 Ladies and gentlemen, for our session on Planet Ambition for COP26, I'm Vijay Vaidhiswaran. I'm the global energy and climate innovation editor of The Economist and host of our brand new podcast on what to do about climate change called To A Lesser Degree. It's my great honor and pleasure to be your immoderate moderator today for this session, which aims to put meaningful ideas on the table and plans for making the most of the forthcoming UN summit in Glasgow. Now we are eight weeks away from this gathering when the world is going to get together to hopefully agree on more ambitious and concerted climate action. 60% of the world economy is now covered by net zero goals, official net zero goals, where only 12% is addressed by policies and regulation that put teeth into that, that backup those promises. In the last 10 years, the world's emissions have risen dramatically, but in the next 10 years, they have to be half of where they are today if we were to have any hope of meeting the target of 1.5 degrees Celsius set in ambition by the Paris Agreement. As it stands, emissions in 2030 are projected to be only about 0.5% below the 2010 levels, in other words, nowhere near where we need to be. And as we argued in a recent cover story in The Economist, we may be headed to a three degree Celsius world with dramatic consequences for much of the world. Accordingly, we're here today to do three things. One, what would constitute success at COP26, identify the gap to get us there, and understand who needs to act to fill in that gap, to close that gap. We're going to address key topics like what's missing in the nationally determined contributions. We'll have new insights on carbon pricing, and we'll take a look, a close look at resilience and adaptation, which often gets short shrift in this conversation, but which are going to be ever more important going forward. The session will be structured as follows. We'll have an opening panel starting shortly, which will be recorded and made available on the forum website after the session ends. This is, of course, on the record in public. We will then have breakout groups that will operate under Chatham House rules for those registered and address the topics just outlined. And the closing section, which will be off the record, will summarize the key conclusions. Now I want to start this session by hearing from all of you participating. We're using the technology of Slido to do a quick poll. I'll ask you to access your Slido poll, which should be available on your top link chat, if I'm not mistaken. Please address the following question. What is the biggest priority to be resolved for COP26 to be successful? I know we can list a dozen important things, but really put down the most important one in your opinion, and we'll create a word cloud and we'll see what we're able to come up with from our collective intelligence, and we'll give a moment for that to take place. Meanwhile, let me tell you who will be joining us on the panel today, our distinguished panel, while we have a chance to get those word cloud going. We have with us Sheila Patel, director of the Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centers based in India. Welcome, Sheila. We have Faikeh Sabisma, chairman of the Supervisory Board at Royal Philips of Netherlands. Welcome. He's also a trustee of the World Economic Forum. Faikeh, good to see you. Charlotte Perra, vice president for strategy and programs at the Bezos Earth Fund, which has been making quite a splash in the last few days, as many of you would have noticed. We're delighted to have you with us, Charlotte. And Lord Nicholas Stern is the chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, and known to all of us here at Broadster. Great to have you with us also. We will also have some remarks during the breakout groups from several leading thinkers in this space, Lawrence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation, Jules Cortenhorst, CEO of the RMI, as the Rocky Mountain Institute is now known, based out of Colorado, and Bridget Jackson, business engagement lead of climate champions. So we welcome them and appreciate their contributions to come later in the conversation. So let's have a look, I think, at the word cloud. Can we have our technology team put that up so we can have that and we'll have a chance to comment on it as we move into the panel in our session. And again, I want to emphasize that what we want to tackle, in addition to observing and reacting to these very clear direction given to us from the participants, people are tired of talk. People want action, right? That message is coming through very, very clearly from the opinion poll. What does success look like at COP 26? What should it look like? Let me turn first to Charlotte. Can you lead us off with your initial thoughts on what we need to see? Happy to thank you, Vijay. And let me just make sure you can hear me all right. Yes, your dulcet tones are going through the global airways. Great. Well, thank you for having me here for this important conversation. The COP presidency has identified four goals for COP 26, and I will just focus on one of them, which is keeping 1.5 degrees within reach and securing that zero by mid-century. And here there are many encouraging commitments and actions to point to. I saw that action was the biggest word in the word cloud, and those are all important. And I'll come back to those. But overall, we just have to talk about the fact that there's a big gap to close before Glasgow to keep 1.5 degrees within reach. Many of you may have seen that the UNFCCC last week issued a synthesis report on NDCs, the national pledges, climate pledges. They reported that 113 countries have so far submitted new or updated NDCs. Of those, 70 have included carbon neutrality commitments by mid-century. But there are 191 parties to the Paris Agreement. And so many, many more countries need to step up. And in particular, some of the biggest emitters. And their analysis across all countries shows that the world is not on path to 1.5 degrees C, not to 2, but to 2.7 degrees C of warming by the end of the century. And to put a finer point on it, we all know that emissions need to be cut roughly in half by mid-century. And their analysis showed that worldwide emissions would grow 16 percent by. Sorry, I said by mid-century, I meant by 2030. So instead of cutting emissions in half by 2030, we'll cut. We'll see them grow by perhaps 16 percent. There are various versions of this analysis, but none of them are good news. So who needs to close that gap? First, major emitters need to do more. And in particular, the G20 countries who together emit about 75 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. And I'll start with my own country. Certainly, the U.S. is in a much better place than we were a year ago. But for the world to fully trust us as an actor in the climate space, Congress needs to act and needs to show commitment to undergird the president's strong stance on climate. Several other G20s need to do more as well. China, India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, for example, together they account for about a third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. They have not yet come forward with updated indices. That's a big gap. China, it was terrific news this week that China is going to stop financing coal plants overseas, but China also needs to do more to show what its pathway through 2030 will be consistent with its commitment to carbon neutrality to reach carbon neutrality before and hopefully well before 2060. And then some of the major emitters, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, have submitted new indices, but with targets that are the same or weaker than they were before. So clearly, there's a lot of work to do in the next five weeks. And that work will need to continue beyond Glasgow. But I just want to end on a more hopeful note. I was in a very lively dinner discussion last night here in New York with people who know all of this. And one of the focuses of our discussion was that as one person put it, the global economy is not divided up into 190 plus units into country units. It's a global economy. There are promising trends across many sectors of that global economy. And in a sense, what we see in NDCs is a lagging indicator of the dynamism that has been developing around climate solutions. So I'll stop there. We'll be interested to hear the panel, the panel's view on some of those dichotomies. That's great. Thank you, Charlotte. And my main takeaway is that you're really looking for governments, leading governments, big emitters to make concrete commitments and again, put some teeth into those promises that are being made. The pledges that were made in Paris to show how they're going to get there. And you're highlighting the gap in official actors. Perhaps we'll hear from others about the role of business and other entities, but it's clear that you put your finger on perhaps the most important outcome that we need from COP. Lord Stern, let me turn to you. How do you see the question of not only what is achievable, what must be achieved in the coming weeks and at COP 26 at 30? Can I turn it over to you, sir? Yeah, thank you very much, Vijay. On measures of success, I strongly agree with the dimension that Charlotte quite rightly emphasised first, which is the level of emissions, both in terms of net zero objectives and in terms of closing gaps up to 2030. But within that, I think we have to put a lot of pressure on, particularly the G20, to move much more strongly over these next few weeks. But we have to recognise that we're not going to get the roughly harbing of emissions that we need in these in this decade to put us on track for 1.5. So I think we have to think about we must insist on strong progress, but we're not going to close that gap. So what we have to do as a second part of the story is try to build incredible mechanisms for ramping up. That's what we did at Paris. Laurence is with us and she knows all about that as a key orchestrator. But we're going to have to think about how to ramp up and what mechanisms we're going to use. So that's the basic story of success. And we have to look beyond the and I'll come to it in a moment. We have to look beyond simply the emission numbers. The second thing, which is I think before you do, Lord, sir, if I could just clarify, can you tell us a little bit more for those who are not in the cognizantie? What is it you'd like ramped up? Is it technology pathways? Is it policy action? You started with the very gloomy news that we won't get to having of emissions by 2030. What would you like to have in place, ramped up and ramped up and ready to go so that we can? We want strong progress towards 2030 and we want mechanisms over these next few years, not after 2030, but ramping up ambition over these coming years as we learn more about what's possible, as we tackle the political constraints. So I don't think it's gloomy to say we're not going to get there in one go. But what we have to do is insist on strong progress and then think about how we ramp up if there is a gap as there's likely to be just on the emissions. But I want to mention other dimensions of success, not just the emissions. The next thing I wanted to mention was the whole understanding of climate and development. We need to be very clear that the drive to net zero is the development story of the 21st century. It's full of opportunity. It's full of innovation, discovery, investment, growth, job opportunities, if we get it right. So we have to dispose of this artificial horse race between environment and climate on the one hand and development and growth on the other. That I think is also a key part of success because it's basic to the understanding of the whole story. That argument is moving forward. And I think we're gradually winning, but it's not yet one. And that itself is crucial to future action. I think going on a third dimension, we have to get more specific about sectors. And I would emphasise, too, as obviously lots to mention, but I would emphasise, too, the drive past coal. And I think that has to have a very high priority in what we do right across the world and helping other countries in driving past coal and investing in natural capital, not just for the negatives, which it does bring, but also for biodiversity and development itself. So that's the third story beyond what we've already discussed about net zero emissions. It is specific progress in the very big key areas. The fourth area success is finance. And the world will have to increase investment by two or three percentage points of GDP, except for China, which is a reallocation story for investment in order to achieve the sustainable development goals in order to achieve the development ambitions of countries going through different stages of development and to improve on the sluggish productivity we've seen in the world over the last decade or so. We set that out in the G7 paper, which was published for Carpiz Bay, about why we say two or three percent. That will have to have good policies to draw the investment through and it will have the right kind of finance in the right place, the right time. The world's macro can accommodate this. Interest rates for many are on the floor. We've got planned saving large in relation to planned investment. The answer to that is increased investment to increase growth. The investment of the right kind now in the different clean attractive things. So the finance side of the story will be very important that we should be thinking now about bilateral flows, multilateral flows and private sector flows. I'm happy to go into more detail on that rather than the big aggregation around the hundred million. I was partially responsible for negotiating the hundred millions of Copenhagen to in 2009. It was good that we did. It's become totemic. It's good that it has. But as we go forward, I think some unpacking of that into bilateral flows, multilateral flows, private flows will be very important. I'm happy to discuss numbers. And the last part of the story, which you emphasise correctly at the beginning, is resilience. And so much of what we need to do is mitigation, resilience and development. Think of mangroves. Think of restoring degraded land. Think of public transport. Think of decentralised solar. Thinking about making the right kind of buildings and city structures. It's all of resilience, mitigation and development packaged together. If we get it right. So as we emphasise resilience, as we must, we should not translate that into a horse race between resilience and mitigation and development. Good policy wraps them all up together, but we have to increase our emphasis on resilience as we bind it into mitigation and development. Great. So an ambitious agenda you're putting forward, but it's good to come to the details and even at the level that you've given them. It gives us a sense that the future can be bristling, not just with challenge, which there clearly is, but also opportunity. And you've identified how we can think about investment, how we can think about innovation, how we can think about investments, even in things like adaptation and resilience that could enable future growth and prevent future catastrophes as really an opportunity mindset. So thank you for that, Lord Stern. Let's turn to you, Sheila Patel. Give us your perspective. I think you've muted. Unmuted, OK. So apologies to everybody, but when everybody speaks, I feel excited and elevated. And I think this can happen. And then when I look at the reality on the ground, I feel dismayed, I feel disappointed and I feel betrayed. And the reason for that is that despite poor people's amazing capacity to survive despite all odds, even in regular times, they are doing it more by themselves and not a lot due to all these frameworks that are being benignly set up to help God knows who. And we have enough data that accompanies all the stuff that my esteemed friends have said that shows that poverty is growing, inequality is growing, the genie coefficient in localities, in cities, in regions, in continents is growing while our rhetoric is growing. So there's something not happening right. And if you bring that into the climate space, what you're finding is that poor people are continuing to pay a higher price than just being denied development because now they have to deal with climate challenges. They have to deal with evictions and crisis related to large mitigation projects that are all for their good. The government says this is for our general good. There's a train coming here. All you people living around just vanish. You have a situation where when women's communities are saying we want organic food that is locally available so we in the pandemic and subsequently can have food security, they're saying why aren't you, why are you being romantic? Why aren't you using pesticides? Why aren't you using fertilizers? There is no respect for water from these large institutions. So I can go on and on, but the real story here is that there isn't much discussion and debate that actually entwines SDGs and climate change aspirations which go together in the area of social justice. There is no discussion. And I think that all my colleagues have to start talking about that. Not just big, big things that don't reach poor people. So I think your point is deeply felt and well taken and I would even add that the ongoing pandemic which has had disproportionate impacts among poor communities in the developing world accentuates the need for attention to this topic. Can you put forward one or two ideas that those gathered at COP26 should take up in order to take your insight seriously? What would you like to see on the table? Well, I feel that science, technology, finance, operating at the meta level mustn't get just excited at those levels. It has to have a deep obligation to look at its impact on people below. So for instance, those people who contributed to this amazing digital disruption, it's reached a certain level and it has supported all those who have got access to Wi-Fi and to a smartphone to do many things that 10 years they couldn't do. But that's still half of the people. You still have a family locked up in a pandemic situation with one non-smartphone on which the child has to be studying, the father has to, he has to get his work done, entertainment in a four by eight house. So what I'm trying to say is that every choice, every policy, every decision that is made at the global level, at the COP level, at our national levels, at our city levels, they are not working for poor people. Let's just take the whole issue of cities. The kind of consumptions in the cities are completely dysfunctional. 98% of people are eating food that is not good for you and are pushing towards unhealthy obesity. Housing, 93% of housing stock in almost all our cities is built by poor themselves in very difficult conditions. And we all only talk about formal finance and what it's going to do. But there's no breaching this divide to say, how can we make it work? You guys are so good at looking at risks. How are you going to manage the risks of actually giving poor people resources, giving poor people technology so that their lives are transformed by all the technology stuff you do high up in the air? Because there's no connection. You've issued a powerful challenge. I want to ask my panelists after we hear from Fike for his contribution to give their thoughts on this, on how efforts at tackling the clear and present danger from climate change can be done in a way that takes on some of the social and equity issues that you're talking about. So I'll ask for their feedback in a moment. And thank you. Thank you for your insight. Fike, let me turn to you. Give us your perspective. You're looking at, this is not going to be your first talk. I know we've known each other a long time. What do you anticipate will be the dynamic? And if you can give us a sense, a business leader, what can business contribute to this? Or what standard should business be held up to? And what can be demanded of business to contribute to the process of COP26 and more broadly, the deep decarbonization challenge? Appreciate VGA and appreciate all on this discussion this afternoon. I highly appreciate it. And I would like to build further on my previous panelists' speakers. Charlotte, who indicated also the important role of the public sector, by the way, regards to Andrew and great work which you do. But also, of course, what Nick and Sheila said. And let me say that not only as a chair of Royal Philips, but also as the co-chair of the CEO Climate Alliance, we have 130 companies now who will be present at the COP also and making a strong statement. And I come back onto my other hat for the Global Adaptation Centre. Listen, we have here a postponed COP and it is such an opportunity in such a weird moment in time. We should look to ourselves if we miss, again, if we miss this opportunity at the COP. We cannot afford it. It's 50 years ago that the first UN Environmental Conference was held. It is six years ago, and Lawrence knows very well that we had the Paris Agreement. Six years later, we conclude we are not on track. For a multi-year effort, we are not on track like Sheila is saying correctly. And we cannot afford this. And the IPCC report which came out recently indicates, well, you want to be clearly below one-and-a-half or clearly below two degrees. We are already going to live in a one-and-a-half degree Celsius world. And if we don't take fear section right now, it will be much worse than that. We cannot afford this. And why is it not happening? Let me press you just in the interest of time. Tell us about what business should do and what must be expected just so we can advance our conversation. I buy it and I take your guidance. Business should anticipate that governance will stop giving fossil fuel subsidies. Business need to work without that. The society need to work without that. Business is committed and we will say that at the COP to go for net zero in 2050 and have a clear roadmap to that net zero in 2050 by clear intermediate step by 2030-2040. Business will commit also at the COP to say we will be totally transparent in our emissions but also to our investors about climate impact on our business, TCFT framework. Business will say we would like to have you governments putting a stiff price on carbon because that meaningful and broad price on carbon helps us to change faster. Business will say new governments need to take strong action at the COP and agree with each other and please do not use the argument that this will go at the cost of economic growth, jobs or competitiveness because we from business tell you we provide those jobs. We provide that economic growth. We provide that competitiveness. Doing nothing will go at the cost of that. Basically we are saying we from business are willing to take a step up. We will commit ourselves to that and by the way don't misuse us as an argument of not taking actions by governments. So I don't see why governments should not agree with themselves. The last point I want to make is we need to work and Sheila knows very well also in parallel to mitigation on adaptation as well because the IPCC report indicates we are already going to live in that world. So let's adapt ourselves whilst we continue mitigation and I don't see any reason why governments should not take stronger action right now and I would like to take all the arguments out of their hands with business or not taking action. This is a powerful agenda. I think I can see Sheila applauding from her vantage point. Now it is important for business to make this voice heard and to let politicians know your call on the end of fossil fuel subsidies for example. We know at the G20 environment ministers meeting earlier this year in Italy it did not come to pass. In fact there were several countries that objected to that phase out of subsidies and to coal and those were government delegates of course making that decision but perhaps using business as a shield is your point. So there may be some narrow interests that need to be overcome or lobbies that need to be overcome and the way to drown out bad voices is to have good voices and so I encourage you and your colleagues in business that think along your lines certainly to make that voice felt as you presented here. I want to give, we have just two minutes left. I want to honor my commitment to give a chance to Charlotte or to Lord Stern to give us just a word on how best we can take on the social justice dimension so the poverty dimensions that were mentioned if either of you want to give us a thought. Again we're going to go into breakout groups and I encourage all the breakout groups to discuss the same topic. Lord Stern, I see you're making a motion. Could you comment a little bit on this on Sheila's comments? Yeah and I absolutely take Sheila's point and there's a great injustice in all this is that the poorer people are least responsible for creating the problem and they're hit hardest by the consequences. I think to focus on particular kinds of investments and development programs. For example restoring degraded land and supporting mangroves. Supporting mangroves is good for fishing. It's good for tourism. It gives you the protection against storm surges and it captures carbon. Restoring degraded land is something of vital importance to poorer people and again it captures carbon gives you greater resilience and is good for development. Those are two things in rural areas. In cities it's the poorest people who are hit hardest by air pollution and you can take direct action on air pollution by banning the most polluting vehicles and by public transport because it's poor people who are the greatest beneficiaries of public transport. So that's two from rural areas, two from cities and one from the general energy sector decentralised as solar. Many of you know Bob Sheeter I'm sure you know Harish Hande and Selco my friend from Bangalore in India taking microfinance to decentralised solar. So there are lots of programs who get behind. Thank you. Charlotte, a brief intervention. Happy to add just a couple of sentences. I completely agree Sheila you're making an incredibly important point and I strongly agree with the point that you made earlier that the drive to net zero is the drive for global economic development this century and that doesn't happen automatically we all need to really centre development and support for most vulnerable communities and populations in the work that we do and I think I should probably stop there in the interest of time but very much support the kinds of examples that Lord Stern was making we made a commitment this week and we're part of a larger commitment from a group of philanthropists and I know we've been very deliberate in our own discussions at the earth fund about making sure that Indigenous peoples and local communities and the way protection and conservation can benefit those people is central to how we go forward and implement our own efforts in this space and I think we all have a responsibility to do that.