 The 27th Conference of Parties or COP 27 concluded in Sharm al-Shraik in Egypt over the weekend. Our cops have entered our imagination far more than in the past, especially with COP 26 in Glasgow last year. This year was no different. You know, a lot of reporting, technical terms such as loss and damage, 1.5 degrees, 2.5 degrees, mitigation, adaptation, all being thrown around, confusing a lot of people sometimes who want to follow this issue. But at the heart of this issue is something very dire. The fact that human civilization as we know it could be under threat in a few decades because of how as a civilization we are organized. So we'll be talking about why COP 27, what happened at COP 27, why it was important, and what does it board for the future in this episode of Mapping Fortlands. We are joined by Pramir Burkayastha. So like I said, the reporting has been in a barrage of reporting, a lot of terms, sometimes 1.5 degrees, 2.5 degrees, loss and damage, adaptation, mitigation, all these questions. But these are not just about terms because a lot of the reports have also pointed out we are seeing the impact of climate change today. Right now, people are being affected across the globe in terms of food, in terms of water, in terms of basic survival, in terms of homes, for instance. So could you maybe first take us through what are the quick impressions you got out of this year's COP 27, COP 27. I think let's put the COP 27 a little bit of the back burner in our discussions because you raised a larger question, what's happening to the globe? And if we take that into account, then that's the background which COP 27 had to address. We already have 1.1 degrees rise of temperature. And we are talking about 1.5 degrees in the threshold. And if we blow past that, which we are in danger of already in the next 5 to 10 years, then it will be in a huge change in the way we have seen the world. There's a possibility that you will see a huge loss of ice in the polar ice caps melting. You will see a perceptible rise of the sea level. And what did that? If you get mega drops, which we are beginning to see, combined with also floods, you're going to see huge damage to particularly the poorer countries. So that's anomaly in this particular case, that the rich countries which today are mostly in the temperate regions, they will feel the impact of global change, climate change, much less than the poorer countries who are really in the, basically in the tropics and the equatorial region. So there is also this climate inequality that countries will not face the damage of all of this equally. Those who are least able to bear the damage will go to, are going to face most of the damage. This is the inequality that exists already. The question again is, of course, the history of climate change, that those who are responsible for the current greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they are the ones who are going to suffer less. Those who are, who have contributed the least amount of greenhouse gases are going to suffer the most. This is the inequality in the system itself. Unfortunately, you can't do much about it except say, okay, now you need to compensate us, you need to do things by which you can control your emissions. And to that, the demand has been from the rich countries, particularly the United States, that the climate change started with common but differentiated responsibility, which means those who have emitted the most should have the better share at least on the financial burden. And also the concept of equity, which means that you have a right to what would be called the carbon space, which is really a right to energy, that if you've already taken up more than your just share, then you shouldn't really be emitting more carbon into the atmosphere. Both these things are now, right now in COP 27, after COP 27 seems to be very much weakened. Because if you see the United States says it doesn't understand common but differentiated responsibility, you see that essentially what the European Union, other countries are arguing, when they argue that we should have a blanket ban on fossil, they're saying ban coal. But fossil gas is what is called it, they're saying a transitional fuel. So it's not a fossil fuel by just changing the name. Though gas is very much a fossil fuel as much as coal is, you pretend as if it is greener than it actually is. And of course, it's true that methane gas, which is really what is there in your natural gas, that has, when you burn it, you combust it, it has produces less carbon dioxide than the equal amount of energy from coal produces. But the problem with methane is it's a much more potent greenhouse gas. And what we find from previous literature, from literature that is now appearing that actually methane leaks are such that whatever gains the national gas given, as we've already wiped out because of the leaks that are taking place from the national gas infrastructure to the extent that it seems to be three to four times more, or even six times more methane is actually leaking. So given all of this, that if we are really talking about maintaining the 1.5 degree centigrade, it seems really appears to be a lost cause, because there is no seriousness of the rich countries to address the issue. And they're seeing how to put the burden of climate change more on the developing countries. And of course, on the process are the big emitters, China and India, because they're large population. So if you're one fifth of the population, you automatically are not as big an emitter as China or India by definition, because you don't have that many people. So India, though per capita mission is one fifth, one sixth that of the United States, for example, still is pointed out by others as a big emitter. So essentially, these are the inequities that have come up in COP 27. And unfortunately, the commitment, the only positive element that came in COP 27 was a loss and damage fund, which they have said, yes, that that is something we should really build. But again, who is going to put how much into that fund as we left open? Right, Prabhir. So in this context, since you did mention the loss and damage one, let's go into that. It's been a demand of developing countries for decades, now almost three decades this year. So Pakistan raised it very strongly because it is so affected badly by the floods that took place a few months ago. And there was a sense of celebration when I believe the European Union, which was resisting for the longest time, finally gave in. And there was a basic agreement on that. But many have also pointed out that there is a fund, but like you said, there's no money in it. So considering what has happened in the past to money, would you explain some of the details on this loss and damage fund? Well, let's look at what the other fund did or didn't do. There's 100 billion funds which are supposed to be contributed by the rich countries by 2020. Now, it has reached about what they say, according to OECD report, $83 billion. But Pakistan take down on that essentially says that it is just what shall we say, greenwashing existing loans and other investments claiming it's a really a part of the green fund shall we call it. So this is at the actual amount is only about $23.5 billion even if we look at it optimistically. So this is the problem that these are not being defined that what exactly are we talking about. So something which was given as a loan is also being shown as if it's an aid. So loan and aid are two different things. Even if you give a low interest loan, you can claim that I've done something. But if you give loan at normal interest, that's business as usual. So then it cannot go to your green fund account. So the fear is that even if money comes in, if you remember in 2013, the commitment by 2020 has still not been met for the other $100 billion fund. So if this fund is assuming good faith, money comes in, will it come in from the existing commitments already being made? Will it come from investments by private capital, which according to the United States should be counted as a part of this fund? Should it be already existing fund which is coming into the other $100 billion? Will it be also shown against this? These are the questions that you have said. The devil is in the detail. These details as yet are to be worked out. But all of it boils down to good faith that are you taking responsibility for the damage you have created? And are you willing to shell out money? At least you can do because you cannot take out carbon from that atmosphere. So are you willing to shell out money at least to help those who have already lost whatever possibility they had or what would we call carbon space? They're not going to get it, particularly large countries in Africa, large part of Africa, and even countries like India. We're not going to get what would we call a new share of carbon space. But are we willing to at least the poorer countries live out India out of this because they will say, well, you're a big country. But living out India, are you willing to be on good faith, willing to take or address the problem, which is that they need money in order to transit from a low cost energy path, which is the carbon or natural gas to basically looking at sun and wind? And also how do you also address the question of night versus day because you need a large storage? How do you address the question of storage? And though that's a bigger question, but the point again is the amount of money involved to reach your 1.5 or 2 degree centigrade target even will cost us trillions of dollars in terms of green investment, green energy investments. That money, the West is not willing to shell out, rich countries are not willing to shell out. They said, well, you know, we'll give a little bit of our share, but that will be essentially lowest. This is what we seem to see very little in aid. And so I think we are going to see a repeat of what we've saw with the earlier green fund, also in the loss and damage fund. So in this context, let me just addressing a question many people may have. The question is quite, it goes like this that I mean, we are all commonly facing the danger of climate change. You mentioned what could be some of the, you know, the kind of impact that we're facing. And it happens like you said, of course, although there is some inequity in the impact. But nonetheless, it also affects all of us in some ways or the other. So many have said that, you know, everyone should work together to sort of try to address this issue. Everyone should try to convert, you know, try to reduce their consumption as much as possible. It has to be our common, say, responsibility in that sense, which is what you alluded to. So what is the problem with this argument, which is something developing countries have been resisting for a long time? In fact, there's two kinds of questions in it. And I think the second one is also very important, that a lot of energy companies will say you as an individual should reduce your carbon footprint. So essentially, the individual is responsible, not companies, not society at large, not the governments, but each of us. Now it doesn't work because I as an individual cannot change the source of my energy. Is it coming from sunlight? Is it coming from wind? Is it coming from hydroelectricity? Or it's coming from coal or natural gas? And each has a different kind of greenhouse effect. So if you want to look at the source of energy, individuals don't change it. Societies do, which means ultimately the state government does. So that is one red herring, which is quite often put that each of us are personally responsible for our carbon footprint. And that's it. So I think that's one thing that we need to put to bear. The second thing is what does concept of equity mean in climate change? You know, the issue is that we cannot say that the carbon space should belong to whoever comes first, emits and takes up the carbon space. This is the argument that whatever I will say, the wild west argument, the land is available. There are so-called red Indians, indigenous people staying here, but really not their land. It's open land and I can take it over and the government gives me the right to fence in the land. So this principle, if you carry over to climate change argument is there is carbon space. I came first. Okay. I started emitting. I didn't know at that time that climate change could be caused. So I emitted a lot of carbon dioxide. Now you can't come and tell me, you know, I'm responsible. This argument would hold good if you take the pre-1970 year, please, into account. Well, we didn't really know how much impact carbon dioxide could cause. But by 1970s, this is already scientists were talking about it. And we now have reports of the oil companies who have done detailed research to show what the impact of climate change is going to be. And for the next 30 years, they fought a bitter battle to say no, climate change is not because of carbon dioxide. There is no global warming. All this is BS. Now this kind of obfuscation was done with the full knowledge of the United States government or other rich countries governments that yes, there is global warming and it is real. So question is at least from 70. We have a possibility of counting how much carbon dioxide has been emitted. And the reality is most of the carbon dioxide, the atmosphere is actually post 1970, even our advanced or rich countries. So if we take that into account and you can say 1950, 1969, 1970, whatever you want to take, even by all that account, you will find the rich countries, the United States and Western Europe has the largest share of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Now the question is that if we want to keep 1.5 degrees, the amount of carbon space left in this language is roughly about what we would blow past, as I said, in the next 10 years, if we continue to emit at the same rate, probably in the next five to six years, we have to drastically cut our emissions, which is what the government of India, in fact, in the COP 27, said all fossil fuels that should be cut, to which there is a huge opposition, because the European Union and the United States, but more the European Union, said gas is okay. It produces carbon dioxide at the end, but you know less. Therefore, we can't say all fossil fuels. And the European Union is trying to move a, in fact, position that gas is a transitional fuel, not a greenhouse. It should not be called a fossil fuel. But to be that as it may, the basic task is equity is not going to be there, because already these countries have grabbed carbon space, and because they've burned already so much fuel, including natural gas and coal, that they, in fact, the Ukraine will have made it even worse, they are not willing to cut down their consumption. And the problem is, there is no easy way to provide energy when the wind doesn't blow, the sun doesn't shine. So that's still a bigger, big problem that lies. But yes, that can be solved with investments. That's an investment they're not willing to make. They want to postpone it as far as possible. So the issue of trying to use up energy comes in most sharply, but they tell the African Union countries, African countries, we want your gas, we want your oil, we will use it, but you can't use it because global warming. So this is what somebody has, I think captioned, you know, gas and oil for we but not for the. So these are the kind of equity issues that are coming in. And I think the COP 27 this, this way, this time has been a step back because the, you can see clearly the equity issues and common but differentiated responsibility is disappearing from the language of the core of core. And even the Paris Agreement, which was there is today being lost site of, and what the wealthy countries, rich countries are saying, we should take only the baseline as Glasgow where these things already have been weakened. So not referring to the original means forget about common but differentiated responsibility who has to do how much and equity who gets how much those two things should be forgotten. So I think that's the shall we say the negative part of the COP 27. Can the poorer countries bring this back to the table and say, yes, this has to be done, but you have a bulk of the responsibility because you've occupied that space. So yes, we will not continue on the path which you are doing at the moment, we are going at the moment, but the same time, money has to be made available, just because we have built and the population of the United States. Therefore, our responsibility is the same as United States, who emits five times per capita, six times per capital greenhouse gas as in the end dust. And at the end of it, you need energy. It's not that you emit carbon because you want to, because you need energy. So it's a less expensive, more expensive energy we are talking about and irrespective of what the people may say. Renewable energy, the major problem is how to store renewable energy. And if we take that cost into account, it's a considerable cost. Scrapping your existing energy, producing infrastructure at the moment is not viable, at least for the poorer countries. And that at least I think are the issues which are going to haunt the future cops. Thank you so much, Praveena. We're quite a grim picture, especially because like we come back to again and again in each of these shows, our past does cast a shadow on us. The imperialism plays out in various forms today, even in seemingly technical aspects, such as climate change. We'll be following many similar issues in future episodes of Mapping Fortlines. Until then, keep watching.