The new climate race between EU and US, with Jennifer Morgan

When she was appointed as the country's first climate Envoy in March last year, Jennifer became the face of Germany's international climate negotiations. She has a unique background. From twenty sixteen to twenty twenty two, she was the leader of Greenpeace, an organization known for its environmental stunts and political pressure campaigns. They disrupted ail drilling the coast of Greenland, blocked Russian whaling ships, and scaled Toronto's ceantower. Now she has moved

into government and inherited a mess. After decades of cultivating deeper economic ties with Russia through energy imports and hoping it would create a more peaceful world, Germany has been proven wrong. Alongside invading Ukraine, Russia exploited Germany's over reliance on gas and turned energy into a weapon. Denmark, Poland, and Sweden say they believe leaks in two major Russian

gas pipelines to Europe are the results of sabotage. Germany's chance to all of shots has unveiled a two hundred billion euro plan to guard the German economy against the effects of soaring energy prices. In this hardware store near Berlin, they're already getting ready for the cold season. Customers aren't rushing to buy fans, but anything that'll keep them warm this winter. Germany is now in a very difficult position.

It has been forced to rapidly wean itself off Russian ass and find replacement to keep its manufacturing economy going. Before the war, Russia provided Germany with fifty two percent of its gas. Since September, it provides none. This has come at enormous cost to German citizens and the planet. Germany has had to pay through the nose for imports of liquefied natural gas, out competing poorer nations. It has built new energy terminals and reopened enough coal plants to

power five million homes. Many are not happy. Protests erupted in January near Dusseldorf around the expansion of a coal mine that produces lignite, the dirtiest form of coal. Greta Thunberg was briefly detained when she joined the demonstrations. This is all playing in the background as Jennifer pursues delicate

climate negotiations. I sat down with her at the World Economic Forum in Davos to ask whether the war has put a dent in Germany's climate ambitions, how the country can continue to play a role as a climate leader while increasing coal use, and if trade tensions with the US are spurring more climate competition. Jennifer, welcome to the show. Thanks great to be here. You are now germany Special enoy on climate, But immediately before taking on this role,

you were the head of Greenpeace. You were an activist. Now you're a diplomat. How has it been moving from one to the other and how does what you did as an activist feed into your work as a climate envoy. Well, I guess I consider myself and many other diplomats activists diplomats, because what you learn when you are working as an activist or as a campaigner in NGO, you learn how to have clear goals, you learn how to communicate, you learn how to build coalitions, and all of those things

are incredibly important also as a climate envoy. When you took on the role, Germany was at a moment of transition. It had elected a new government which had the Green Party as a partner, and just before getting into government it had set a twenty forty five net zero goal. But of course in the last twelve months things have

changed drastically, and that's because of the war. Since the war began, Germany has built new llergy facilities, revived goal facilities that would do to be shut down, and is being incredibly high prices for the gas that it's importing out competing many poorer nations who can't afford that gas anymore. So how can you continue to argue that Germany is a leader on climate action because there's a whole other part of the story, and that story is the largest

piece of energy legislation and the history of Germany. That is scaling up renewables to eighty percent by twenty thirty. That is the continued work to recently in North Wine Westphilia, to phase out coal by twenty thirty. That is a climate law that is binding that will keep us to all of those targets. And that is also the fact

that we have phased out Russian fossil fuels. Fifty five percent of German gas imports were from Russia, and that we will in the end use less gas and phase it out earlier than we would have before the Russian War of aggression. So what I understand and see in this new government in this moment of climate crisis and

energy security, is that we're thinking it together. There have been short term emergency things that have had to happen, like having coal in reserve if needed to get us through the winter, and those have been painful decisions to make, but they will be They don't question our climate targets. Those are set, they're legally binding. And the new emissions trading too, that just has been passed through the European Union I think will make it even more likely that

that can be met earlier. Now. As the head of green Peace, you know, optics matter. One of the things that Greenpeace does well continues to do well, is organize spectacular protests which bring attention of world governments, world media to tell a story that really needs to be told, and at this moment as we speak, their protests taking place in Germany. Who gains the expansion of a coal mine in Luzert. Greta Tunberg was detained at the protest and was carried off by police dressed in riot gear.

Those images are stunning. First, do you wish you were able to protest with them? Well, I think that there is. Thankfully, we live in a democratic country where that kind of engagement and peaceful protest is possible and is a very important part of our national conversation. And I've participated in many protests and demonstrations in my time, and I think that the voices of youth in our country that in a way demonstrate the seriousness of the situation that we're in.

Their level of desperation, of anger, of wanting things to happen more quickly is a very legitimate one and one that we take very seriously. Another way to as our question, what has Germany done since you became an own way that you would have protested if you were still in your last role at Greenpeace. I mean, I think I'm now in a new role. So, like I said, peaceful protest and human rights and democratic systems are fundamental, and in the past I have been part of that community.

Now I'm very grateful and thankful that I live in a country where that is the case, and those rights for peaceful protest need to be maintained. I think that it's a challenge we live in right now. We are

in a climate crisis. I think the government is working to do everything that it can to phase out COLE more quickly while also dealing with this Russian war of aggression, and that is hard, It is not easy at all, But I think it's also really important and images do matter about you know, the over fifty percent of households in Germany and have renewable energy, the fact that we're moving more quickly than anyone else in getting those moving and accelerating that pace and scale of change, and then

sharing that learning with other countries so that they can learn from the mistakes and the challenges that Germany has had in balancing all of these different things, keeping the climate crisis and the acceleration of it as front and center as we possibly can now. One small mover protest that you did make was last summer you were critical of Chancellor Shoals when he pushed for the G seven to allow new gas investments globally. How did that go

inside the German government? Well, you know, the G seven I think made some decisions I think again working to try and get clarity on that pledge to not fund have public funding go to any fossil fuel new fossil fuel developments. You know, we have a robust coalition government in Germany and that means that partners speak with each other and worked fine solutions. So it went fine. Well.

Speaking of Ellen, though, you said that climate goals remain as they are both for twenty thirty and four twenty forty five. However, we also know, you know, when fossil fuel assets are built, there can be a real risk of lock in because capital, once spent, would like its returns, and so do you fear that the LLENG terminals that are being brought in would lead to that kind of lock in. I think that we have to remain vigilant. That's not the intent right now of this government and

the work. Not only the intent is also to be accelerating the pace and scale for green hydrogen to be moving and working with, for example, countries in the Nordic region, I mean Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc. They're to be scaling up their renewables in order for that infrastructure then to

be adapted to that. But we know that we always remain have to remain vigilant and make sure and have transparency and accountability about what decisions are taken and making sure that they're stuck to coming up to more international matters. The US passed the biggest climate build, the Inflation Reduction Act, last year, and that's ramped up treat tensions between the

US and Europe. Ursula wonder Lane said at Davos that the EU should increase funding for clean tech, should the EU match the level of subsidies that the US is offering two companies investing in clean tech. I mean, look, first of all, it is excellent that the United States has a law that moves forward on renewable energy, on bringing down greenhouse gas emissions, and that is to be welcomed.

It's been a long time coming, and I think that we all have hoped throughout the years that once the US does that, it will move quickly and it will shift things. And I think that's what's starting to happen. And so I think what you're seeing in Europe and in our discussions also with the United States, which have been good, is how that then can create a race to accelerate the research and development, driving down the cost the technologies that are needed. What that looks like specifically

within Europe. I think that's what we'll be working on in the coming months, whether it be around the Raw Materials Act, whether it be around clean tech. But that's the conversation that we're having with the US and driving that forward. And you know, I think Europe has incredible assets and vision and opportunity for companies and for that growth.

One thing we've been hearing here from energy CEOs, from clean tech venture capital funding bodies is that for them, the US has become so much more attractive a because it's the US and it's the largest economy, be that these subsidies are backed by the US government, seen as a completely reliable source of money to get from, and see that the regulatory nature of energy industry in general is much easier to navigate in the US than it is in Europe, which is a market made up of

twenty seven countries. Against those forces, do you see that we are entering an era where there's going to be more competition for climate solutions than collaboration. I think that there will be both. I think that there will be collaboration.

You know, if you're looking around, what are the standards that need to be set for socially inclusive, environmentally sound green hydrogen, I think that's an area that needs to have collaboration to make sure that benefits you especially look at not only in developing countries, indigenous lands, that type of thing. But I also think having a competition to drive things faster and bigger scale is not a bad thing. And I think that that's a very active discussion now

in Europe about how we can do that. You know, it's kind of like game on. Let's go, let's make use this moment in a way to drive things to move faster and bigger. The US and Europe were at very different levels when it came to acting on climate change only twenty four months ago. The US did not have this bill. It was years of dragging its feet

trying to reduce emissions. It still consumes a lot of coal, it has a lot of oil and gas reserves in its backyard, and so Europe looked like the place where the transition will happen faster. But now with what has happened with the biggest US climate bill, executives say we are not so sure because Europe moves slowly. Is there something being done to speed things up to ensure that Europe can compete as clean tech industries grow in other

parts of the world. I guess I wouldn't share your characterization because I think that Europe, through the fit for fifty five plan, through the emissions trading system that has been in place for many years, through the renewable energy directives that are there, through the driving of emissions target of at least fifty five by twenty thirty, and many other measures, I think has been setting the standards and I think is better prepared than others because of the

fact that we're thinking it through on so many different levels. Yes, it's good to have incentives coming in a sensives alone is the experience and what's shown in the literature is not adequate to drive the types of reductions we need. We are talking about a having of global emissions in seven years, and for that you need to throw every tool in the toolbooks that you have, and there I think that the different European measures that are there and have been tested in a way, it's a mature debate

that has learned a lot already. Can things move faster, Absolutely, and that's why there was a breakthrough recently with Robert Habeck, Minister of Economy and Climate in Germany, working to have a faster time frame on building wind turbines in Germany. I think we have in Europe a lot that other countries can learn from because we've had to accelerate the

learning process. You know, we're in regular dialogue with the US, but we're also finding that as Germany and Europe as a whole, there's so much curiosity and entrance to work with us from emerging economies because we've gone through it, because we know what it's like to have a grid with forty five percent renewable energy in it, because we've had to build up that market, and because we're also working to keep our energy intensive industries at home. So

I think it's a healthy debate. But I think we know from what scientists tell us and our own experience that you need actually a whole number of different tools and policies and measures and incentives as part of that to be able to address this also across all sectors. After the break, I asked Jennifer how Germany will meet its overseas climate commitments and whether fossil fuel interests are derelncoll.

One of the roles that you have as representing Germany on the international stage is to stand for Germany's contribution towards international finance. Now, Germany is supposed to contribute as much as six billion euros each year towards this hundred billion dollar fund, but so far the government in twenty twenty one spent only five point three billion. The gap is small relative to other countries, but it is real. What is it that you're doing to make sure that

Germany delivers on its promise? Well, the actually we overachieved our target in twenty twenty one because at that point it was four and now the Chancellor has made clear that we want to move to six and that half of that finance should go to adaptation as well, which

has been a key request of developing countries. What I am doing, I think to put it in the broader context, meaning one hundred billion is essential, and I worked with Minister Guilbo from Canada to try and look at, okay, what more can be doing on that in the lead up to the COP But what happened, I think at the COP and across the board is this recognition of the need for reform of international financial institutions. We have

institutions that were built after the Second World War. They are no longer fit for purpose, and Germany is working to bring forward proposals into the World Bank and other financial institutions to change that so that issues of the debt crisis, issues of the gaps between rich and poor, the food crisis, the climate crisis are actually much more central in how those institutions are working. So that's one area where I'm active, where Germany is active with partners

to try and work that through. And how positive are you on that reform? Is bring meeting coming up in April. But these are bodies that haven't changed all that much in a very long time. At COBB there was a broad agreement where every country signed up to wanting a

reform of multi lateral development banks. How positive value it will happen and soon Well, I'm positive that there is a greater level of attention and understanding of the problem than there has ever been, and I think therefore also a greater level of accountability and expectation and commitment of governments to work towards it. I think we have to work to make sure that it is a transformational change,

not just an incremental change. And that is a conversation to have with our partners around the world, because it only works, you know, when we all come together with that vision as we move forward in these just transitions that need to occur around the world, whether it be in the energy sector, in the agricultural sector, that matching those transitions with the financing packages and the financing tools

that are required is absolutely fundamental. And so I think it's a moment, and I think it comes from the fact of the COVID pandemic and the situation the direction of so many developing countries that it's no longer possible to look away. Sticking to COUP twenty seven, you had the loss and damage fund agreed upon. There's no sum attached to it. Do you see actual numbers this year

at COP twenty eight. Well, I think, first of all, I think it was a major breakthrough for the most vulnerable countries that after thirty years, their demand was met, And I think that the European Union played actually an important role in meeting that hand, that was reached out and asked for, and so now you know, we have to get that fund as part of a bigger mosaic. We can't forget the mosaic because what that means is, yes, there needs to be and will be a fund for

loss and damage. But actually the commitment was bigger than that. The commitment was to look at all the different financial institutions in that mosaic or ecosystem to make sure that there is coverage for loss and damage across the board. And so I think this year the commitment was to get that moving, to get that fund established, and then I think the big question of who pays is also a big part of that question. I mean, it was quite clear from the cop conclusions that it's not only

industrialized countries and it's not only countries. It's clear that developed countries need to play a leading role. But working that through is a big part of the negotiation as well. So whether or not numbers by the end of this year, I'm not sure. I think we need to see what the fund looks like, but certainly I mean Germany, as of January, the Global Shield is up and running, which was an initiative with the Vulnerable twenties. So there is

a lot happening already. You said not countries, are you thinking of private institutions contributing? Well, I think there's different ideas that have been kind of put out there for sources. The Secretary General, i think, has suggested a windfall profit tax on fossil fuel companies. Prime Minister Motley has also put out some ideas on that. You there are older ideas that have been out there forever about tobin taxes

and financial transaction and all of these different things. So there's advocates looking at private jet tax I mean, so I don't know what it is, but it's clear that if you look at the damages, we haven't really talked about the why we're doing all of this. I mean, the climate crisis is ravaging through countries and the costs

are immense. They are immense, and so both getting the intergovernmental and the accountability moving through these types of funds is important, but then also looking at how they can be filled. COP twenty seven happened in Egypt a fossil fuel exporter. COP twenty eight will happen in the United Arab Emirates. A big fossil fuel exporter. The head of COP twenty eight is the head of the state oil company. Will two years of fossil fuel friendly COP presidencies delay

climate action? Well, I mean, I think it's clear that COP twenty eight has to have a focus on emissions reductions and mitigation, as we say, because we know we have seven years to have global emissions and I think that the COP president understands that, he understands the science has an immense opportunity to be driving things in the direction that are needed, as a tremendous opportunity to have a very inclusive COP with civil society, experts, business contributing

to that, and that's how we will engage with them. So really, at the end of the day, each of these COP presidencies are looked at and judged by the outcomes that come at the end. And so we're working for a COP where we have, you know, a major shift on the just transition and the phase out of fossil fuels and scale up of renewables, set of finance outcomes,

adaptation of courses. But if we just look at the last few hours at COP twenty seven, there was clearly the Loss and Damage Fund on the one side, which was a progress that every party wanted, and then there was a demand from the EU and other progressive countries that that'd be met with mitigation, which in the text, but in the end, because the Loss and Damage Fund was so important that EU had to tone down or walk away from its resistance, we didn't even really get

a statement at the very end what happened. I think that the Executive Vice President Timmerman's spoke as well at the end, and he said that the EU had made the decision to support the full COP and not walk away from it because we understood how important this loss and damage fund was for the most vulnerable countries, and this fund needs to be for those most vulnerable countries, and that we were unsatisfied with the results on mitigation, and that to me puts additional pressure on COP twenty

eight to fill that gap. Sure, we maintained the one point five goal and the types of emission reductions that are needed in the text. Yes, there is new language for renewable energy in that text, but the you know what we need this year is on fossil fuel, stronger language matched with the finance reforms that are needed so that countries can phase out while providing and having prosperity for their people and taking care of the planet at the same time. It's a tall order, but we have

no choice. I mean, look, the planet is on fire. The poorest are suffering immensely, and so I think that the incoming cup presidency understands that, and we'll count on them to drive us forward in a way that we can all feel like we got the whole thing at the end. Thank you very much for this conversation. You're very welcome. A climate on wise rule is never easy, having to balance short term political realities with the long

term need to reduce emissions. Jennifer's position is harder because of the geopolitical shock Germany has faced over the last year. While she didn't answer many of my questions directly, it was a great insight on how she is playing the balancing act. Thanks for listening to Zero. If you liked this episode, please take a moment to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, send it to

a friend, or write it into legislation. If you've got a suggestion for a guest or topic or something you just want us to look into, get in touch at Zeropod, at Bloomberg dot Net zero's producer is Oscar Boyd and senior producer is Christine riscoll Our. Theme music is composed by Wonderlely Special thanks to Laura Milan, John Ninger, Petra Sorgey, Olivia Rudgard and Kira bin Rim. I'm Markshatrati back next week.