[MUSIC] I want to take you from the technology solutions and market solutions to a global approach, global policy approach, if you will, to climate change. So the Paris Agreement on climate change, and what it means for investors. What it means for governments around the world. What it means for our transition towards low carbon energy sources, and actually dealing with climate change. Is the Parish Agreement a success? Can it help us do that in an effective way? >> It's a success because basically everybody has signed on and recognized it. Climate change is a problem, and we're responsible for it. And the way to resolve it is to stop emitting CO2 or so much CO2. That is a huge achievement, having major oil-producing countries sign on to that. So that, in itself, is a massive achievement, and also creating a platform. They call it a platform where every year, they meet and try to at least talk about the problem and try to find solutions. There still is this issue that each country is responsible. And it doesn't solve a lot of, many countries are concerned about carbon leakage, that other countries will cheat. Industries will relocate to areas where there's less stringent regulations. So this needs to be addressed in trade agreements, in international trade agreements as well, so there's no carbon dumping. So a lot of work needs to be done, but at least we've created an international space, a forum where these issues can be discussed, addressed, and worked on. >> Well, I think as a political statement, it represents an unprecedented degree of commitment tacked on climate change. And not just from the point of view of history's largest emitters, which we've seen in certain instances in the past, other conferences. Kyoto, perhaps, springs to mind, but is certainly not alone in that regard. So bringing together developed and developing countries in one single commitment regime using one single vocabulary for understanding and for action. I think that represents the best possible foundation for the very solutions that we've just been discussing. Indeed, one would suggest that without that kind of unanimity, there are no solutions. You can't basically build it in a partial commitment regime. You need all parties, history's largest emitters, those that are of contemporary significance as well as those that are expected to drive emissions growth in the future, all acting. That being said, it's a very fragile consensus that was reached. Driven in large part by let's say personality, and a certain degree of leadership. The engagement of the US and China, I think in particular if you were to call something out. What's fundamental in driving momentum in the buildup to COP21. The presidency of the French was handled with aplomb. And one indeed could suggest that under a different leadership, you may not have had the kind of result that we saw. So it's a strong start for a new commitment\g regime for the years after 2020. But at the same time, it's a very general framework. The difficult work indeed is beginning right now as we move towards kind of concrete ratification and entering into force. And then institution building for this new holistic global regime where it's not just about getting the OACD countries perhaps to agree on what a good framework for emissions trading or the like would be. But the entire international community and 85 signatories to the agreement. That is going to be unprecedented challenge. And one could question whether we have the right capabilities and the institutions are up for the challenge. I would say that it's more perhaps than the framework convention themselves could deliver, they're going to need a lot of help. You're going to need persistent leadership from national governments. You're going to need international financial institutions doing more than they've ever done before. It really will require an unprecedented degree of commitment from the broadest possible array of international institutions to make the vision for that climatic stability, that idea. And have you been at COP21? It's a material sense that I was left with that no one should be left behind. If that vision is to be realized, then we're going to need to do a great deal more than we've ever done before. >> The big break in Paris was the introduction of the INDCs. So each country would decide for themselves what measures they would take past 2020. Those measures were brought to the table, and then there was a negotiation. Now again, I think that's a much more successful way of going in it. Previous climate summits did not get a warm deal that everyone signed up to, right? Didn't happen in Copenhagen, most famously, for example. So if that's not looking like an option, then I think we need to move away from that. Focusing on individual countries setting their own targets for negotiation, setting their own targets for what they're going to do to lower their carbon emissions. And using that as a baseline for negotiation is I think a much more successful solution, one that's got far more potential to be carried forward. The Paris deal has been ratified by a lot of the countries involved, China and the US are the main ones. So I'm cautiously optimistic that in a break with the traditional approach to climate summits, and in the break between the standard thinking about what these summits should achieve, we can hopefully have a break with the failure rating that has bedeviled the previous attempts. >> Well, I guess, being a Brit, I always have to find some way of quoting Winston Churchill And I think he once said that when things are very tough, it wasn't a question of doing your best, it was a question of doing what was necessary. And we may have done our best at Paris, but I don't think it was sufficient. It is necessary that we do more, and that the Paris Agreement is fully implemented. We shouldn't be too pessimistic, after all, not long before, Paris, there was Copenhagen. And at that point, it seemed most unlikely that you would get an agreement, even as strong as that was achieved in Paris. So we should build upon what we've got. >> There are definitely problems with the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement itself is a compromise. It was a compromise to try and get significant emerging economies that had increased their emissions nationally. Not necessarily so much per capita to the level of the west, but obviously, the key country there is China, but also South Africa, and India, and Brazil. But the Paris Agreement attempted to encourage those, has brought those countries into an agreement where they will commit to reducing their emissions in some form. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in emissions of the current emissions. It's a reduction in emission intensity in terms of national production unit. But that's still going some way, because it recognizes their right to development is that. So what the Paris agreement, the way it's structured, and it's very different from the Kyoto protocol which predated it, which was agreed in 1977. The Paris Agreement is a bottom-up agreement, where everybody, every state, every party offers their nationally determined contribution. They work out what it is that they can feasibly contribute to the overall target. And the overall aim of the agreement is to keep the temperature increase to two degrees, trying to ensure that it's 1.5. Now, there's a lot of politics around the two degree, 1.5. And in fact, that's incredibly loaded with climate justice issues, because once you go over 1.5, you're looking at low lying states, some low lying states, coastal areas being submerged. So there's climate justice and the human rights issues in terms of those figures. Each country submits these nationally determined contributions. And that's what they're called once you are a signatory. And every five years, the idea is that you ratchet up. So if you are able to increase your ambition, and the idea is that collective ambition increases every five years through the mechanism. Then we will, by 2050, arrive a point where emissions are at zero, which would mean that our carbon emissions have been sequestered. And therefore, we've reached carbon neutral. That's the general idea. >> What you saw with Kyoto was an excellent idea which created an enormous amount of pushback from some of the member countries. Canada, for example, simply walked away. There's nothing even in an international treaty from a top-down basis that forces everyone to take part. What you can see with the bottom up is the fact that these countries will be able to feel that sense of power, make their own decisions and their own choices. One of the things about the nation state is it's suppose to be able to make its own decisions. One of the challenges that a global crisis causes is that actually any and all actions have an impact on everyone. The idea is that by allowing these individual states to choose their own approaches, they will see those actions, they will see others taking action. And by working together we can actually improve links between nations and improve policies, improve the approaches, and actually build a solid movement towards a low-carbon future. [MUSIC]
