leading in that sense.
What are New Zealand's updated emissions targets for COP thirty and how significant are they do you think?
Yeah? So, just to back up slightly, under the Paris Agreement, each country that signed up to that has to submit emission reduction plans periodically and so the latest round of these has been happening this year. And so New Zealand did submit an updated emissions reduction plan. Their previous one was a fifty percent reduction in what our emissions were in two thousand and five, and we'd achieved that fifty percent reduction by twenty thirty, so that upgraded plan isn't
much of an upgrade. It's kind of from fifty percent by twenty thirty to fifty one to fifty five percent by twenty thirty five, so it's kind of it's met those goals from Paris, but it's a it's a pretty small increase really, and that compares with the UK, which has committed to an more than an eighty percent reduction from their nineteen ninety levels. Even rapidly industrializing countries like Brazil have submitted more more ambitious targets than New Zealand have.
And I guess you might think, you know, fifty percent is a pretty hefty reduction, right, and it would be great if we could, you know, if we actually achieved that, that's great, But in the bigger context of what's going on in that one point five degree threshold, that we're going to miss No one's taking enough action, enough major action right now. Everyone needs to be more ambitious. So to see such a small kind of ratcheting up from
the New Zealand government was pretty disappointing. I suppose Do.
You think it's disappointing or realistic? Could we actually bump that up to eighty.
Well or is that just posturing?
Yeah? I guess that's an important point, right Promises need to be kind of followed up by action. We have seen a kind of what's the the I guess we might say backsliding. Maybe I don't think of the more polite term than that right now. You know, in terms of climate policy the last few years, there are a number of emission reduction plans in place from the previous government and they've been mostly kind of let go by the current government without any replacement, you know, by alternative ideas.
If you know, you might not have liked the kind of the clean car rebate, the UTAX, but if you're going to get rid of that, then what are you going to replace it with? And I don't think we've seen kind of enough ambition from the current government to kind of well, okay, if we're not going to do that,
then then what are we going to do? You know, and then the idea, well, you know, drilling for you know, allowing more drilling for oil in the context in this current context again kind of it doesn't match the urgency of the situation.
Because the situation is urgent.
You mentioned the UK there, UK Prime Minister Kirs Darma has told world leaders that the consensus is gone on fighting climate change.
Would you agree with him?
Yeah, I certainly think we're in a different position to where we were, you know when the Paris Agreement site was signed, you know, or maybe even four or five years ago. Right, Governments change, and government priorities change, and the extent to which they can bring along their populations with them change. We're certainly not in the same position that we were before. And you know, at the present moment, those kind of that international community isn't as aligned as it has been.
How difficult is it to have a big conference like this, obviously the biggest climate change conference in the world. We're talking about moving forward, we're talking about or getting onto the same page and not having the US at the table.
Well, the you know, the second I think the second biggest emitter globally at the moment. So it's obviously a big hole, right if they're pulling out of the whole system. I guess there's a timescale issue here in this. You know, the political cycle in the US last for five years in terms of a presidential term. But what we're looking at here is something that's carrying on for decades, you know,
through to and beyond the end of the century. So there will be kind of, you know, variations in how much different countries can commit to this, but that you know, there is a sense of kind of following the pack here, right. If everyone's doing it, then you become the kind of the odd ball, the standout if you're not doing it.
Even China's getting on board, aren't.
They, Yeah, exactly exactly. So, like China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, but they're also they have the most renewable electricity generation installed in the world. They're installing more than anywhere else, and that the cost of renewable energy is cheaper and cheaper all the time, to the point where you know, in many situations it's cheaper to generate electricity renewably than it is from fossil fuels.
So things keep turning and there are kind of bumped along the way, you know, associated with political cycles, but it's going one way in the end, and so I guess it's up to the rest of the international community to kind of stick with it.
But global warming not happening. You know, it used to be global cooling. If you look back years ago, in the nineteen twenties and the nineteen thirties, they said global cooling will kill the world. We have to do something. Then they said global warming will kill the world. But then it started getting cooler, so now they could just call a climate change because that way they can't miss climate change, because if it goes higher or lower, whatever
the hell happens, is climate change. It's the greatest con job ever perpetrated in the world, in my opinion.
What would you like to see come out of COP.
Thirty Recognition of the urgency of the situation? Really, you know, there are lots of kind of you know, big picture and also technical things that are going to be discussed there, from just kind of the general kind of feel of the room around the urgency to some much more specific actions, you know, around energy generation, finance, tropical rainforests and so on. But just that sort of that combined will to do something that came out of the Paris Agreement, just to kind of see that bolstered.
I guess do you reckon that when they signed the Paris Agreement all those years ago that they actually thought that it was going to be this bad.
Oh?
I don't know, you know what I mean though, it's just like imagine I can imagine all of them.
But you know, there's some some media about it.
People are saying all the earth is warming, and you know, they go and sign this document and go haha, like look at this document, and then we get up to it right up to Cop thirty and everyone's.
Like, guys, yeah, I mean Paris was a huge, kind of a huge achievement, right. It was a big step forward. But at the same time, it was only words, right, and they probably knew that when it came to actually kind of dealing with the nitty gritty of it actually doing stuff, that it was going to get more difficult. Yeah, the way it always is.
I guess what concrete impacts of climate change are already being observed in New Zealand.
Well, it's getting warmer. If you look at the temperature records, you can see that. Maybe you can't feel it kind of day to day, but we see it in other aspects of the environment, you know, in terms of our snowcover shrinking, our glaciers shrinking year on year. We see it around extreme of e So you know, floods are a particularly obvious one. The Auckland Anniversary weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. They were all worse because of climate change because they occurred in a warmer atmosphere.
And.
You know, there's some scientific uncertainty around just how much worse they were, but they were definitely worse. So you know, that means they're kind of the flooding that came with it, infrastructure damage, the loss of life, you know, impacts on kind of you know, food production as well. There are you know, quite substantial impacts you know, associated with those events that were worse because of climate change. And we see droughts as well becoming more intense internationally as well.
Just you know, the past kind of week or so, Hurrican Melissa in the Caribbean, there was sixteen percent more rainfall in that because of climate change. Winds were seven percent stronger because you know, it was happening in a warmer atmosphere, So yeah, we don't have to look too far to see those sort of concrete impacts.
And what climate solutions or innovations would you like to see the most in New Zealand. What can we really harness and make our own and really lead the world in.
We're going kind of slightly into my kind of personal opinion now rather than my kind of professional expertise for current scientist. But look, we've got most of the technology available to deal with this, right. Electric cars are pretty good and they're getting better. Rooftop solar is cheap, right, it's just an upfront cost, just as there's an upfront cost to buying a new car. We need help to kind of make those initial steps and a lot of that has to come from kind of from a government level.
But the technology, a lot of the technology is there to make a huge impact on our emissions. There's amazing new kind of innovations going on in agriculture as well, in terms of kind of the methane that gets emitted from dairying, for instance. We just need more of a push and to kind of to make it easier to change, but also the kind of the messaging around it. There
are huge opportunities around kind of reducing greenhouse gases. It doesn't have to be seen as a cost and negative thing when it can actually lead to a kind of, you know, huge additional beneficial changes as well as just limiting climate change.
It's not enough anymore just to be cleaning out your yoga caps.
Yeah, just recycling by itself isn't going to cut it.
No, thanks for joining us, Daniel.
No problem, Nice to talk to you.
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage at endzed hair dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Jane Ye and Richard Martin, who is also our editor. 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.