 Yn ymwneud am fynd i'r cymdeithasol, dyna'r cymdeithasol yn gweithio, sy'n cymdeithasol yn gweithio i'r idea yw Cumi Naidu, y director yw'r grŵm ei gŵr, i'r gwneud ym Mhagoredd Rhannig, i'n Brannwyn Madagsy, cymdeithasol y Prospygoedd. Mae'r gweithio am y byddoedd yn gweithio ar gyfer gynhwys. Mae'r cymdeithio yn gweithio ar gyfer cwm ei'u idea o'r gweithio, ac yn cymdeithasol yn amesodd a'r cymdeithio'r gwm ei gŵr, ond i'w ddechrau'n gweithio'n awdraig, Cúmi, gwybod i'n cael ei wneud, fel y gallwn eu bod ni i wneud. Dyna ei gwasanaeth yw'r idea wy하면서 yn ystod lle mae'r cwmmi ond yn effeithio. Ac, rhai, mae'r sefydliadau mae'r awdraig yn edrychi'r headsyn o ddim yn cynnig o'r d 감사 sy'n meddwl iawn. Ac mae'r wneud yn SFIG dwi'n ei dew realise grwp mynd, ac rwy'n gweithio sydd chi'n fyd, Felly mae'r cyfrifysgau yn ymdyn nhw, ac mae'n dweud â'r blwyddau sy'n rhai ar South Africa, yw unrhyw ydw'r cyfrifysgau antiau partai. Ond ydych chi'n rhaid i ein bod yna i'r cyfrifysgau ar y dyfodol, a'r hyn sy'n credu ymdyn nhw'n eich cyfrifysgau a'r cyfrifysgau? Rhaid i'n meddwl i ddweud os ymdyn nhw'n fathau ac ydych chi'n cael eu ddweud a'r cyfrifysgau yma yw ymdyn nhw'n rhai ar y dyfodol. roedd yn fawr i'r fawr, yma. Felly, mae'n fawr i'r fawr, wnaeth ychydig yn ymhynghori'r gwaholau y fawr o'r ffordd yn fawr yma. Mae'n gweithio, mae'n gweithio ymddangos a'r tyflau yn y rhai fawr. A wnaeth y rhefnod y bobl yn y cyfwyr yma, mae'n gweithio o'r gweithio a'r cyffredin, mae'n gweithio a'r cyffredin, a'r cyffredin yn y cyffredin a'r cyffredin, ac mae'n gweithio. So, having got involved quite young I was mainly a grass roots community organiser, a youth organiser was in the student movement, then joined Nelson Mandela's movement as a underground activist. And then by the age of 22 I had to flee the country into exile because of persistent repression. I was lucky I had a road scholarship to Oxford, once I was done I came back home a month after Mandela was released, worked for a year helping set up the ANC political party to contest the first democratic elections and in the process decided that working for freedom struggle was one thing, working to capture formal political power, I didn't quite have the stomach for it, so I stayed out of politics and stayed out to strengthen civil society and headed up the South African NGO coalition and then the ten years before Greenpeace I was the head of Civicus World Alliance for Citizen Participation, a global umbrella body that advocates for the interests of the non-profit sector and civil society. Absolutely. As I say, you took over in Greenpeace in I think November 2009. What did you feel you wanted to do with Greenpeace when you took that big job? Well, obviously I was wanting to go in to actually look at supporting Greenpeace in making certain changes that were already being considered. The main ones are, one is campaigning together with people because quite often people sort of give a small donation to Greenpeace and they say okay you folks go off and do the campaign. We are saying we need not just your money, we need your voice, your participation and so increasing me now in most of our campaigns such as Save the Arctic, we've got like 2.5 million people around the world that have signed up and are participating and putting pressure on that campaign. The second thing is I wanted to work in alliance with others, mainly within civil society in the first sense to bridge the gap with the trade union movement and it's great to hear the leader of the trade union movement say to Bunky Moon in a meeting we had at Rio Secretary General, we as trade unionists support the fight against climate change because we recognise there are no jobs on a dead planet and then also with the religious community. Every religious text you pick up, there are gems of environmental wisdom in it and sadly I have to say with the exceptions of course most of our religious leaders silence has been deafening on speaking up in the environment and speaking up on climate change. We might come back to it. What when you took over at Greenpeace, what did you feel about direct action which of course Greenpeace has a big history of and about civil resistance if you like? Well you know if history teaches us one thing that big change always seems impossible when you start and when you actually get to it it seems well inevitable because as a young person fighting apartheid always our parents told us you'll never beat the regime etc etc. When we won everybody said of course it was going to happen. But the other thing is that change only happens when decent men and women stand up and say enough is enough and no more. We prepare to put our lives in the line, we prepare to go to prison if necessary and we are prepared to engage in a whole range of other lobbying and dialogue and so on. But I think I'll give you a small anecdote about coming to Davos. The first time I came to Davos in my Greenpeace capacity as opposed to nine years before as a human rights and anti-poverty and gender equality person when I came in that capacity I could never get any CEO to prearrange a meeting and sit down and have a conversation about a human rights situation in a country for example. I'm not sure you're completely alone in that. No no but now the first time I came is Greenpeace before I even arrived there were so many requests from CEOs my schedule was completely full I couldn't even attend and one of the CEOs said to me I was late getting to him and I said I'm so sorry and he said I don't worry I understand I know all my colleagues are desperate to meet you I said why is that? And they said well we are desperate to get Greenpeace at the table because we hope that way we might not be on your menu of activism. So but the bottom line is Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Martin McGarney, Rosa Parks, all the big injustices and global challenges of our time those movements only move forward that's how we defeated slavery that's how we defeated colonialism that's how we defeated apartheid that's how we got the right of women to vote only when people said this is important enough that we are prepared to get Greenpeace at the table because we hope that way we might not be on your menu of activism. Only when people said this is important enough that we are prepared to put our lives on the line and that's important. Let's come on to climate change. You've made this powerful case threat and yet those are in many ways more those were not small goals but they were defined ones if you think climate change is a big one. Just if you can explain to us in the beginning where does this fit in among Greenpeace's big menu of targets that it's campaigning on? Oh it's number one, number one, number one, right? So those people who still have an image of Greenpeace as small boats going off the wailing pleats this is they should be thinking climate change now? Absolutely but to fight climate change what does it mean? It means defending our forests because our forests actually capture and store carbon. Today we understand defending forests is not just because you like biodiversity but because our forests collectively are the lungs of the planet and without our forests humanity there, without oceans. So we are fighting on oceans and protecting our oceans and trying to get marine reserves declared and where is the link to climate change? The excess carbon in the atmosphere is ending up in the oceans creating a problem called ocean acidification and essentially killing our oceans. Even not a most radical publication in the world newsweek said six months ago that if we do not change track within four decades, 40 years our oceans could be virtually dead. So what we are doing with climate change that's the main push because as you correctly said all the other struggles were individual struggles that affected people in one country or even if you say the women's right to vote it was one section of the this year is about fundamentally our children and grandchildren's future. This is more important I would argue than all the other struggles actually combined and therefore when we see an acknowledgement by political and business leaders that we have to act on the one hand in words but it's not matched by actions and deeds and policies and initiatives then it's incumbent on those of us who care about the future of our children and grandchildren to say this is a struggle that we must be willing to actually push and if needs be make sacrifices. I was hanging off a Russian oil rig in August last year I tell you it was super cold for the Africans going to the Arctic. We managed to stop gas from start drilling in the Russian Arctic and those are the kinds of risks that I'm seeing young people around the world willing to take and I think those of us in leadership must also step forward and show that it's important enough that we are willing to put our lives on the line as well. Well it might sound flip I have a question running in my mind which is starting by trying to persuade the Russian government to give up fossil fuels drilling is the best target to start with but I wonder if you could just tell us a bit about this report because this is going to lead us into all kinds of questions. Well we bring out this report called the point of no return. We looked at 14 big oil coal and gas projects which are right around the world. And of course there are many many more smaller ones right. We didn't even look at that. But just these 14 which includes drilling in the Arctic. By all companies the ones any drilling in the Arctic. You call in that one project. Yes. Of course we're talking about the Greenlandic Arctic, the Russian Arctic as well as the Canadian and Alaska Arctic where Shelley's gungho moving forward there but we managed to stop them last year and we hope to do the same this year. But then in Canada we have the Tarsans project which is already causing huge devastation to the lives of the indigenous peoples that have lived there for centuries. It's already completely changed Canada's standing in the world. It was one of the countries that spoke up for the environment in the past. Today it's one of the worst culprits. That's why they're not committing to a second commitment period in Kyoto. And then it's also given courage to like Venezuela now where Venezuela this is the third project. They are talking about another massive Tarsans project. The other big thing is in the US with shale gas and I think more and more people are hearing this rather awful word called fracking which is hydraulic factory. It's now called the global vocabulary. And it's already impacting on water supply and so on. The madness about this is if there was political will and the idea that I'm bringing to this conversation is that we need an energy revolution, perhaps the most important revolution humanity has actually seen. By doing two things, by seriously investing in energy efficiency on the one hand and seriously investing in renewable energy possibilities on the other, we can actually get there. Well come on to these things but I just love you just to run through the rest of the countries really also because I want you to get the word China in there. Oh, okay. No, no, of course. Because it is on your list. Oh absolutely. Absolutely. So China is massive on coal as you know and so we definitely if those five. What do you want China, the Chinese government to do? Well, we are saying that if these projects, all of them go ahead, right, the impact and by the way this is we did it with the external research company called Ecosis. And they basically, I mean this report basically says we have between now and 2020 where we have to ensure that the curve starts coming down from increasing emissions, right? It's a very short window. If these projects go ahead and some of them will come to fruition over the next six years, we are guaranteed that our planet is heading to a four degree Celsius rise in temperature from pre-industrial levels. At the moment it's been up to 0.8, the science says below 2%, many of the small developing countries in the Pacific Island states and Caribbean and all are saying 1.5. This is the figure that was used for example at Copenhagen and the discussions saying look we think it's our scientists best guess that if we can hold temperature rises to below 2% it's kind of livable in a straightforward way. And why we say point of no return, if all these 14 projects go ahead, we guaranteed a four degree world. I think even the scientists wouldn't offer guarantees on it. Well listen, up to now the conversation has been these scientists, people were contesting the science and so on. Now the science is clear, it's only a few people in the fossil fuel industry that continue to actually argue against it. But it's not simply a question of what science is saying that should urge us to urgent action now. But it is what Mother Nature is saying to us through the kinds of things we've seen just in the last three years. Forest fires and floods in places like Russia, China, United States, the drought last year was the worst that we've seen. Highest temperatures, hurricane Sandy and I mean the list is much long sadly there are many more events happening in developing countries of a smaller scale. But because they marginal places we're not even hearing about hurricane Bopa or Typhon Bopa in the Philippines last year because it was so fun, you know, horrifically devastating the world founder. So a combination of these two things tell us that it's not as if climate change impacts are going to happen somewhere in the world. A study commissioned by 20 governments has just said that now this report shows that we are losing about 5 million people annually as a result of climate impacts. And if things continue on this path by 2030 we'll be seeing the equivalent of 100 million lives lost annually if we don't actually... I've seen that in your report so I'm not going to dive into those projections right now because it's a long and technical one. But I'm not by passing over that I wouldn't think I completely agree but I think these are debatable points. But I want to get back on what you would like governments to do for example the Chinese government. What would you like the Chinese government which will say look we're trying to develop a very poor country or country with a lot of pockets of poverty and actually we're doing quite a lot. Can you put a cap on how much coal we're going to use by 2015 and where we're developing more nuclear and so on? What are you calling on say China to do? Well I think the language of the climate negotiations is one that talks about common and differentiated responsibilities. Which means that there are certain things that all governments need to do. They need to have specific plans of moving away from the dependency on carbon based energy sources and to actually invest seriously in renewable energy. And to also invest because energy efficiency investment will actually save us... Serious energy efficiency investment will actually save us as much energy as these 14 projects will actually deliver is what the scientists tell us. And so that's what we say to all countries. Whether it's the United States, whether it's China. However because of the history of the problem and while it is convenient for rich countries to actually negate the history of how the problem actually got to where it is. There has to be a leadership that we are seeing on the part of those countries like the United States that carry the biggest responsibility. Now we are talking directly to the Chinese government and we are saying to them exactly what I'm saying. I've just had a meeting with the chief climate negotiator who is also the vice minister for planning and anybody knows about our communist systems run. The dudes with the biggest attitudes are the guys who are in the ministry of planning. So this is a really seriously powerful guy and he's saying we are ready to move. But the difficulty is how do they give up a competitive edge when the countries that carry the biggest responsibility for the accumulation of carbon over the last centuries continue to actually be moving in the other direction because some of these projects are being driven by the United States, Australia, Canada and a few successor states of the former Soviet Union. Let's take the United States one and the fracking, which isn't only in the United States. You're seeing some many earthquakes in your country as a result of what I'm talking about. They have been fairly small but just take the United States example because many US officials would argue that fracking is actually a way for us to bring down emissions at least compared to where they were because it's switching us to gas or that's still a fossil fuel. But it's an improvement on where we are and by the way US emissions have fallen in the past few years, part of the financial crisis and so on. So what do you say to the argument that fracking is not perfect but it's actually offering an improvement on where the US is now? Actually there's a little bit of a nuance here. Often even environmentalists in many parts of the world including some of them in Greenpeace I should say have said that natural gas could be a transitional fuel to however are you access natural gas is a range of different ways. And hydraulic fracturing which is one of the fracking is one of the most risky in terms of contaminating a water supply, methane gas release, all of which there's ample evidence that we are seeing now in the United States. And therefore the overall environmental consequences of it doesn't justify it. But on the other hand the United States as President Obama said in his inaugural address that the United States is seriously undermining its long term economic potential because let's be very clear. The competitive countries and companies of the future will not be those that win the arms race, the space race or any other race. The competitive countries and companies of the future will be those that get as far ahead of the green race now. The United States at one stage could have been a leader in solar right. There was positive developments and then with no government leadership and so on. But the question always gets asked well if it's in the US economic interest then why does the US political leadership not go there? And I want to say something that's kind of controversial. I think the sad reality is today the United States is the best democracy that money can buy. And when you interrogate that money it's highly fossil fuel based money. For every member of Congress there's a minimum of three full time lobbyists that is paid by the fossil fuel industry to ensure that progressive climate legislation doesn't go. And then up to if you come from a very powerful fossil fuel state the fossil fuel industry is putting about eight full time lobbyists. So we have to understand that the reason why this clear big challenge that threatens humanity is very existence on this planet is not moving forward is because those companies who are currently benefiting at a massive level are putting short term interest before the long term interest of our children but also the long term interest of their very companies I would argue. Because in fact it's not in the interest of their company sustainability if they create a situation where there's massive conflict climate refugees countries disappearing under small island states and disappearing under the ocean. This is not in the interest of business. So I would argue it's short-sightedness on the part of business not to act and to block government taking leadership on it. We go over that point because obviously they would argue that in the short to medium term it is actually bringing down some of the costs and the emissions of the United States but I wonder if we could switch to what you're saying now about nuclear. What kind of argument have you made in this report on that because obviously people have come back a lot at Greenpeace and other climate campaigners and said surely nuclear granted all kinds of problems about dealing with the waste. But still if you're saying that climate change is the number one priority then surely nuclear must have a place. Okay. So on the one hand we have more than 40 think tanks that we've been working with business organisations and so on in what we've called the energy revolution initiative that tell us that by 2050 we can ensure that this planet is almost 95% completely non reliant on either nuclear or oil, coal and gas. If we start investing on the scale and by the way just in the last year in 2011 we saw a 30% increase on renewable energy expansion. Even without the enabling environment for the industries to actually move forward. So in the light of that why would humanity want to take the risk with nuclear which is too expensive, too dangerous and as a solution to climate change after Fukushima will deliver too little, too late. Because I can tell you that all the nuclear projects that I've been talking about now as a result of Fukushima the safety considerations even some of the international protocols that will come into place now will take about 10 to 15 years before they even see the light of day. But as you correctly said assuming the nuclear industry were able to look all of us in the eye and say folks we can guarantee they'll never be a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility. We can guarantee that not one single worker will make an error. We can guarantee that there will never be any technical failing. Let's assume we accepted all of that. But the nuclear industry cannot look us in the eye and say to us we have a safe solution for the storing of dangerous nuclear waste at the end of the cycle. And the image that people should have is when archaeologists today go out and excavate they find towns, artefacts, temples and so on that our ancestors left for us. The archaeologists of the future because it takes hundreds of years, sometimes up to thousands of years before the nuclear waste actually is safe. The archaeologists of the future what we'll be giving to our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren is the most toxic poisonous waste that we will be bearing and already in places like Germany it has had an impact on water. No, people might say to you look that is local. That is at least a manageable threat compared to trying to manipulate the atmosphere which is far more difficult. See, if I'm a sensible person, Greenpeace is a sensible organisation, most environmentalists understand we need to make trade-offs. However, why should we make such a dangerous trade-off when our governments and our business leaders continue to say that I think we must act, we must act, we must act and then they practice these foot-dragging all the time and they are suffering from a bad case of cognitive dissonance where all the facts are saying you have to change and then for a few moments when we are talking to them and that's the difficulty for my work. When I talk to interstate ministers of environment and all in our conversations around the boardrooms, there's no disagreement. But once we walk out with the exceptions, it's mainly a business as usual approach. So if our governments and business leaders maximise all the potential that there is in all the different forms of renewable energy and energy efficiency and then said look, we still have a shortage of supply, that's a different conversation. We should not compromise now when in fact the reason we stick to these dirty, dangerous energies is because it serves the interests of a handful of people who make huge amounts of profit and does not serve the public purpose that it should ultimately do. That makes it seem almost a simple argument to change it. If you changed a handful of companies or a handful of governments, you'd answer the problem. I want to get more into what kind of argument you think you're having. Going back to one of the points I made at the beginning, this is a huge target. You're talking about companies, you're talking about most of the governments of the world. It is different from arguing for civil rights in South Africa. Do you think there is still a possibility of a global deal on climate change or do you think really that died with Copenhagen and what we're talking about now is lots of individual efforts? What are you arguing for, a global deal or do you really think your best hope is at the government or company? I think we need to do both. I don't think we can get away without a global deal. I mean we're talking here about something bigger than the industrial revolution potentially. That's what we're talking about in terms of a change in thinking about our economy. I've just come from a meeting with somebody in the leadership of the IT sector. Talking to her, the plans they have, the things they're doing, yes, somebody who gets it, that we have to actually make these changes and they are doing things. I'm not going to stop doing that and just hold out for the big prize of the fair, ambitious and binding treaty which we called in Copenhagen. We said we wanted a fab deal and we jokingly say what we got was a fab deal full of loopholes and bull. But the reality is it's back on the cards now for 2015. It may happen in Paris. I think President Obama's comments at his inaugural speech and I know everybody's saying politicians say many things and don't deliver. You're saying that. No, no, most people say that. The reality, I mean that's part of the problem. What I think our political leaders don't understand is that apart from everything that's health that's happening, there's a growing and growing gap between political leadership and business leadership on the one hand and ordinary citizens on the other. That gap is growing and that's not good for democracy. It's not good for peace. It's not good for stability. But what he said, and I read it about five times and I listened to it about ten times, there's something in it that actually says that perhaps he will use some of his capital now. Like he didn't do in his first term to push the agenda forward. I can tell you something. In China, we will win in China very easily if the US stepped forward and said not one more cent is going to go into any new fossil fuel projects. We're going to invest in what we would like to see China and the US partnering and making some joint investments and other big economic players and making some serious investment in thoughtful research and innovation that can power a new industry that creates millions of, by the way, the potential of job creation is much more. You've got the US and China to act together on a lot of things. You would solve a lot of problems, but I just want to come back, drawing gently towards the end. I'd like to come back to the 14 projects you've got here, and again I'd like to understand more about what are you calling for in this report. Are you calling for these 14 projects not to happen and therefore have you said what you think should happen instead in these countries? Yes, it's not rocket science. So two sentences we're saying, if they go ahead, it's a point of a new return, it shouldn't go ahead and that same amount of resources, right, or maybe less even, should be redirected to really ramp up their investment in investing in renewable sources that exist in all of these different places where these projects... But that might not give them as much energy. In terms of, well listen, the scientists that worked on this report say that if we engage in just not renewable energy generation, but just in energy efficiency measures, the amount of energy that would save would be equivalent to what energy these 14 projects will generate. And there are many statistics, like in Gazprom, what the Russian project in the Arctic that we succeeded in stopping last year, the amount of oil that Gazprom is pulling on land annually is more than what that project if it were to be successful. So why we continually to mindlessly threaten the integrity of the planet and let's just be clear, the Arctic is different from all the other projects with the Arctic is a refrigerator and air condition of the planet. And as the scientists have been saying what happened in Hurricane Sandy and so on, we hit the lowest level of Arctic sea ice in the summer months last year. And if we see further erosion of the Arctic sea ice then what is in fact your refrigerator air condition of the planet is gone, the scientists then are not clear exactly what the impacts are other than saying that the impacts would be devastating. Just ask you on that point because you've mentioned scientists a lot and Greenpeace has a lot of very committed scientists working with it or others whose research you draw on. But I haven't heard you today use the word economist and Greenpeace is not known for. It's banks of economists and it's rather relevant. Absolutely. Last question, what do you say to the governments of poor countries who say look this stuff is too expensive? Well, the economists that have spoken just in the last three months, Joseph Stiglert said if we don't act now the cost to the global economy will be devastating. PricewaterhouseCoopers in a study says that we are going to hit a five degree world if we don't act now. One more economist then we have to stop. The World Bank said we are on a four degree world. We're actually sadly going to have to stop. But thank you, community, thank you very much and the rest of you thank you very much indeed for coming this afternoon. Thank you.