It was hard to focus on anything else these last two weeks as the Climate Conference took place in my home city of Glasgow. Although the deal isn’t perfect, I have three reasons for hope. This week on Fresh Dialogues, I’m sharing those reasons and a recent conversation I had with Vivienne Nunis on the BBC World Service. Her reporting from Brazil also gives me hope and underlines our need for an action mindset on climate.
What’s an action mindset? On a personal level, an action mindset is the belief that your actions can change your future, that your abilities are not fixed, but can be improved by a bias to action. Your action can change your future and the future of the planet. The promises made in Glasgow must now be followed up by action. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr said it best:
“An idea without action is like a bow without an arrow,” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Photo credit above: Jasmin Sessler
Listen to the Fresh Dialogues podcast this week:
.
Here are my three reasons for hope after Glasgow’s COP26:
Renewal of international collaboration: The cooperation in Glasgow was in stark contrast to the nationalistic trends we’ve witnessed around the world in recent years. The unexpected joint statement by the U.S. and China gave me hope, as well as the final agreement which requires countries to come back next year with even more ambitious plans.
Private sector driving change: Mark Carney’s announcement of a $130 Trillion commitment from financial institutions is significant. Enlisting the private sector to finance the transition to net zero is crucial, but it also needs to stop funding for fossil fuels. Regulation could accelerate that change by penalizing institutions for holding dirty fuel assets on their balance sheets.
The deforestation agreement: This historic pact was signed by countries that account for about 85% of the world’s forests, including Brazil. The agreement aims to conserve and speed up restoration of forests and increase investment to promote sustainable forest management and support for indigenous communities. It adds about $19 billion in public and private funds, including large contributions from the Ford Foundation and foundations led by Jeff Bezos and Mike Bloomberg.
One powerful speech in Glasgow which caught my attention was that of Txai Surui, a 24-year-old indigenous climate activist from Brazil who accused global leaders of “closing their eyes” to climate change.
“The animals are disappearing, the rivers are dying… The Earth is speaking: she tells us we have no more time,” Surui says.
She urged leaders to think of people like her in “the front line of the climate emergency”, and she shared a moving story about a dear friend who has been murdered for protecting the forest. Sadly, her friend is one of thousands.
Making forests worth more alive than dead
The three largest rainforests in the world are located in the Amazon, Congo River basin and Southeast Asia. Together they absorb about a third of carbon dioxide emissions. In 2020, the world lost a staggering 100,000 square miles of forest — a swathe of land bigger than the United Kingdom. Is there a role for the private sector to step in where governments have failed? The key to stopping deforestation is making forests worth more alive than dead.
“We’re going to work to ensure markets recognize the true economic value of natural carbon sinks and motivate governments, landowners and stakeholders to prioritize conservation,” President Biden said in Glasgow.
The BBC’s Vivienne Nunis spoke to Robert Muggah of the Igarapi Institute about the fate of Brazil’s rainforest and the urgency of documenting the destruction and taking action to reverse current trends. Although land clearing, for mining and agriculture has increased under Brazil’s President Bolsonaro, private sector action offers a glimmer of hope.
Nunis’s interview with Nat Keohane of the nonprofit, Emergent was powerful. The organization acts as a middleman between corporations and the forest’s indigenous communities:
Here’s a transcript of the discussion, edited for length and clarity. (Starts @34:43 in the BBC podcast)
Nat Keohane: We need a model that invests in sustainable green growth. This could make Brazil (one of) the world’s first green economic superpowers… We need to decarbonize and protect the forest. One of the most important tools we have to try to shift course and get on a low carbon trajectory across the economy is to align the economic incentives that private companies face or that landowners in Brazil face. You need to make forest worth more alive than dead. And that means changing the incentives and that’s what the leaf model is trying to do. But we also need to change those incentives throughout the economy so that it is more profitable to go after low carbon technologies than to continue to use high carbon ones.”
Vivienne Nunis: Alison, what do you make of this idea of creating a kind of middleman? Somewhere that big corporates can channel their cash to try and cancel out what they’re doing in terms of carbon emissions? Do you think that can work?
Alison van Diggelen: I love the idea of this market led solution. It makes a lot of sense, but I just can’t help feeling it’s a drop in the ocean. The Emergent program needs to be scaled up and fast. I love the idea of making Brazil a green economic superpower, but I think the answer might be more private sector and government programs to help local people work the land sustainably. A change in government next year in Brazil will help that. The sooner we can get Bolsonaro out of power, the better. Someone that’s more sympathetic to the environment and appreciative of the role that the rainforest plays in the global ecology and economy would help. Also, I think public-private and nonprofit partnerships like the one Google and the Igarapi Institute forged to map Brazilian deforestation will help. Maps that document evidence of illegal deforestation will help provide data points and help bolster the demand for action to protect the rainforest.
Continue listening to the BBC podcast (where we discuss why Tesla reached a Trillion dollar valuation and what can be done about the explosion of plastic bottles)
One final note: I was delighted to see my alma mater, Wolfson College in Cambridge organized its own COP26 conference and addressed the need for urgent adaptation and mitigation in their latest Wolfson Review.
.
“People must feel that the natural world is important and valuable and beautiful and wonderful,” David Attenborough
This week, Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager, stole the show at the United Nations General Assembly. Thanks to her, climate change is on the minds of the world. I was invited to discuss climate change action on the BBC World Service this month and we explored the role of activists like Thunberg, indigenous people, and technology pioneers like Elon Musk.
With visible rage, Thunberg described the urgency of action in stark terms on Monday.
”People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.”
Then Thunberg made a passionate plea to each one of us, especially political leaders, to examine our consciences.
“How dare you continue to look away? The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.”
Greta Thunberg’s fury was evident to everyone who watched her, but she ended on a positive note:
“Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”
BBC host, Jamie Robertson led a lively discussion exploring the urgency of climate change action and we were joined by ABC Australia’s Clare Negus. I took the opportunity to praise Thunberg’s tenacity.
The program started with a soulful report by the BBC’s Frey Lindsay. He reported on a gathering of indigenous community leaders from around the world who met at University College London to listen, exchange ideas and build solidarity in the fight against environmental degradation and climate change.
Listen to the podcast at the BBC World Service (environmental discussion starts at 10:40)
Here’s a transcript of conversation highlights (edited for length and clarity):
Jamie Robertson: In California, you’re very much on the front line, we think of the wildfires…do indigenous people have a role to play here?
Alison van Diggelen: It’s important for us in California, and around the world, to listen to the indigenous people. What we do over the next ten to twenty years is going to determine the fate of humanity. We need to remember environmentalist, John Muir, who said:
“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.”
Technology plays a role in this by increasing transparency. Almost everyone has a mobile phone (and can take photos of environmental abuses), so multinationals can’t get away with what they used to.
Jamie Robertson: How high up the news agenda are questions about environmental problems and climate change?
Alison van Diggelen: Greta Thunberg, bless her heart, is keeping it on our agenda, but I wish it were higher. Looking at the Democratic Party Presidential debates, climate change was there, but I wish we could raise the issue more. People are concerned about what’s impacting them on a daily basis. There’s not enough of a long term view. We need more people like David Attenborough (and Greta Thunberg and Bill McKibben) speaking up for the environment.
Jamie Robertson: Clare ?
Clare Negas: It’s a major criticism of ABC Australia that we do too much on climate change and not enough on cost of living stories!
Jamie Robertson: I want to take the conversation on to the Frankfurt Motor Show and the extraordinary confrontation between the “Lords” of the auto industry and ordinary citizens worried about climate change, worried about cars and what they’re doing to the environment.
Alison, you’re in California at the forefront in the development of electric vehicles and things which could actually make a difference. Is there a sense of optimism that these things will work?
Alison van Diggelen: Absolutely. California is where Elon Musk jumpstarted this electric vehicle revolution. Tesla is doing phenomenally well. They’re due to sell about half a million electric cars this year. California is a state that is doing all it can to boost the sales of electric vehicles (EVs). It accounts for half of all U.S. sales of EVs thanks to rebates and state government policies. It has a goal of getting 5 million EVs on the road by 2030 and it does things like fast tracking permissions for charging infrastructure; that’s a key part of making EVs the number one form of transport.
Elon Musk has predicted that within 10 years, the majority of cars produced will be electric. Others like Morgan Stanley say it’s more like 20 years. It may be somewhere in the middle.
Jamie Robertson: Clare, do you have such faith?
Clare Negas: I do! I think globally electric cars will be the future. In Australia it’ll be a bigger battle because there is such a cultural identity around petrol and diesel fueled engines. We’re a strong car culture and that will continue. A few years ago, we drove a Tesla hundreds of kms to prove it wouldn’t run out of energy. There were no problems. Check out Clare’s fascinating report here.
End of Transcript
Extra: The program included a discussion about the college admissions scandal and I made a shout out to the hard working team and students at Breakthrough Silicon Valley who arguably have the most to lose. Their leader John Hiester recently wrote a moving oped about his outrage at cheaters like Felicity Huffman.
Find out more about clean tech and technology’s role in climate action at Fresh Dialogues.
The Paradise Camp Fire is the deadliest wildfire in California history. Why is that?
To date 79 people have died and almost 700 are still missing as the fire still rages on. Here in Silicon Valley, we’re processing the tragic devastation and choking in a blanket of smoke and misleading statements from our president, who blames forest mismanagement for the tragedy. Head of the California Professional Firefighters organization called the president’s claim “inane, ill-informed, ill-timed and demeaning to victims and to our firefighters on the front lines.”
I was invited to share my perspective on the BBC World Service and it felt good to call a lie a lie. NPR has explained its policy of not calling out Trump’s lies. I think it’s a complete cop out and agree with the listener who wrote: “To fail to identify a lie as a lie is a gross failure of journalism.”
“Donald Trump’s tweet at the weekend said, “There’s no reason for these massive fires…except forest management.” It’s over-simplification and it’s a downright lie. His aim is to distract and undermine the widely accepted role of climate change in these mega fires…the big picture is: climate change is causing longer droughts, hotter air, drier soil, faster winds and is creating these mega fires. So, thinning the forest is one thing, but the longer term thing is: we need to do more for climate change. We need to reduce our carbon footprint, and we need to encourage more clean energy.” Alison van Diggelen
Photo credit: Cpl. Dylan Chagnon, U.S. Marine Corps.
The BBC’s Fergus Nicoll is co-host of the program, Business Matters.
Here’s a transcript of our conversation (edited for length and clarity):
Fergus Nicoll: You’d think you were at a safe distance, Alison, but I guess there’s got to be knock-on effects weather-wise, smoke-wise, almost across the whole state?
Alison van Diggelen: It feels like California is on fire. Paradise (the town at the epicenter of the fire) is an ironic metaphor for California. The state is paradise for many but is rapidly becoming a hellish inferno. I’m 200 miles south-west of the Camp Fire and the air quality is terrible. We’re being advised to stay indoors and not exercise outside. It’s affecting almost every person in the Golden State.
Fergus Nicoll: Governor Jerry Brown said over the weekend, “Managing all the forests everywhere doesn’t stop climate change. Those that deny climate change are contributing to the tragedy.” He said, “The chickens are coming home to roost.” Is that what everybody’s talking about behind these headlines?
Alison van Diggelen: Absolutely.Donald Trump’s tweet at the weekend said, “There’s no reason for these massive fires…except forest management.” It’s over-simplification and it’s a downright lie. His aim is to distract and undermine the widely accepted role of climate change in these mega fires. There is a short-term solution in mitigation: doing some controlled thinning of forests and relaxing the logging rules, which the state law makers have done this summer. But the big picture is: climate change is causing longer droughts, hotter air, drier soil, faster winds and is creating these mega fires. So, thinning the forest is one thing, but the longer term thing is: we need to do more for climate change. We need to reduce our carbon footprint, and we need to encourage more clean energy.
Fergus Nicoll: I know these are issues you talk about on Fresh Dialogues. What about water? What about the shortages that California has had? Is it a problem fighting fire because there’s insufficient water?
Alison van Diggelen: That again is Donald Trump’s oversimplifications and a distraction. Water shortages (for fire fighting) aren’t a problem. Oroville Dam is very close to where the Camp Fire is burning and in Malibu, you’re right next to the ocean. So there’s really no issue about water shortages for putting out the fires. That is not the issue. Again it’s distracting…it’s point over there when we should be addressing the real issue of climate change.
And one other issue that a lot of people don’t know about is that nights in California have warmed nearly three times as fast as days during the fire season, so lower night time humidity means that the fires are growing and blazing overnight. That didn’t used to happen. So again, the finger points to climate change.
Fergus Nicoll: Alison, thanks for that. This is Business Matters, we’re live on the BBC.
Days after my interview with John Mackey at the Commonwealth Club on May 1st, he began a courtship with Amazon that led to an agreed acquisition of Whole Foods by the global commerce giant. The courtship is something Mackey describes as “truly love at first sight.” Our conversation took place as news circulated of a potential bid by Albertsons grocery chain and reveals some of the motivations behind Mackey running so fast into the arms of Amazon.
During our tumultuous conversation – we were interrupted several times by angry PETA protesters – we also discuss his book “The Whole Foods Diet”; how a PETA member helped change his views on animal products; and what he thinks is the most environmentally conscious single act we should all do.
“How many of you are parents out there? So what wouldn’t you do for your children? You’d do almost anything wouldn’t you? That’s how I feel about Whole Foods….it’s my child, I love it. I’ve given almost 40 years of my life to nurture and develop it. There’s almost nothing I’d not do to protect it, to help it to flourish.” John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods
Here’s a transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity:
Alison van Diggelen: As a public company, how can you balance long term goals such as healthy eating with short term goals like maximizing profits for this quarter?
John Mackey: Whole Foods now has shareholder activists who want to force us to sell the company. The very short term profit mentality has entered into our shareholder base. Whole Foods has always had this purposeful long term perspective. We’re now faced with the biggest challenge in the history of our company. Can we stay independent to fulfill our mission or are we going to be sold out to the highest bidder for short term gains? Stay tuned…
Alison van Diggelen: Is Whole Foods something that you are personally attached to forever? Do you anticipate on your deathbed you’ll still be CEO of Whole Foods?
John Mackey: I hope not. I’ll be dead pretty soon. (laughter)
Alison van Diggelen: Do you have a retirement plan in place?
John Mackey: I’m moving to Florida… No! I haven’t taken any compensation at all from the company for 10 years. I’m doing it because I just love it. It’s the purpose of my life. I’m a servant leader. I’m just trying to serve Whole Foods and help it to prosper.
How many of you are parents out there? So what wouldn’t you do for your children? You’d do almost anything wouldn’t you? That’s how I feel about Whole Foods….it’s my child, I love it. I’ve given almost 40 years of my life to nurture and develop it. There’s almost nothing I’d not do to protect it, to help it to flourish. However, there comes a time when daddy has to leave and that time is not yet, I hope…
Alison van Diggelen: So you’re going to hang on to it till…
John Mackey: I’m not hanging on to it…If it’s appropriate, what my heart calls me to do, I’ll continue to lead it. There will come a time when it’s not appropriate any longer and I believe I’ll have the wisdom and the grace to recognize it and I’ll leave. But I don’t think that time is right now.
Continue listening to the podcast to discover Mackey’s tips for entrepreneurs, how Whole Foods was almost destroyed by a flood; and his challenge to Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman.
Other highlights:
On environmentalism (@55:00 in the podcast) :
If people think of themselves as environmentalists, that would entail completely eliminating the consumption of animal foods. That’s the most environmentally conscious single act you could do.
On how Mackey reconciles libertarian stance with government action on climate change (@57:00 in the podcast)
We need government regulations. The government is the umpire that sets certain standards to make sure that we have a good society. I’m not an anarchist…I believe in government that’s well defined and stays within its appropriate boundaries. Certainly setting environmental standards is a very important function of good and responsible government. It’s always a matter of what standards, to what degree.
Alison van Diggelen: Do feel part of the role of the president is to advocate for action on climate change?
John Mackey: When I go out in public that there are really four topics I try to not to talk about: politics, religion, sex or GMOs. You’re guaranteed to make people angry. I can’t afford any more protesters wherever I go.
Donald Trump has his share of critics, but which form of criticism is more effective? Today, we contrast the subtle rebuke of Donald Trump by Pope Francis with that of Vicente Fox (the 55th President of Mexico) who recently delivered the F-bomb twice. You guessed it, we were discussing Trump’s proposed border wall with Mexico.
Although Pope Francis was full of smiles today as he met with Donald Trump at the Vatican, the Pope delivered a subtle rebuke by gifting him a copy of his Encyclical on Climate Change. It delivers a call to action on climate change and rebukes “the denial” of skeptics. Pope Francis sparred with Candidate Trump during the 2016 election campaign, and even then, his rebuke was loaded but polite.
“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel,” Pope Francis in Mexico, February 2016
By contrast, when I met the 55th President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, he wasn’t nearly so polite or subtle.
“Sr. Trump can build as many walls as he wants, as high and as beautiful, as modern and technological, but he has to know, very clear: that Mexico and me, we’re not paying for that fuckin’ wall. We will never pay for that fuckin’ wall.” Vicente Fox, Mexico’s 55th President, April 2017
Here’s a transcript of our conversation and my report (edited for length and clarity):
The BBC’s Fergus Nicoll: We’re going to talk about ‘The Wall’ here on Business Matters…Conspicuously has not appeared inDonald Trump’s prospective spending bill. Today’s perspective comes from south of the border because Alison has been talking with a former President of Mexico who has some feisty views on the subject. Alison take it away…
Alison van Diggelen: Vicente Fox was the President of Mexico between 2000 and 2006. He was in Silicon Valley recently and I had the opportunity to talk with him about the border wall and immigration. He’s a fierce critic of President Trump and he sees himself as ‘a shadow cabinet.’ He feels his job is to call Donald Trump out on what he calls ‘his mistakes and crazy policy errors.’ He calls Trump’s proposed wall with Mexico ‘a racist monument.’ Here’s the clip…
Vicente Fox: Sr. Trump can build as many walls as he wants, as high and as beautiful, as modern and technological, but he has to build it on U.S. territory and he has to know, very clear: that Mexico and me, we’re not paying for that fuckin’ wall. We will never pay for that fuckin’ wall.
Alison van Diggelen: And those who want to take part in building it…do you have a message for them?
Vicente Fox: If they are Mexican corporations, they will automatically become traitors to our beliefs, traitors to our roots, traitors to our nation…
Like Trump, Fox was an outsider and a businessman before becoming President. He talked later (with Gloria Duffy) about the business perspective of being President:
Vicente Fox: Moving from the corporate world where you are the boss, it’s your word that counts and you instruct what has to be done and people follow or they’re going to be fired. So when you think you can do that in politics, you’re committing the worst mistake in your life. It’s a totally different world.
In the world of politics you have checks and balances, you have to be convincing, your vision has to be shared by your followers. You represent the people so you have to go along with people…you don’t discriminate, you take everybody as a human being with the same rights and opportunities.
Bonus Material (this interview segment didn’t make the final cut):
Alison van Diggelen: And those who want to take part in building it…do you have a message for them?
Vicente Fox: …Those greedy companies in the US that are moving fast to present their projects, I tell them:
Don’t lose your money…that guy doesn’t have the money to pay for it and US Congress will never approve building a wall which is a waste of money. US citizens are not willing to pay with their taxes for that waste of money. Everybody will agree: those $35Billion that this guy wants to disperse should be much better used in investing then to create jobs in North America, in Mexico, and Central America…
To attend the problem of migration, you have to go to the roots, not to the final outcome of migration. The problem can be solved where it originated. Mexico, U.S. and Canada, we can go create the jobs, opportunities in Central America…With $35Billion you can create 10 million direct jobs for Central Americans. So then they don’t have to migrate to the US. I’m sure they prefer their tacos, their moles (guacamole etc), and jalapeños than hot dogs and burgers they’ll come to eat here.
***
My interview with Vicente Fox was recorded at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, where Fox appeared on stage with Club President, Gloria Duffy.
