 A recent report chronicles the contributions, if that's the right word, of the rich towards climate change. As we head towards yet another COP summit, what is the way forward? Far right wing politician Hurt Wilder's freedom party has emerged as the single largest party in the Dutch parliament. What led to this drastic rightward shift in the Netherlands? This is the daily debrief. These are your stories for the day. And before we go any further, if you're watching this on YouTube, please hit the subscribe button. A recent Oxfam report says that the richest one percent of the world's population is responsible for as much carbon emissions as the poorest 66 percent. These are 2019 numbers and to make this clearer, let's look at the actual figures. 77 million rich people are responsible for as much carbon emissions as the poorest 5 billion people. Oxfam International's interim executive director said and I quote, the super rich are plundering and polluting the planet to the point of destruction, leaving humanity choking on extreme heat, floods and drought. We are soon heading for another climate summit in the United Arab Emirates this time and the impact of inequality with the nations and between them will be a key point of discussion. We are joined by D. Raghunandan of the Delhi Science Forum for more. Raghun, thank you so much for joining us. The Oxfam report, of course, I think there are a lot of details in it, but proving one interesting point, which is that it's maybe wrong to talk about climate change and its impacts in a very neutral way as everyone is affected in a very similar fashion. And I think this report, which talks about the impact or how certain sections of the population, the rich are causing an impact is very different from what they're doing. So what is your basic take on the report before we go into some of the details related to this? You see, frankly speaking, my broad responses, it is correct to say that everybody is impacted by climate change. It's not as if the rich are immune to the impacts and only the poor are affected by the impacts. The point is that the rich are able to withstand the impacts better because they have other means by which to either escape the impacts, go somewhere else or create better conditions for living, which can enable them to withstand the impacts. But as we have seen in the heat waves in North America last year and this year and accompanying droughts, they have affected some of the most affluent sections in California on the Western Seaboard of the United States in fairly well-off communities in Canada, in Europe as well. The floods, for example, have affected Northern Europe a lot and even though Southern Europe is comparatively poorer than the North, they've been impacted hugely by heat waves and drought. So it is correct to say that even the richer countries have been impacted, but at the same time, the poorer countries have been impacted to the extent that survival has become a problem. And that is true of equatorial Africa, of sub-Saharan Africa and many parts of South America and South Asia as well, where sea level rise has threatened. Prolonged droughts have threatened as in sub-Saharan Africa, which has prompted mass migration away from these areas. So the impacts are differentially felt by poorer communities compared to richer communities that is in dispute. Right, of course, the report also focusing really on contributions as well to climate change. And in that sense, 16% is what the richest in the world are supposedly contributing and they're contributing as much as hundreds of millions of people who are really poor. And this, I think, fundamentally poses a question that how do you sort of address this kind of a situation where a small part of the population is contributing so much to climate change, to emissions, for instance. Whereas the bulk of the population is, of course, huge in numbers but are not really responsible so much. So how do you sort of address a crisis like this where a small segment of the population is so responsible? Well, Prashant, this has been at the very heart of the climate negotiations under the UN Framework Convention for climate change. The first thing to be noted is that what you just said speaks about current emissions, but the climate crisis is being caused not by the emissions year on year now, but the accumulated greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which has been put there since 1850. And if you take that into account, then close to 75% has been put there by the developed countries since 1850 to now. Whereas the middle income countries and the developing countries put together are today contributing just over half in current terms. But once again, as I said, we need to keep in mind that the climate crisis is caused by historically accumulated greenhouse gas in the atmosphere where the contributions of the developed countries are overwhelmingly higher than those of the developing countries. At the same time, and for this reason, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in its global negotiations, including at Paris, which is the binding agreement that we are all living through today, has set itself the framework or a regime of controlling emissions by saying that the developed countries will achieve absolute reductions in emissions, whereas the developing countries will seek to slow down emissions rise. So we are looking at absolute reductions by the developed countries, while developing countries will need to rise, keeping in mind our developmental needs, but slow it down compared to what it might have been otherwise. So that's the way in which this differential between developed and developing countries is being dealt with. The problem today is that the developed countries, while they have peaked more or less and are on a trajectory of reducing their emissions, are not reducing fast enough. And if they don't reduce fast enough, then we will not reach the targets that we have set for ourselves globally. And incidentally, this is also true of some of the other countries which we don't normally classify as developed. For example, the Russian Federation is a notable example. The oil producing nations of the Arabian Gulf or the Persian Gulf, whichever you want to call it, is there and China are nations which have high emissions and whose reductions are still not as fast as they should be given the current conditions. And given their own capabilities to reduce their emissions. Right, Raghuv, of course, all this brings us to the coming COP summit to be held in the United Arab Emirates. Of course, this is now, I think over the past two, three years, it has really gained another level of significance, the media discussions around it, the various agendas that are brought to it, people's organizations making a very powerful statements in many of these events at that time. So what do you see as some of the major challenges as this summit approaches, do you see that, do you see, where do you see some of the sticking points or where do you see some of the major discussions sort of taking place? Well, from my point of view, I think the most important issue before the next COP28 should be the global stock take, which has occurred this year, which has taken place this year. This was mandated in the Paris Agreement to come into effect five years from the year 2018, that brings us to 2023, which is meant to take account of where do we stand? All countries have pledged emission reductions, they've got their nationally determined contributions or indices to reduce emissions compared to where the targeted emissions should be, if we want to reach either two degrees C temperature rise or 1.5 temperature rise. What the global stock take has shown, for which a technical committee has been set up under the UN Framework Convention, they've had three settings and that will be presented in a report before the COP and that will determine new pledges to be made in the year 2025, within a year from now. So discussions should start now so that we arrive at new indices in the year 2025, which should set the trajectory. To me, this is the most important issue before the COP. Unfortunately, I don't think it will be. I think there will be about seven or eight issues which will get equal attention, which has been the trend over the last few years, including the financing of adaptation measures, the financing for developing countries to meet mitigation goals, as well as the new loss and damage fund. And a large part of the media discussions have been on these areas, as well as on adaptation, which then gets, again, linked to financing from the developed countries. My own perception is that if we don't target the global stock take and the emission reduction goals that we should discuss today so that we can arrive at a good target one year down the line, I think we are going to be missing the wood for the trees, because if you look at financing, you look at the loss and damage fund. We all know that these are currently much below the requirement and the estimated requirements are even much higher. They run into billions and maybe trillion of dollars, which is nowhere in sight. The problem is that the more we focus on those, the less we focus on the emissions, then this is the proverbial problem of continuing to mop the floor while the tap is running. Unless we shut off the tap, we can go on mopping the floor, but we are not going to be achieving much. That is what I think we need to watch out for. Civil society organizations, people's movements should also focus on these. I fully appreciate the concern for the least developing countries for financial aid to cope with adaptation. At the same time, at least as much if not more attention needs to be paid to ensure that developed countries reduce their emissions to the extent required. Thank you so much, Raghuv, for giving a very succinct analysis of some of the issues involved. And I think we'll come back to you soon for maybe a longer discussion, especially ahead of the COP summit. Sure. Thank you. Far-right wing politician Hurt Wilders and his freedom party have emerged as the single largest force in the Dutch parliament, while the centre-right ruling party emerged third. Wilders is rabidly anti-immigrant and espouses harsh right-wing views on many social and economic issues. While there is some way to go before he forms a government, people in the Netherlands and abroad are already wary of the impact he may have as similar right-wing forces rise to power in Europe. We go to Anna for more. And as we often say on the show, surprising at the same time, maybe not so surprising result, Hurt Wilders has all been around in the political scene in the Netherlands for the longest time. None of his slogans on campaigns, campaign planks, none of his views or anything new as far as the Dutch public is concerned. But nonetheless, you know, securing what is a substantial victory as far as these results are concerned, as although there is much more to be done for him to form the government. So maybe for the benefit of our viewers, could you maybe take us through who this person is and what really are his significant points of view or the direction he intends to take the Netherlands in? Well, as you said, Hurt Wilders has been around in the Netherlands for quite a bit of time and he's notorious actually for his very extreme anti-immigration policy, for his extreme anti- immigration views, for the anti-Islam stance that he takes in the public spaces. And so he's been described by many as the Dutch Trump or in most recent times as the Dutch Millet. But you know, what his discourse comprises of, it's, I would say, at some points, even a bit more extreme to those of Trump. So essentially, what was not a surprise when we saw the results yesterday is the avalanche of support that he got on social media, true statements by other far right European leaders, including Gorban, including Matteo Salvini, including Le Pen, and so essentially all this crowd who gathered around him and who seems to be very good pals with him. So that's definitely a reason for concern for the Dutch public, for the people who have waited for the results of yesterday's election with a bit of trepidation. It has to be said because it was clear that a shift was coming, but it was very difficult to say at, until the very last moment into which direction this shift will go into. And so, you know, in addition to what we have seen from the Freedom Party, which is headed by Wilders, there was also an increase in the votes and in the seeds gained by the by the Green Labor Coalition. So that's also something to consider, because it appears to be a bit of a shift from what the people of the Netherlands have been essentially looking at for the past few government circles. And that was being led by a by a central right party. So apparently there is a shift in that and an attempt to find an alternative. But unfortunately, that alternative has been has been very, you know, very, very right wing for for Dutch standards. Yeah, of course, in this context, you know, multiple aspects, you mentioned, of course, immigration thing. He's also seems very inclined to adopt austerity policies of various kinds, you know, also in favor of, I think, lower taxes, if I'm not mistaken, and even cutting down on public services as well. So I think generally not, you know, as far as the economic side goes, it looks like difficulties lie ahead if he comes to power. Absolutely. And I think that's also something that that analysts pointed out in in the last weeks of the of the campaigns is that his his approach was also shifting from topics which focus on immigration and which focus on so which essentially focus on anti immigration policies towards addressing the topics that have been pointed out by people over the past months, which include extremely high concerns about the cost of living crisis, about the housing crisis, all of these things that obviously people felt were not being addressed by the mainstream political parties. He managed to kind of bring them up and shift the view from what he was advocating for in in the field of immigration towards this kind of economic set of policies. But what needs to be said also, and I think it was said on several occasions in the Dutch local media, is that essentially while he was doing this kind of shift in public appearances, the program did not reflect it at all. So if you look at the program, it's still predominantly anti Islam anti Islam policies being pushed forward at, you know, at a very high high rate. And while the freedom party or maybe it's better to say Wilders himself has stated after the first results came in, that he would consider putting those on a shelf or putting those on a shelf for a bit of time until he's able to form a coalition and form a government. Those are, you know, I mean, we have to say the truth and, you know, the European right wing parties, they have some far fetched ideas coming up. But these are wild, even for these standards. So we're talking about, he was talking about a ban on the Quran, a ban on building new mosques, extreme limitations to essentially bringing migrant families together. So for people who seek asylum in the Netherlands, who can then be reunited with their families, it's an extremely disturbing discourse. And it's an extremely disturbing discourse for those who have been, who have reached the polls yesterday and who have had hoped for a better outcome of the of this election. And also finally, a quick question, as you mentioned, some of the leaders of the European right also celebrating quite enthusiastically. And there does seem to be, I would, you know, you don't know if you call it a wave or something, but in many key countries, definitely a resurgence of, you know, various right wing forces. We know it's happened in Italy. We know it's been happening in France for many years. Germany, we've been seeing it as well. And now we have the Netherlands. Not to mention, of course, countries like Hungary and Poland and all, which have always consistently had that trend as well. So what are the kind of issues around which, you know, what really is the perspective or the worldview, so to speak, that these leaders seem to share in many ways? Well, I mean, the worldview, I think it's a bit generous to say that they have a worldview. But OK, so definitely something that has been mounting up as being the key message of the European far right is that, of course, immigrants are the main problem of the people of Europe and not the years and decades for many of us who have lived through austerity, which were informed and supported by their representatives. So a lot of these, a lot of these right wing politicians are essentially supporters of the same policies that put us put us in the place where we are right now. So that is, you know, talking about the cost of living crisis, which is affecting people from the UK, to Italy, to Spain, to all the places where the right wing has gained power. And what needs to be said, that there is no improvement seen there after they take power. There is not an improvement in the quality of life of people who live in those in those countries. It applies to people who have moved there. It applies to people who were born there. So there is essentially no difference. The only difference is that now there's this strengthening of hate speech against people who have done nothing wrong, who have, you know, every right to live wherever they want. And essentially that's, I think that's that's the main thing that they agree upon. The complete non-existence of any other, you know, substantial program points is something that should be said brings these people together. So it's, yeah. Thank you so much. Of course, the first thing would be to see if he even manages to form the government. But in case they do so, quite an alarming set of proposals, especially on the domestic side, curious also on the international side, probably they're pushing for a more isolationist policy, it seems, you know, especially leaving the European Union, what is being called an exit is something I think they're considering as well. So very curious times ahead that way for the Netherlands. We'll be tracking that. Thank you so much for speaking to us. And that's all we have time for in this episode of Daily Deep Brief. We'll be back tomorrow with another episode. In the meanwhile, do visit our website, peoplesdispatch.org and follow us on all social media platforms.