Welcome to zero. I am Akshatrati. This week we think about progress. I've been reporting on climate change for more than eight years. It's not because I care about an invisible gas in the atmosphere or about the mercury levels in a scientist thermometer, but because of what climate change could do to slow down the progress that humanity has
achieved over the past two centuries. And as I keep reporting on what the world is doing to tackle climate change, I keep coming back to the question of human progress. At the start of twenty twenty five, with the staggering fires in Los Angeles and a range of climate leaders stepping down, it doesn't feel like progress. It feels like regress or perhaps something darker. But it's a narrative that
we should be careful not to fall for. That's the message from Akim Steiner, the head of the United Nations Development Program, who I got a chance to talk to at COP twenty nine in November. He said that progress is happening, and there are many places in the world where you can see it. We talked about many of them. He's not denying that there are growing problems around the world, but he says that he has also never felt more optimistic about the human capacity to address them. This is
the second time Akim is on the show. Previously, he made a passionate case for what humanity must do to thrive on this warming planet. This time he shared what's working and made the case for how to make it work better. Akim, Welcome to the show.
It's good to be back with you. Thank you Ashen.
Now, since we spoke eighteen months ago, I feel like the world has taken a turn for the worse. If we look at broad metrics like the Human Development Index, rich countries are doing better and poor countries are doing worse, reversing a trend that for the last fifty sixty years was where both rich countries and poor countries were progressing. There's been the rise of populism all around the world. Many elected leaders, even if they care about climate change,
aren't able to do very much. And then there are, of course many elected leaders who are hostile to climate action. So we speak at COP twenty nine, where yet again, wor leaders are meeting country negotiators are coming together to try and figure out how do we keep climate action alive in what is a fracturing world. How are you seeing things well.
I think, first of all, letter acknowledge, we are confronted with a degree of crisis, conflicts and wars, as you have just mentioned, in a way that I think none of us had anticipated, in certainly since nineteen forty five. It is without precedent. We have well over one hundred and twenty million people who are essentially forced to leave their home, whether in their countries or to flee across
borders as refugees. We as undp work at the moment in fifty three countries that are deemed crisis context I through either economic or political civil strife or literally open wars across borders. We face the opposite of what a development program of the United Nations aspires to, namely to help countries to build a way forward to develop their economies. We are seeing development being destroyed. So I think, yes,
it is a very sobering moment in time. And we see also the geopolitical polarization translating very quickly into domestic polarization radicalization. So the cohesiveness of so socide is the ability of governments to lead through tough times is being compromised. Having said that, on the climate front, I would take a slightly different view. We are meeting in twenty twenty four at a moment in time where we can actually look back over the last ten years, and we should
perhaps be astonished at what the world has accomplished. The International Energy Agency estimates in twenty twenty four there will be around three trillion dollars invested in new energy infrastructure. Did you know that two out of those three trillion will now be invested in renewables For a few years now, Already total investment in new electricity generating infrastructure for renewables is more than the combined total of oil, gas, coal,
and nuclear. So to those who continue to argue that we are in a sense doomed if you want to stay or committed to staying with the fossil fuel based energy platform for the twenty first century, to them, I would say you are patently wrong. What you're witnessing right now is the product of years of the international community, private sector, public sector science, technology converging on that challenge
of a ultimately decarbonized future. And it is happening already, not only in energy, we now see it also happening in mobility, the other major polluting sector, transporting goods across the planet, whether by ship, by plane, by car, by trucks. Even that is now rapidly shifting, with the country like China this year having every second car sold in China being an electric or hybrid vehicle. So I would say on the climate response front, we are seeing remarkable things happen.
What you will also hear at every climate copp and in the media right now is how far behind we are, how late we are, But that should not negate the extraordinary exponential progress that we're now seeing, and obviously here in Baku the great challenges can we maintain that collective interest and momentum of countries despite all their differences which are very pronounced, and their abilities to act that we continue to drive forward with the Paris Agreement, which has
proven to be remarkably resilient.
I think that's a good reminder for this two track world we live in where we will see climate progress because a whole host of actions have been taken that have momentum. I think the dark word turn is one of whether that kind of momentum continues, because the gap between where we need to be and where we are
does grow and climate impacts grow. So if you are thinking about it from a United Nations perspective, where countries like the United States, which contribute a fifth of the budget, are electing a populist leader who does not believe as much in a globalized world in the principles that created the United Nations in the first place. How much of a risk do you think Donald Trump is to the progress that the United Nations enables the world.
Well, let me first of all answer your question by saying, as the United Nations official, we rarely try to speak in hypotheticals, So let the newly elected administration take off is let it in the sense set its priorities. But clearly you are alluding to a number of policy positions and also the track record of the incoming US administration that clearly has voice skepticism and also different views on energy pathways, for example. I think, as always in our democracies,
these are dramas that play out in real time. So yes, we will see a lot of announcements. The fact of the matter is that, yes, the US left the Paris Agreement. The US rejoined the Paris Agreement. No one followed the US leaving the Paris Agreement. In twenty seventeen and the world welcome the US back. In the meantime, I think
we will also see in the United States. I think what we are seeing in many countries acting on climate change today is not any more focused on stopping to do things that was very often where the science had to awaken us and rattle us. If you want to say, do you realize that with what you are emitting into the atmosphere, you're essentially killing off economies in the future, and you're making life on this planet extremely untenable, expensive
and economically very challenging. But in today's world, we're actually far more focused on the green economy that is emerging as an opportunity, the next strategy for industrialization, the next strategy for how we power our economies mobility in the world, but also looking at where jobs will come in the future, just on the simple preoccupation that many governments have, how
do we create enough jobs? An investment in renewal energy infrastructure, on average, creates two to three times more jobs than
one in the fossil fuel sector. If you essentially are worried about your automotive industry, as Europe and parts of North America are, ask yourself are you really going to manage to survive in a world where electric mobility has become not only affordable, ever cheaper and there are now major producers that are able to supply the world market because the US economy is large in monetary terms, but the vast majority of the world's population lives outside the
United States. So are we going to see electric mobilities succeed on the African continent with soon one on five billion consumers so to speak? And is the old fossil fuel based diesel petrol based automotive industry really going to be a competitive proposition there? So, in domestic US policy terms, I think industry investors markets will be looking carefully at where does a policy ultimately undermine the competitiveness of a
US enterprise. And secondly, you also have in the United States federalism, so state governments also represent a very significant part of the mandate that shapes policies. You asked me in terms of a United Nations perspective, we are obviously very concerned principally because when a major economy is such as the United States, takes a step back from an international consensus, it will always have an impact. It will slow things down, it will so distrust, it will create,
let's say, more room for skepticism. And let's also be clear already now we are seeing signals where investors are holding back hundreds of millions, if not billions, will ultimately not be invested in the United States because the policy and regulatory framework is ultimately signaling that you're not welcome, and they will invest somewhere else because the demand is growing exponentially around the world.
The other thing that has happened when you look at this turn in politics is one where climate or carbon cannot become the top priority for almost any nation. The top priority happens to be in most places, even in rich countries, economic growth, prosperity, affordability, cost of living, and those metrics have caused a right to return toward populism.
So when I think about what's happening in the world, I am reminded of our previous conversation on how the sustainable development goals are this unifying set of principles that address multiple problems at the same time, where they address prosperity while they address climate change. But we're also not
on track. You have said the world is likely to miss the UN Sustainable Development Goals for twenty thirty because there will be still plenty of poverty in twenty thirty, So is there any movement to try and re engage the world in the SDGs, Because it seems to me, if climate change is to be tackled, it really has to happen through a systemic lengs like the SDGs, rather than focusing on carbon We.
Perhaps begin by saying, particularly to those listeners who are not so familiar perhaps with the twenty thirty Agenda as it was called, and the Sustainable Development Goals, that these are seventeen goals that in twenty fifteen the international community agreed to collaborate on addressing. And to some, you know, they want to argue that the STGs are some form of political theorem or an ideology, they're not at all.
They're the most pragmatic way of looking at the conundrum that we are now facing, as eight billion people soon on this planet. How are we going to survive in the twenty first century together when our planet is under stress, Our societies are struggling with inequality and a lot of political strife, and ultimately we still have generations of young people who are leaving schools, in universities looking for jobs
in many countries, that equation is no longer delivering. So the first thing that we need to accept is yes, life is more complex in the twenty first century. And to give you a very simple illustration of how we interpret on the United Nations Development Program, when we go and offer our support to developing countries, we don't tell them or you must do something on SDG thirteen climate change. We say to them, how can we help you with
your development? We are an organization that can help you think about the future of your economy and then make the investments today. Now we might do exactly the same project, for instance, to address access to affordable and clean energy, which is Sustainable Development Goals seven that automatically delivers on SDG thirteen on climate change, reducing carbonation, but actually also
on STG one reduction elimination of poverty. You know, in designing one project, we can address poverty, reduction, access to clean and affordable electricity fundamental to any society, any nation for its development, and reduce the risk of climate change. It's a smarter way of thinking about development. Now. The SDGs have, indeed, in terms of the targets and indicators that were supposed to be met by the year twenty thirty fallen way behind. But we've had a pandemic, we've
had wars. There are reasons why this is happening. Does it make the goals somehow less relevant or correct? I
don't think so at all. On the contrary, Our challenge, however, is that there is a second element to the STGs that is extremely important, and in twenty fifteen in the General Assembly Hall of the United Nations, in the presence of the Pope, of the Secretary General of literally one hundred and thirty heads of state and government, there was also an acknowledgment that interdependence is something we have to
accept as a reality in today's world. Whether it's the pandemic, whether it is cybercrime, whether it is the energy transition, climate change. None of these challenges are really manageable within a national jurisdiction alone. We depend on the actions of others, including for example, in the world of digital and AI. Those countries that have the weakest national legislation, institutions and capacity to deal with cyber crimes cyberterrorism become their killers.
Heel to a essentially interconnected global economy, so our work as the UN in some ways is more important than ever because where countries may not be able to cooperate directly with each other because they have big differences, they
can still agree that they have something common. In this September, actually countries adopted the Pact for the Future in New York, which was a reaffirmation that despite the fact that we may not like our neighbor, we have to work together on these core issues of our time.
I spoke to a minister here at COP twenty nine from a developing country who expressed frustration with international institutions. They were at two layers. One where as a developing country they have access to fossil fuels, but they are not getting any funding to tap those fossil fuels, even though their development indexes very low, because the international community or international funding bodies have decided no. The only investments
that can go are in clean energy. So if you want a gas power plant that's on your own, you need to find the money for it. The other frustration was the sheer number of international funds being created. So we had the Loss and Damage Fund. There is going to be the Global Environment Facility. There is the new target that will be agreed on at COP twenty nine, which will be hundreds of billions of dollars. Multilateral development banks have to figure out how to give that money out.
And for a country, it is becoming hard to realize even if there is money to be accessed, how to access it? How many rules do we have to follow? Is there room for the UN to actually simplify things for developing countries? And what about sometimes the need for fossil fuels in the very places where development is still far far behind the world average.
Well, let me first of all respond to the role of international institutions. It's a little bit of a chicken and egg situation. And yes, international institutions can also be complicating factors. They are governed by broad constituencies, lowest common denominator consensus, the extreme attention that is put on fiducial integrity and accountability. Yes, if we were a startup, if we were an NGO, we could operate very differently. But we're not. We are custodians of literally billions of dollars
of taxpayers money. Therefore, the United Nations the international financial institutions are by definition a garanto or fiduciary integrity even then we also run into problems and difficulties. I mean, there are criminals, there are those who will try and cheat HS. We make mistakes, but that is not I think the biggest risk. The biggest risk is that member states, because of the sometimes competing interests but also sometimes very
particular interests, create many of these structures. Why do we have a Global Environment Facility followed by a green Climate fund, followed by a fund to address laws and damage well in part because countries are trying to also to address
particular needs. Take the world of developing nations right now, we have emerging economies in the China, Middle Eastern nations, some of the wealthiest nations in Asia and Latin America that are middle upper middle income countries, alongside, for instance, small island developing states hyper capita GDP, but extremely vulnerable and can lose a third of the GDP with one
hurricane in eight hours, the least developed countries. We have now this phenomenal investment in renewables, but do you know that last year only two percent of that total trillions of investments actually landed on the continent of Africa, where the most people without access to electricity live. Today so there is also a kind of public policy hedging that happens. And the product of this over years is that we
get a very broad range of funds and platforms. I think it is time to review them, to consolidate them. The G twenty, in fact, took the initiative under the Brazilian presidency and already with India before to ask the question, can we streamline the finance? The problem is right now here in Baku. What you see is, however, the first litmus test. Is there enough trust to even believe that we are ready and willing to invest and co invest
enough to work together on climate change? Or are we even debating what is an adequate level of investment If that is not established, and it's difficult to do the more difficult job of reforming the international financial architecture, as the secret General of the UN has repeatedly called for over the last three years, because we live in a world where there is more than enough money and wealth in our financial system, but it is concentrated in one
part of the world that is struggling to find ways to invest. While the majority of the world's population is desperately looking for capital, we can't access it and Ultimately, this is an imbalance that we need to address.
After the break, Akim tells me where he's seeing promising climate leadershi on the global stage. And if you've been enjoying this episode, please take a moment to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. It helps other listeners find the show. So are there examples of specific countries over the last eighteen months where you see some of this progress actually playing out in the right way?
Oh, I can give you dozens. This is why I sit here deeply traveled by how we have fallen behind in terms of addressing the science of climate change. But I am actually very optimistic about our capacity to do so. You see, twenty years ago we face challenges that we thought we had no solutions for. Today we live in an age where we actually have the solutions technologically, economically, financially speaking of what we are not doing is acting
on them. Just to give you a simple example, when you invest hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for fossil fuel extraction, then don't be surprised if it seems that somehow fossil fuels are cheaper at the pump for the consumer. But who is paying those subsidies the very same consumers, who are the taxpayers. The IMF estimates that the total impact of fossil fuel subsidies somewhere in the
range of trillions of dollars right now. But you ask me for positive examples, I will give you just three or four. Let me take you to Uruguay, for example, not one of the world's wealthiest countries at all. Together with Uruguay, UNDP and the Inter American Development Bank work with the Ministry of Finance on bringing a sustainability link performance bond to the financial markets. Uruguay raised over one point five billion dollars with an interest rate tied to
its emissions performance and its forest deforestation performance. Now, these are instruments that are raising literally billions of dollars on the markets today. So we see the financial markets moving.
Let me jump to India for a moment. India already has an installed capacity renewables of around two hundred gigabots right now, few people realize that India in the next four and a half years will add another three hundred and fifty gigawards, not megabots, gigawards have installed renewable electricity generating capacity. This is unprecedented in human history, even faster
than China's investment was. And we can then go to a country such as Kenya, a classic developing economy on the African continent today producing well over ninety percent of its electricity with renewables, and we can go to Namibia, where a green hydrogen investment is now happening again signaling how Namibia can leverage its enormous, ultimately endless supply of energy through solar and wind to produce something that the world economy will need in the coming year, is named
the green hydrogen to decarbonize the so called heavy to abatement high energy consuming sectors. And I could go on. This is all happening before our very eyes, and it is transforming, let's say, the pathway towards a net zero future.
Within that one specific constraint that we talked about the last time debt crisis, which is affecting developing countries hugely after the pandemic. Are there reason which developing countries have managed to deal with some of these problems? Obviously they've not gone away, but are there potential solutions like the Urogoaz sustainability link ons that are coming to help deal with what is a real fiscal crisis for many countries.
Well, the answer is yes and no. For the wealthier countries, this notion of a soft landing that has often been invoked after the pandemic, the high inflation, high interest rate phase is clearly beginning to come down to more normal economic and financial market times. But no, for many of the developing countries, it has gotten even worse. And this is a great tragedy, not only in terms of the
impact it is having on people. When you know dozens of developing countries today have to their health and education budgets in order to just service the interest that has exploded in terms of cost of their foreign debt. This is ultimately undermining the very essence of development, which is
to invest in your people human capital. Secondly, let us be very frank the G twenty has looked after itself barely, but it has and has not tackled the issue of debt, particularly for least developed countries and for those that are most indebted in our global economy today. So many of the instruments have been very slow and frankly, we are seeing many developing countries today not able to invest in their future because they simply haven't got access to money.
And we want next year all the signatories to the Convention of the Paris Agreement to come to the Brazilian cop in biling with new national strategies, higher levels of ambition. But for many of these countries, all we're offering them is please do more, do it quicker, and you can borrow some money from us, Thank you very much. I can hardly pay the interest on the loans I already have, and now you ask me to borrow more money. It just doesn't add up. This is why this whole finance
discussion needs to become a lot more honest. And let us also be clear when we talk about international climate finance, we're not talking about a taxpayer in Lancashire, in the UK, or I don't know, in Sicily, in Italy or in Ohio and the United States subsidizing economies such as China or India. They are moving forward with their green economy
investments out of their own resources. And I think one of the big misperceptions in today's world is that when we talk about one hundred billion dollar climate finance, are now one point three trillion. That's public but also private investment, that this is all somehow taxpayers money from the North. Few people realize that China is investing hundreds of billions of dollars a year off its own taxpayer revenue to
make the green transition happen. Many developing countries are using their resources to invest in climate change action, exceeding by far what the wealthiest nations are willing to put on the table as a co investment.
It's always a joy talking to you because you come with examples and you show progress as it's happening while acknowledging the big challenges that we face. One thing that has been missing for me has been trying to find leaders who can speak to that inspiration for the larger public. You know, last time, when Donald Trump was elected, there was a bulwark of leaders here in Europe or in Asia that stood up and said we will take the
baton on of multilateralism of climate change. Those leaders aren't speaking up or do not sit in power today. But if you were to think of leaders that people should be listening to at this moment, who would they be?
To your listeners, I would say, sometimes we may not hear the voices of lead because we are listening to something else. We're listening to a lot of noise. Right here in Bako yesterday i attended the launch of a G zero platform. Four countries are stepping forward as the first nations that are carbon neutral or carbon negative as economies, and they're saying we have done this, We are an example, and we also look to the world to work with us.
They are the Kingdom of Bhutan, Surinam, Panama and Madagascar. Now most people may not even necessarily be able to pinpoin where those countries are on the map, but they're all over the global context, so it's not one particular corner of the world. And you have His Majesty the King of Bhutan, the President of Surinam yesterday here the Prime Minister of Bhutan in fact leading the session yesterday. That's an example of leadership. Do we celebrate that leadership?
Do we even reward it? Do we support it? No, we take it for granted. But these are people who have taken their countries through extraordinary change. The renewables investment programs of India did not fall from heaven somewhere. They were the deliberate outcome of a series of policy decisions where India has bet its own energy future on a
rapid transition towards cleaner energy. But let me also talk to other leaders who are actually here in Baku, Prime Minister Starmer of the UK putting forward a remarkably robust new national climate strategy, committing the UK and recommitting it also to its financial pleasures that its preceding government had almost walked away from. We saw Brazil, the next host of the Conference of the Parties next year, putting forward a national climate strategy with ambitions built into its own
trajectory as a developing economy that are remarkable. What you're seeing over the last few years is that the leadership on climate action is rapidly shifting towards the developing world because for many of them, building the next generation of their economies infrastructure, energy industries, mobility, infrastruction structure is essentially one that is far more likely to succeed in a green economy scenario than in a twentieth century fossil fuel
based scenario. Europe. Final example, through the European Parliament, because let's also look to our parliamentarians have past legislation that commits Europe to a ninety percent emission reduction pathway in less than sixteen years by twenty forty. So we have a lot of leadership out there. It's just a pity that some have nothing better to do than to denigrate it, to talk it down, or maybe something to just take a step back and say, it's not only about me,
it's amazing what you have done. Let me join you, because together we will get twice as far. It sounds so banal, but in all the technocratic language, in all the dynamics, in all the chessboard that is playing out at the conference of the parties, someone's going back to first principles can be immensely clarifying.
Find better stories because they do exist.
Thank you for plenty of them, and ever more, thank you.
Thank you for listening to Zero. And now for the sound of the week. Those are the sounds of temple bells in Bhutan. If you liked this episode, please take a moment to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Share this episode with a friend or with someone who is carbon negative. You can get in touch at zero pod at Bloomberg dot Net. Zero's producer is Mike Lira, Bloomberg's head a podcast is Sage Bowman
and Head of Talk is Brendan Nuna. Our theme music is composed by Wonder Late Special thanks to Sharon Chan, Shewan Wagner and Jessica beg I am Aksha Darati back so