 The colleagues are if we'll give an introduction about today's webinar and the double presentations that we want to give you today. So I read the floor is yours. Thank you very much. Hi everyone from all over the world. The Green New Deal is being discussed in many countries around the world in Germany, the left party and its affiliated political foundation. The Rosa Luxemburg Foundation have a topic on the agenda. You can find a dossier of articles and debate contributions on the foundation's homepage at www.RosaLux.de. Maybe Alexander, you can share the homepage with us here on your screen. Is it possible? Alexander is kindly or technical support. Anyway, I'm going on. Maybe Alexander can manage it in a few seconds. As a Brussels European office, we have also taken up the topic with the intention of discussing the different GND approaches, but also to lead the discussion for a global and social GND and to make proposals for the implementation of a Green New Deal on a global level. For this purpose, we have created a website. You can find the website at www.red-green-new-deal.eu. Maybe Alexander can also share the homepage we built just recently. The main idea behind this is to keep the debate up to date and to make it available to a broad public. Juliane Schumacher's publication, but also the launch of the website, our location for today's webinar. In her book, Juliane first discusses the historical New Deal and economic and social reform in the USA in the 1930s and links with approach to the pressing issue of environmental and social crisis. She then takes up various existing proposals in her book and discusses them in detail with her advantages, but also with all the disadvantages. You can download the book for free as a PDF file from the Red Green New Deal homepage in both German and English. Yeah, I am very happy that we have Juliane in our event and that she will discuss the GND concepts for social and ecological transformation together with Maria Teresa Nera-Lauron from the Philippines and Alex Linthana from South Africa. With that, I turn back to you Nisim. Thank you. Thank you very much, Arif, and I would like now to thank a lot our panelists today for joining us and I will, with no more time, introduce them to you. Juliane Schumacher is an academic journalist and an activist with a focus on climate change and geo-ecology and with a specialization on the Middle East and the North African region. At the University of Bosdam, where Juliane, you're part of a working group called Politics of Resources. Thank you very much for joining us today. Our second panelist today is Alexander Leferna, who's based in South Africa, who's a South African climate justice campaigner, who's now working with 350africa.org. Alex, you've also served as the secretary of the Climate Justice Coalition, a coalition of South African trade unions, civil society grassroots, and community-based organizations, and you previously also work in academia and personal research at the intersection of philosophy and climate justice. And last but not least, my dear colleague, Maria Telezaloran, who's the advisor for the United Nations program at the Rosalux-Sambush-Tiftum Center for International Dialogue and Cooperation and the Lifetime Global Justice Campaigner and Advocate. So we can see that today we have a panel full of expertise in many fields, and among them climate change and development policies, but also with a huge amount of hands-on knowledge on movements and islands as building, specifically in the global south context. And this intersection of knowledge and experiences will be key for our discussion and the task of unpacking the large book that we, and a very dense book that we have the pleasure to publish and to present to you today. And we'll try to create a discussion between this book that you wrote, Juliana, and the experiences and knowledge of our panelists on fighting for structural changes and climate justice on the ground, bringing voices that have been historically exploited and marginalized in the forefront of the struggle. So we really welcome this publication in the Brussels office, as for, this is also a continuation of the work that we've been doing together also with the New York office, as the work on the Green New Deal, where we are trying to propose a platform to discuss those different proposals and demands and explore their potential of concrete changes. That they offer to achieve at the national, regional or global level. So slightly more than a year ago, at the start of the pandemic, we launched a webinar series together with the New York office called the Green New Deal, the world needs now. And we dive into the different sectors that the US proposal for a Green New Deal was offering. And with this book, one year later, we have reached another step. The discussions have been enriched, and many other proposals have emerged since then, and found the space in the talks about Green New Deals. The calls for a feminist Green New Deal, the Pacto Ecosocial del Sur, or the South Africa claim is just this charter between being among those proposals. And this book, I think, is doing the real tour de force to present all those developments in a very didactic way. And it's also, I think, a static point that we could use to explore the many crucial nodes that we need to be precise and dig it up on if we want to build a program able to advance such demands. So the question of financing will be key, the international trade and technology, the digitalization, and of course the food system and agriculture as well will be maybe part of further discussions. And maybe we will also discuss them a bit today. But let me start with today's discussions, and my first questions directed to you, Juliane. So in your book, in many occurrences, you mentioned the question of the scale of the Green New Deal, and you highlight that its proposals have been made at different scales. The municipal or city scale, the national state scale, and transnational levels. So according to your analysis, what is the current state of the discussions around the global Green New Deal, and from whom are those demands coming from? Thanks, Nesim. Thanks first to the organizers for the chance to be here and to present a part of this work I have done on Green New Deals over the last year. Concerning the scales of the Green New Deal, I think that addressing the scalar issues in Green New Deals is crucial to advance a truly progressive understanding of Green New Deals. Because one of the key features of the Green New Deal is this combination of addressing both the climate crisis and the social inequality. Because there's a lot of propositions on ecological transformation and green economy, but I think what really distinguishes the Green New Deal proposals is that they also address the social crisis, not just the ecological or the climate crisis. The social justice issue is in most proposals just thought on a national scale, like all the more advanced proposals for Green New Deals, especially the US ones, they think justice on a national scale. It's a lot about workers in the US how they can like how justice can be achieved in this frame of a nation of nation state. And I actually first started to do research on this issue and I talked to different activists and people involved in this US Green New Deal proposals. Most of them really responded to me that global justice issue do not play any role in these debates. It's difficult enough to bring together all these different voices within the US and the workers movement and unions and whatever. And actually they said it's not discussed, we don't talk about global issues. And I think they're still reflected in most proposals and because most of these proposals focus just on this national scale, and they have been when the first proposals were like published there has been a lot of criticism also from the global source but also from activists in the global North, saying that this version of a Green New Deal is just update of this capitalist post-colonial, colonial extractive scheme. So instead of importing oil and securing oil routes militarily and now they have they will import lithium or other natural resources they need for their electric cars or their solar energy, whatever. So, so nothing will change just the basis like it's not fossil fuels anymore it's now other other resources. So, and I think this criticism has has been taken up in parts by some proposals, but still this issue of global justice justice is very limited in most proposals of Green New Deal. And so I found more or less three approaches how global justice issues were taken up in Green New Deal proposals. And one is on this national scheme like most more progressive proposals for Green New Deals they somehow address this issue by saying, okay, we need this imports, we need resources from the global source but we have to see that it's done in a fair way. So we need some regulations, some criteria what how can we ensure that resources produced brought in from the global source or supply chains can can be controlled that there's like some certificates or there's also this notion of supply chain justice what is a bit more advanced not to say okay we have to to bring people together working on the supply along the supply chains to work in solidarity to connect with each other. Or we have to see that, for example, we take our fair share, like this is for example the Sanders proposal to say okay we have to introduce our emissions more than we set in the Paris Agreement because we are responsible like historically for much more emissions than than we are at the moment so these are like different for example that Green New Deal for Europe they include the proposed what are they called environmental justice commission. So that could be like look that all the supply chains are according to some environmental justice criteria. So these different ideas of how to ensure that at least the Green New Deal done in a global North country does not harm the global source more than necessary. And then there's the second proposal is for Green New Deal to do actually Green New Deal in the global in countries of the global source. Saying that it's not just the North who needs the Green New Deal it's not just the UK or the US, but also in other in countries of the global South Green New Deal is needed. And there are for example these proposals, most prominently from Latin America, like activists who said okay we need to develop the same kind of proposals for for Argentina or Mexico. And there are also proposals from Tunisia or from Malaysia, they are not as as concrete as the US ones for example, but there are some ideas how this concept could be translated to countries of the global South. And there are like a lot of other proposals that do not use this term global Green New Deal but go in the same direction combining social justice and ecological transformation. I think Alex can tell us more about this because as for for example in South Africa there's, I think this discussion is going on for much longer already and there are a lot of proposals coming from there that do not call themselves Green New Deals. And then there's truly like this, what you're asking me about as a global Green New Deals like really Green New Deals that go beyond one national nation state and actually they are not a lot of very concrete proposals for this. We have at the moment this contrast between very concrete and comprehensive political proposals for nation states. And very vague demands for kind of a global version for Green New Deals, for example in the feminist Green New Deals they are much more radical and also much much more advanced in the demands but they are not as concrete. It's not really a political program that can be just like implemented know it's more this more kind of collection of different demands by social movements. And for in this global aspect, there's different versions. There's one, there are some people calling for like to to strengthen the existing international institutions. For example, also in many Green New Deals they say okay, we have to give more money for example to the Green Climate Fund or to the UNFCCC and they have to distribute it. This is also in Sanders also Biden now announced he will pay more money to the Green Climate Fund. I think this is a very questionable way because these institutions already work most of them at the moment in a certain way. And it's not ensure that this money will really reach the people who really need it most. But this is one one proposal to use the existing institutions. There's also the second way would be like kind of a coalition I think this is what and Patty for for example is proposing in her in her writing that she says okay there will not not every country in the world will join this movement for Green New Deals but if you have several countries implementing Green New Deals they could form a coalition or corporations among each other support each other in this transition. So it's kind of a coalition of like minded states in concerning a Green New Deal. And the third idea would be really a global Green New Deal with the creation of new institutions. There are a few demands for this global Green New Deal has the term has been used also within the United Nations already from 2008 2009 on but for whether neoliberal green economy programs. There's one proposal for example by Varoufakis and Adler, who have like called for a new institution of a kind of the same kind of Marshall plan that was implemented after the second World War in Europe, a new institution who would then finance the transition in different countries of the world. So, but apart from these proposals there are very few ideas for really a global Green New Deal and I think this discussion is just starting like how, how can, I think there's a huge demand for this combination of addressing climate crisis and social inequality. And it shows how many people take this up this idea. But I think the discussion about how to integrate also the issue of global justice into this is just starting. So I think this is what we what we do now know and what what should also be done more and more discussed more over the next next month. Thank you very much, Juliana for this very good overview and already showing the different proposals and the question of the institutions that can carry those those demands and what could be the best channel to carry those those global demands. That's one of the key questions I would like now maybe to turn to Alex and to go to the to the to the global south and to ask how are the those Green New Deal talks and discussions of global Green New deals may be echoing in South Africa. And if the demands around the dress transitions that are emanating from climate and workers movements in in in South Africa and maybe in the continent as well are in a way sustainable or can find a place into the demand for the demands for a global Green New Deal the proposal for a global Green New Deal. Thanks very much. And thanks everybody. Pleasure to be here with you. And to start off with there certainly is a rich history in South Africa of engagement around a more transformative vision of climate justice which I think is at the heart of most Green New Deal visions right as something that's a bit more radical that gets to the root causes the systemic drivers of the climate crisis. And that works to tackle the economic system underpinning it driven by you know profiteering and extraction. So, for example, in 2000, the early 2010s, there was the one million climate job campaign in South Africa which was driven by a coalition of trade unions of society organizations that were trying to you know, put together a program that addresses not only the climate crisis but the deep crisis of unemployment inequality and poverty that we have here in South Africa so it was very much about driving an employment program that worked to tackle both the social and the ecological crisis that we face here in South Africa as you know one of the most unequal countries. But what is interesting I think about Africa is that it's also a microcosm of global inequalities because even though South Africa is the most unequal country. If you measure the genie coefficient of South Africa it's about the same as the global genie coefficient. Right. And so we living in some ways in a global apartheid in terms of the levels of economic inequality that we have resembling South Africa's. So it really speaks to the need to really have inequality and poverty at the heart of the global green new deal. You know, more recent instantiations of something that echo that sort of green new deal type framing is the kind of justice charter movements here in South Africa, which is being driven by the cooperative policy and alternative culture, and is trying to think about a sort of an eco socialist framing of how to transform South Africa, and is also grounded in the history of charters in South Africa we have the freedom charter that was part of the anti apartheid movement. Another place where we have some echoes we've got a green you escom campaign driven here by the climate justice coalition. And that's about transforming our national utility escom, which is the biggest polluter on the continent, and is very reliant on coal. And here again it's partnering with more radical trade unions like South Africa Federation of trade unions who actually suggested that name to us for the campaign, as well as working with communities that are impacted by energy injustice by lack of energy access as a result of our very centralized and polluting coal power system here in South Africa which harms many. So we need to just focus on one element that is I think resonating a lot in in this particular context but I think in a lot of other global South context is around debt. I think there's two elements of the debt question. One is that, you know, many countries in the global South are quite deeply indebted and now with a covert pandemic that is deepening that significantly. And to the point where, you know, if you look at the investments needed for a green new deal and a global green new deal. Those investments really would benefit countries in the long run it would help with socioeconomic development it would could help with addressing inequality and poverty. But a lot of the time there's the sort of debt trap that is holding back countries from being able to make that investment. And a lot of that addresses back to colonial histories and neocolonial practices right. And so there's this big question of how we address debts at the at the core of the global green new deal. And on the other hand there's this lack of payment of climate debt from the global North. And I think even the scales of what, for example, the Biden administration is talking about for international climate finances minuscule, compared to what is owed, whereas the US invest trillions locally in their green new deal. And they offer a billion for the rest of the globe to pay for their transition it's just in some ways it's it's a pittance, and it seems more tokenistic than substantive. So maybe I'll leave it there, because I know we've got a lot to get through today. Thank you. Alex, and thank you for already pointing out some. Yeah, some very important and key issue to the question of debts I was maybe thinking that we would, we could maybe go a bit for it for it later but it's really good that we already touch upon it, because I think that all our countries could have something to bring on that on that aspect. And I will, I will now go to the test and ask you, I mean, in the book of you, there is the dimension of the feminist Green New Deal, and we just briefly talk about it as a as an approach, which is both critical and somehow complimentary to the proposal carried by them by Ocasio-Cortez in the US. So how do you see the demands from the feminist Green New Deal intersecting with the claims and struggles that are coming from different movements in the global south. Thank you very much Nisim and hello everyone. I think I would digress a little bit from your precise question by saying that for many feminist social movements coming from the global south. The only exception is that of a decolonial feminist global Green New Deal. So it's already expanding from just merely being a feminist Green New Deal to really touching, you know, the heart the core of under development poverty and inequality, affecting women, particularly in the global south. The decolonial feminist global Green New Deal. The term is quite new. And frankly, it's being discussed and articulated in a relatively small circle of civil society or social movement, intelligentsia. So it's not as a broad discussion that we're having on the topic at the moment, but this does not make the concept abstract. Let me get it straight. We just haven't had the opportunity yet for a broader debate of this kind of framing. But when you unpack the essence of a decolonial feminist global Green New Deal, you will see that this captures what feminist and social movements in the global south have been struggling for decades. Centuries already and that is essentially, you know, systemic changes and macro solutions that would work for women, people and planet. So I think that also brings us to an appreciation of what are some of the things that could be considered positives in the current GND debates, as well as some of the negatives. I think for one, it's very good that we have a label. You know, there's already a term that somehow captures into a set of policy prescriptions, policy directives, you know, that could be acted upon by legislation, could be acted upon by parliaments, executive offices. So I think I appreciate that a lot because now it's no longer just confined to shouting in the streets or in demonstrations that we call for radical changes in the way societies are structured in the way countries relate with each other. Yeah, so I think as a concept, it's very good that you now have a name to this set of policy prescriptions. And I think I also appreciate that there is an openness to debate the merits of an advancing and alternative paradigm. Okay, so those are two good things that I can immediately think about. But in terms of what's kind of missing or a little bit weak at the moment is that I have yet to really see or hear or read about, you know, a new deal that talks about, you know, the kind of transformations that are needed to actually see this through. Because these transformations go beyond what the institutions of multilateral governance at the moment can offer. Even we're talking about the Crips waiver earlier and that in itself is already an indication. It's one provision, but it's really, really an uphill climb. So how much more if you're talking about macro solutions on the way, you know, the trade, economic and financial architectures globally are structured. So there are limits yet to how the Green New Deal discussions are capturing or not, you know, what the limits of transformations that institutions of multilateral governance can bring. And I think the second weakness at the moment is that for me, I think there is a lack of understanding of how power dynamics, institutions and mechanisms to maintain the status quo at global, regional and country level are going to play out. You know, it's as if, for me, as if the discussions on the Green New Deal can solve all the world's problems via legislation. And that's quite naive, you know, because if you look at the situation now, for instance, in the Philippines, defenders of the environment get killed, harassed, intimidated, jailed, you know. These are structures where you see the interplay of the police, the military, institutions of repression and suppression, together with the judiciary, etc. The whole system. So while it essentially talks about system change, I think, yeah, the Green New Deals now are quite deficient in articulating how these will be made possible, recognizing the interplay of, you know, the state, the military, etc. But nonetheless, a decolonial feminist global Green New Deal is about appending the structures that deplete wealth, resources, nature in the global south to fuel the consumption for the most wealthy and the economy that relies in unpaid domestic care work from women, or one that pays, you know, marginalized women precariously to undertake this kind of labor. So in effect, the unpaid domestic care work, huge gender pay gaps, we are subsidizing this kind of infrastructure that creates, you know, the 1% elite. So I'll stop there. And I think it's going to be controversial later on. Thank you. Thank you very much, Tete. There is a lot to unpack what you said, but I understand I will highlight the question of power dynamics and what you were saying. Like often those proposals are not understanding or missing the real power dynamics, the real difficulties also for movement in the global south to carry those kind of demands that could seem legitimate or easy maybe for campaigners in the global north so that they see as a prerequisite already. So I think this is an interesting question and maybe that could lead to another question that I would like to ask the three of you. So in terms of maybe we need to criticize a bit or to at least to play the advocate devil and see what are the weaknesses of the global Green New Deal demands to really bring and carry systemic changes. Or maybe what are the demands and the features that you would need to, that those calls for global Green New Deals need to integrate to be more, to fit the power dynamics in the global south and to be maybe more easily appropriated by social movements in the south fighting for global justice. So that's maybe a complex question. I don't know who wants to start if Juliana or Alex, because Tete just spoke, who wants to try to maybe give an answer or to reflect on that. Alex? I can also start. I think there are two weaknesses and one is like related to temple issues and the other to spatial issues. One weakness I find important is that especially in the US Green New Deals but also in the European proposals for Green New Deals. Most of these Green New Deals they relate back to the past, in an often very idolized and sometimes very nostalgical way. It's understandable because like this idea of a Green New Deal relates to the New Deal in the US that was a proposal and many features and many measurements are really taken one to one like exactly from this New Deal proposal but also the problem is that they also copy some of the problems of the original New Deal. And I think many things, what's like the point now is like to see what has changed since then. And I think we cannot answer the questions of today with some ideas from the past. We have to think beyond this and we have to see that we develop like new paths for the future. We have to think beyond the past but we cannot copy this model and implement it now. We have to see like what do we need now know, and this will not be exactly the same that it was like 70 years ago. So I think this is one important point to be a bit more creative about like developing new ideas. And the other point is the special point and I think this is what we already talked about that most of these issues are related to this national scale and I think there's a lot of possibilities beyond this. And even in the where there's a proposal for a global union deal it's often thought as a coalition of nation states. And I think there are other possibilities know like there can be coalitions of social movements that can be coalitions of producer of the same goods in different places around the world. There can be coalitions of small farmers in the north and the south because sometimes they share the same problems know against big corporations. There can be coalitions of, I don't know, Ted had mentioned this agenda issue know. So I think there's a lot of ways of cooperating politically and performing associations beyond this national state scheme and I think we have to go beyond this and form, beyond this also not just also in relation to this debt issue, for example, to say okay one state is paying reparations to another state. It's not said that, let's say Moody in India will bring this like give this money to the people who are most affected by climate change know it's, I think they are much more power dynamics and structures. Beyond this and I think this is what is it so this are two weaknesses I think there are other ones but this is the first the two ones I want to mention at the beginning. Excellent Juliana is really, really interesting and I think we keep going back to the question of the scale and the institutions and we I think there is a very good question also in the from the audience but now we will hear Alex and come back later. Thanks. Yeah, I think it's useful to think about what shouldn't represent a global Green New Deal and the problematic practices and to riff a bit off Ted Ted here. When we think about maybe two examples that really demonstrate how our current clean energy system is being built through really problematic power relations by some of the more hegemonic forces and in the world right now. I think about my unfortunate South African friend Elon Musk and the jokes he makes about cooing Bolivia and pushing back against those that are trying to push for a more sort of just resource nationalism in the global south against the sort of multinational corporations that are trying to gobble up all the resources needed to fuel a clean energy industry. We can also think about there was a recent report showing that much of China's solar panels are manufactured through the use of we get forced labor right. And if this is these are the engines that are building our clean energy future. We really do need to worry about, you know what are the power relations that are still very present, particularly with the US example, you know that is backed that that that sort of neo imperialism is not just soft power it's very hard military power that backs that with the US military being one of the biggest polluters and also one of the most violent and forces of our current structure. I think there's, there is some discussion of that in the US you know the Green Party's platform was very much about defunding the military, and using that to fund instead a global Green New Deal and I think that call for defund the police defund the military is a really requirement of demilitarizing our global space so that we can fight for a more just order, not one that is so violently policed, often to suppress resistance in the global south that is trying to put forward a different development paradigm. So I'll leave that there. Thanks. Thanks a lot, Alex. Do you want to go more into the critics? Well, actually, Juliana and Alex already mentioned a lot already now. I'm really happy that we have an awesome panel here, but I would like to center again on the need for macro solutions, you know, the norm setting function that the United Nations is supposed to have it's supposed to exercise leadership. We sorely lack that at the moment. No, so I don't know if the question is, do you build a different UN, I say we reclaim the UN for what it is originally meant to be not after all the UN Charter says we the people should reclaim this institution of global governance rather than, you know, allowing corporate agenda to corporate interest to run the development agenda. So there's also this danger that, you know, because people want to be people want to see results that work, that the tendency is to look at pocket sized solutions at community level and say, see this works, let's replicate, let's scale up. But it's not as simple as, you know, replicating and scaling up. So I think that's one real danger that without looking at the need for macro solutions and challenging the existing trade economic and financial dynamics, you know, we might lead to a bigger but romanticized version of those pocket sized solutions, which will not really address the need for systemic changes. I think current discourse also on the Green New Deal has a danger of leading us into technology worship, like, you know, go 100% renewable, fossil fuel free, etc. But without questioning or altering structures of ownership, etc. in control, 100% renewable energy will not save the planet from climate crisis. You get what I'm saying. So central to the Green New Deal discussions is redistributive justice and environmental integrity. So, and it really brings us to the bigger questions for instance that we need to send the redistributive justice in our understanding of what an economy is for and how it functions. Alex and Liliana mentioned earlier the need to address the debt crisis, but it goes more than the debt crisis. How do you redistribute, you know, income wealth power and opportunities. One could be instituting progressive taxation at the global level and civil society has already been demanding for a UN tax body, which Germany does not support. There's also a lot of ground to tackle illicit financial flows. And it's not just about the corruption, but it's also about on profit shifting practices of transnational corporations that already lead to the fact that it's actually the global south that's subsidizing the profits of this transnational corporations based in the north. Now, there's a relatively high level of acceptance about ending fossil fuel subsidies. But we have yet to see if it's it goes more than just lip service. So a lot of things that instead of spending on harm, we should divest from harm and start investing in care. So when Alex mentioned defund the police, defund the military, that is a concrete step where how we can divest from harm and start investing in a care economy. So those things we need to really bring on the table and try to get broader ownership among social movements. And I think the public at large, it's not just limited to the civil society and social movement intelligentsia. Thanks a lot to the three of you for this very enlightening discussion now. And I think, I mean, this has also inspired our audience who's asking very interesting questions. And two questions are on the institutional question. And I think this goes back to what Julianne was saying and also just right now what's what Tated was saying. So the question of Julianne was mentioning that the scale of the national of the nation states is often the can be also often seen as a as a limitation and as a problem in itself to address those questions. And Tated was mentioning the fact that we don't we but we need those. We still need to think of large scale solutions and global solutions. So, we still need to find to whom those, those claims those demands to defund some key aspects and to found some new ones should be addressed to. And this is the so the question is, the questions that are coming are based on those those points or should we actually try to have those concrete discussions at the UN level the World Social Forum, or the new institution emerging from these discussions that can take place. Or the second question was going to more into the details trying to, should we try to fix for example the IMF that was initially, or that that was implemented with the power conditions that we know but that was implemented at the at the global level. Do we do we try to build an alternative to the IMF and how do we relate to existing existing alternatives, like Chinese financing which has provided a valuable alternative to the IMF for countries who do who do want to accept IMF So, do we think outside of the existing institutions, and which kind of institution then do we want or do we try to fix the existing institutions. Who wants to start this big task. Juliana, I think you. How about should I start again. Okay, I think this relates to different question that also tethered or has already mentioned. I think it's a problem that if you want to implement a global Green New Deal or just think about a concrete global you need to question is who to address know and which structure to address because there is no government this is much easier on a national scale because you have a nation state and the government and, for example that can raise taxes this is a very important point and they don't have this on a global level so it's about like this is the question how to reform the existing institution I agree with stated that. Most of this UN system institutions did do have or they had a progressive core know they have this core values they were built with that still exist and they can be referred to know. I'm not an expert in internal UN structures if it's possible to reform them from from the inside. Or if it's necessary or easier to build new structures but I think what we do need is a form of global structure. And I think this relates also back to a lot of discussions that already are not, not limited to climate issues or to environmental issues because this was all discussed in the 90s and beginning of 2000s already in this like globalist movements was about trade and social justice globalization. I think and this is a lot of there's already a lot of knowledge one can draw on when thinking about this global injustice. But I want to. Like I think I feel important that to address this issue of macros macros structures because I really agree with stated, because I'm not sure how it is not a kind of spot in the global North at the moment we have this problem that a lot of what I would call very aggressive social movements, especially from climate justice or environmental justice point, they're very much fixed on this local level solutions. So it's about creating small community gardens or about building like small housing projects whatever I feel this is really important and it's important to try out alternatives. It's not a solution to for, for, for global problem like climate change we do need this macros structures. And we do need ideas how to deal with this really global problems on a different level. So, and I think this is something that a lot of people from also the gross movements and also this environment justice movements we have at the moment in Germany do not really address know they stay on this local scale. And I think this is what we have to get into dialogue with each other how this, how these experiences from this level can be used and can, and how they can interact with this. But, like, put on another scale know to address this really global issues and there will be conflicts between these levels know you already have this in the US and I think this is a very important point because in the US you already have this discussions what is about if you say you want to have to have more regenerative energy on a national scale. This will have impact on some local communities and for example if you want to make houses more energy efficient. This will affect a lot of communities on the ground that maybe defend their old houses where they can live in a certain way whatever so this. There will be conflicts between different levels already on a national scale but this will even be bigger on a global scale. I think this is a discussion that has to start and, and I don't see any really ideas at the moment for this global level but this has to be created and I think ideas one can draw on and the second point I want to mention it's about this, what Ted also said about this, this problem of this danger of getting into a techno fix know to say okay we just changed to another technology and, and I think there's a huge array of possibilities within these green ideas that is discussed know there's a very there's some ways that are very much in this techno fix direction saying okay we just need to develop new technologies and 100% renewables and but there's also a very wide array of other possibilities in the US there's also a lot of this care issues are intensively discussed, and there are a lot of ideas coming up and saying okay we do. If you really want to have a green deal it cannot be about production we don't need industrial jobs we need care jobs and this jobs that should be created within a green deal that needs to be jobs in childcare in care for elderly people we need to reform our health system and these are climate neutral or climate friendly jobs know it's not producing electric cars so so I think this is it can go in both directions know it can be very industrial fixed on industrial workers like in the 60s and it can take a new direction and it will depend on who joins and who pushes it in which direction if what comes out at the end. Thank you very much Juliana and to for a also opening new new ways of well new new roads to think about and the difference between the industrial development and what is what is development in a way what kind of change we need to see in our productive system. I would be interested now to have the status opinion on the question of the institutions and the UN, because I know you've been working a lot within those forums, so I think you have a lot to share and would be interested to hear your view. Thank you so much. I'm not an expert on the UN, it's still amazes me know it's amazed the whole structure the whole institution is amazed, but I think for the moment civil society and social movements who engage with the United Nations have been really trying to push for you know, a stronger UN that goes back to its original mandate of, you know, decolonization, human development, you know those core principles that were with which the UN was founded 75 years ago. So a lot has happened and we now say, we have a very weak UN because it's the corporations that drive the agenda. It's a rich country versus a poor country, those lines are ever so clear at the moment, which is why we're saying that the problem now is that in this space where supposedly, you know, all countries have a voice, some voices are louder than the others. And we need to make sure that developing countries voice are not drowned out by rich countries voice and corporate voices. So what we're saying is, for instance, in this context of the pandemic, especially what developing countries need right now is not just the fiscal space, but fiscal sovereignty, they need to be able to drive their own agenda, but they cannot do that because they're very much saddled by the debt problem. So of course the IMF, the G7, they said there's a debt service suspension initiative until end of the year. Fine, that's so good, that's so generous of you. But what about, you know, why these countries are heavily indebted in the first place, you know, why not go to the roots of the debt problem when actually it's the south that subsidizes the north for centuries because of colonialism, because of, you know, the continuing legacy of unfair trade and investment deals that extracts from our natural resources, you know, you process into your high-tech manufacturing sector and then you dump everything back in the third world as high-priced imports. So that's a very, very vicious debt spiral that we find ourselves in. There's also the question of the lack of tax justice. There's also the question of the World Trade Organization rules on investor state dispute settlement. You know, can you imagine the trade rules now allows corporations to sue governments for trying to do the right thing for their own citizens, you know, like ensuring food, ensuring medicines, ensuring vaccines. Governments can be sued and are being sued by these corporations. There's also lack of financial regulation. So there are a lot of things, practical things that can be done at the multilateral level that would send the right signals. And also that is why we're saying we in civil society are calling for an international summit for reconstruction because even though governments say business as usual cannot happen, it's actually more business than usual now. You know, now it's a debt suspension initiative, while loan conditionalities are being rolled out as we speak in the same breath. So the left hand gives you debt suspension. The right hand gives you, you know, more structural adjustment programs that talks about austerity, privatization. So, you know, it's really crazy. That's why we're calling for, you know, the UN to spearhead this international summit for economic reconstruction. But to go to make sure that economies post pandemic are allowed the fiscal space to imagine a future for the people. Thanks a lot for this very, very dense post. And I would like to go to Alex now to receive his views on the question of the institutions as well. Thanks for this. I think there's a good question there about institutions also in terms of procedural justice and how we go about creating a global Green New Deal. There's a question by Michael there about how do we ensure that voices of the global south are driving this process right. And I think that's that's a really vital question. I think there's there's two elements that one is actually providing the resources so that the global south can be at the table. It costs time it costs money to be part of these discussions right and there's a lot of civil society movements that are not as well funded as the global north. And so it is difficult to be in these spaces sometimes. I think there's a lot of fingers that need to be pointed at global NGOs global funders. You know they talk about the need for a global Green New Deal, but then they've got this team of like 50 located in the global north country and then they expect like five people to cover all of Africa right with something like that. And these these sorts of dynamics that often occur within the funder and NGO spaces that make it very difficult for organizations the global south to have the capacity to really be in these spaces. And you see that from the grassroots up to the UN level where you know you have the US sending an army of negotiators, compared to least developed countries who can send one to cover like the entire space right. There's very deep procedural injustices that mean that you know those voices aren't being heard there right, but even when those voices are speaking out they're often ignored so I have the example here of the world people's conference on climate change and the rights of Mother Earth that happened back in Bolivia back in 2010 even right. And it would be really interesting to see the that recognize more and the global Green New Deal thinking about some of those discussions that have happened right. And, you know there's this term of Columbus in where we pretend we've discovered something new, the global Green New Deal framework, sometimes feels like it's a little bit of Columbus saying what's already been discussed in a lot of those global south spaces. And we should not to say that there isn't a lot of good stuff going on under the global Green New Deal banner, but there has been really rich discussions in other forums in the global south. And so, in addition to having to invest in those voices I think we also need to do better to listen to them to when they are speaking out. Thanks a lot. Thanks to all of you for diving more into this question. And there are a lot of very good questions coming from the audience. Maybe I would like if you can say one or two words about a specific question about transnational global south solidarity. You're saying that we need to gain those spaces, the global south need to build those alliances to bring those demands. That has mentioned the tax demands and Alex also the depth question. How do we build transnational global south alliances? And how maybe the global movement in the global north can be supporting those demands as well. Who wants to start it can be just a few words, but I think it's important at this time of the conversation. Okay, I can try. Wonderful. All right. I think in the same way that we criticize and challenge, you know, mainstream institutions to go beyond their siloed approaches. I think the same recommendation and challenge can be said to social movements. This is a criticism of us in the movement, because we say that yes, we should be holistic. Everything is interconnected. We know the drill, but in practice, it's quite difficult for us to actually break from our own silos. You know, what I'm saying, for instance, in the climate justice movement, it was very, very difficult to talk to workers trade unions on the topic of just transition. Why, because there are fundamental tensions. Our interest as a, you know, a hard, hard fought gains, the labor movement of trade unions, etc. And now the climate justice movement is saying what so you know, there are tensions that could be deep seated tensions already that could come into for whenever you talk about how one advocacy could probably trump another advocacy could know I'm not saying it does but the lack of appreciation of how things are really interconnected and how, you know, our struggles are also interconnected. So I think we need to walk the talk. That's a self criticism for us in the movement. We need to walk the talk also. We need to connect those dots because we know the dots are there. We need to do that. I think what's also important is for us to broaden this conversation into a public debate. Instead of us fighting among ourselves among each other on this issues about how climate versus workers, etc. etc. We should be actually trying to reach out to the broader public so that you know we could raise this important questions around power dynamics where it could be addressed. Instead of us arguing among ourselves. Just some thoughts. These are very big, big questions you're asking us, you know, and I think one point when I was doing the research I saw it is important that it's not always about doing things but sometimes also about not doing things as especially in North South relations because we already had this topic of the funding and I think this applies to a lot of things. This can apply to like even if you don't have a concept for doing things in a better way, sometimes maybe it would already be enough to stop the most harmful things you're doing. This can be like subsidies for fossil fuels for example, just to stop them would already help a lot. And the same is true with this military thing. I did not know before how big the US military is but it's actually really three quarter of the whole budget of the US. There's a lot and I think it was in in Sanders proposed it's $700 million a year and I think there's a lot of you can do with this money know if you say okay defund the military defund the police. There's a huge chance to do a lot of things better if you just stop spending this money money on these things know and the same is also true for example in the in the in the European Union with subsidies on agricultural products know that I exported to other countries and destroy markets there. It's it's a lot of practices that are really harmful and but they could be stopped within the space know within the European Union to change the subsidy system in the European Union. And this would already help a lot of other countries the same with structure adjustment measures whatever. So I think there's a chance, even before creating new or just to have a space that something you can develop. It would be maybe a first step to stop all this very harmful practices know to to implement structure adjustment measures to this thing with the depth that maybe we can talk about separately again I think this would be a first thing and then also leave space for people to to connect with each other without interfering. I think this is something like for my area of study you know I usually work on North Africa where often South South relations are more or less implemented by development agencies of the global north know they always try to interfere know like the German agency is trying to organize meeting between different countries of North Africa or and try to form them in their ways and I think it could be much. A lot more can happen if they let let them like do their coalitions by themselves know without trying to pushing them in one way so so and I think maybe this could also apply to to social movements know to have like Alex mentioned this meeting in Bolivia know not to dominate all these coalitions already from the global north because the funding is there or because it's much easier from people from the global north to fly to the global south and to to be in these meetings like to to leave some space to let things develop. Before bringing the ideas from the north in there know if you understand what I what I'm. Thank you very much yeah yeah I mean I I really I think I understand I think this goes also in what is one of the participants said the attendees is asking I'm sorry I don't see the names but I think one could, could the strategy be to lobby for limiting participation in the UN, UNF triple C, rather than expanding it in the sense of leveling the playing field and limiting delegation size. I think it goes I think a bit in the what you are saying Juliana is that to try to from the north limits the actually the impact in the in the discussion so to try to to to leave the space but this will also be a question of what is the level and how do we and force that that's at the global level is is is the next next thoughts, maybe maybe Alex you want to have to say something on that point. Yeah, I'm happy to reflect a bit on that. determining who can be in those UNFCCC spaces is really important and in other climate negotiations. You know, I think, for example, it was very clear that in health discussions, the tobacco industry should not be at the table making decisions. Similarly, in the UN climate spaces, the fossil fuel industry should not be having a seat at the table. How to make that happen in reality is quite tougher because the fossil fuel industry isn't just the multinational corporations, right? I think we need to kick them out because they're a bad influence. But there are also the governments of the world very often when we think about across the world, how many governments are really captured by fossil fuel interests, and it's often some of the most powerful, right? The US, you know, quite clearly operates according to Princeton political sciences, somewhat like an oligarchy, and the Republican Party is basically a lobbying wing over the fossil fuel industry. So, you know, how do we kick the Republican Party out? I think part of that speaks to the need for democratization to be at the heart of a lot of the climate justice pushes reclaiming our democracies back from these very corrupting forces that, you know, have taken over governments across the world. And that's the same here in South Africa where, you know, civil society movements have been calling for a very different vision of climate justice than what our government is representing because they are deeply captured by what we call the minerals energy complex here in South Africa. And so, you know, how do we how do we limit who can be at those tables and how do we ensure that governments aren't really just the fossil fuel industry in disguise and negotiating in that way. And I think that that really does speak to a need to push for deep democratization. And you've seen so in the US, for example, there's a very strong overlap between Republican legislatures that are trying to squash voting rights and those that support the fossil fuel industry. And so there's that unholy nexus of, you know, both pretty fascist tendencies as well as authoritarian tendencies that are being weaponized to protect the fossil fuel industry. And so I think this is where the climate justice movement really needs to connect to deeper movements for democracy for anti fascism and for pushing back against corporate capture. Thanks a lot and time is passing quite fast with those very super interesting discussions, but I think there is another couple of questions very good questions that are going into the notions of extractivism that we've, and that you've just mentioned now. So, I just wanted to make sure I had those questions and read them. Yeah, we have a question from from David that's that is asking. If you say that nation states of the majority of the world should enjoy more sovereignty. How do you end up the model of hydrocarbon driving development. Bolivia, Venezuela, Guayana, Nigeria, Angola, Ghana and Equatorial Guiana are exporting oil and gas resources for their own advancement with new global governance from restraint or enhanced and trained. So I think this is mean this is that this has been a question for a long time now also for in the debate in the from the left in the in the global north and the global south, and the question of how do country use their natural resources for for development and how do they use it what is there. And how do we balance that with the climate crisis. And, but also but it's in an historical dimension, knowing that the climate crisis is mainly. Triggered and developed by the by the exploitation from the global nose on the global south so. What can be done to make sure that those discussions are or that yeah that those questions are happening in a. At the national level and. Yeah, is it is there is there is there an easier is the answer to this I don't think so but maybe you have some some thoughts on this provocative question. It was directed to that it but I think all of you are have a lot to say on that. Yeah, we could have another webinar on that topic alone and I think I, I kind of like have an idea of where that question is coming from, but I think my own view to that. There's no easy answer as you said this scene know, for instance, I'm a believer that those countries that have really profited from the exploitation through colonialism etc etc. They should, you know, there should be a serious the growth initiative. But those countries that have yet to realize their potentials, you know, for the benefit of their people under different under democratic people centered governance etc. There should be a recognition of the right to development. It's debatable for instance in Venezuela. It's Venezuela is tricky. Of course, it's a petro state, but it's also facing a lot of pressure and you know economic sanctions etc etc. So there is no hard there's not one answer to all of it we, as you said we have to consider all aspects of it but I realize that countries that have been constrained by colonialism and unfair trade deals at the moment. They should be encouraged to exercise their national sovereignty and the right to development. Alex, yeah, I see you want to react. Yeah, maybe to add to that I think there definitely is this right to development that many of the, the underdevelopable previously previously colonialized or, you know, however you want to categorize countries that are that are struggling in the global south. And, and I think we also need to be careful about how we, we develop that idea of the right to develop, because I think part of the global Green New Deal framing is about providing the funding and the resources to allow for a different model of development. But if we aren't doing that we can't point fingers to countries and say don't develop your oil resources don't develop that. At the same time that the forms of development that oil and resource extraction often engender is a deeply unequal and harmful one. You know we see the example of Nigeria where you know there's vast energy poverty and vast poverty amidst some of the richest hydrocarbon extraction places in the world right and there's pollution that hits communities right by the the oil plants and extraction sites on receiving any of the benefits and we see in Mozambique are now oil multinational oil corporations are coming in under the guise of the right for Mozambique to develop but really what they're trying to do is a very extractive model where again they're just going to be taking all the profits out and so there is a sense in which this is right to develop is preyed on by a very profiteering corporate interests that will use it as as a mode of extraction, rather than as a mode of development. And so I think the global Green New Deal really needs to offer a meaningful alternative to states that often in a space of desperation are turning to extractivism and to very difficult relations with multinational corporations, as some of the few modes of development but often driven by predatory elites within those countries so you serve that that drive for development. So I think that's, yeah, that's one element there, I'll leave it there, thanks. Thanks a lot. Juliane, did you want to also answer that point? I think most is already said I cannot add much more, I just want to add one point that's like saying in the degross movement that degross does not mean less for all but more for many and less for few. And I think this is very true in this regard because both in the North and in the South inequalities are rising now and this is I think one point where there's a lot of room for change and there's not just too much poverty but also too much wealth in the world that creates a lot of problems. Thanks a lot. There is one final point that I think that was mentioned that I thought was kind of innovative and I've never thought about it and it's a very precise question and I think it's interesting because we've been going on that point about defounding the police and military questions and the question was how do we bring this question to spaces like the UNF triple triple C. So how do we bring those questions that are usually very directed to state level, the nation states, maybe to some spaces where, because we've mentioned the impacts, Well, we mentioned the financial aspect but there are also a lot of climate change aspects in the militaries and they are like the militaries are one of the biggest emitters as well. So how do we address this question at the international transnational level. And we have to be like I would have like one minute per person that would be perfect. And maybe how does it help also to change the dynamics that we were saying like can this be also an element of Yeah, maybe pushing for global South countries to have a lead on some aspects or to bring more new dynamics into those forums. I know I'm not helping with those unsuspected questions. But yeah, if no one wants to answer that's that's okay. If you know if you think that's I know I just want to ask a question back if this is really a North South question because working on the Middle Eastern North Africa where a lot of countries are really like like Egypt like really military Dictatorships. I'm not sure if these are the right. If they would be the first ones to call for the militarization know so I think this would need like social movements connecting between different countries but it's not actually a North South issue maybe. I think it's an important nexus climate change and militarization, but this has still to be developed like to form coalitions. Yeah, maybe to quickly chime in there I think there's definitely a science with a lot of countries in the south are implicated in that element to South Africa, often acts in a sub imperial role protecting fossil few interests like in Mozambique now. And in different spaces is driving that and Saudi Arabia and Israel form an unholy alliance that often tries to protect oil interest and facilitates us imperialism so there there really is a sense in which we need to unpack and tackle this. Some of the most powerful states in the world that are that are driving this and often the ones in the UNF triple C that also blocking climate action and pushing us backwards right and so unless we tackle those deep power structures. And often the forms of extortion that goes on with the UNF triple C where the US will make a conditional on this this and that going on here. If we're not tackling that those sorts of power relations I think we're going to be struggling to make meaningful change within the UNF triple C. And obviously makes this problem a lot harder and more intractable but unless we're thinking seriously about that it's hard to see the sorts of transformational change that really is what the global Green New Deal is about. Thank you. Did you want to add something. Yeah, a little bit of an advertisement because we have a participant here who comes from IPS Laura Steichen. They produce this excellent book no warming no no warming no war that makes that links about climate change and militarism. So it's really really good because they're already bringing this advocacy in the cop spaces know highlighting the role of the US government, but also broadening this conversation of on how you know corporate led environmental destruction. Usually with corporations coming from the global north, you know doing their business in the global south aided by the military and the police apparatus and corrupt governments in the global south so this whole infrastructure that really profits from extractivism that fuels climate crisis that brings about war, etc, etc. And so these are the things that we are already racing at the cop spaces. And I think in Madrid if this was really very evident during cop 25 civil society we were actually driven out of the cop you know by by private security forces that the UN has hired to protect government and corporation so people who are speaking truth to power were driven out of the UN space so I think this if this could really be you know a very important conversation I think we may have hit a very raw nerve and that could be the power that we we have yet to unleash. Well, thank you very much. Maybe we will we will wrap up and finish from the with those with those words. I would like to really to thank the how free panelist Juliana and Alex for those very great discussions today and thank also our participants who really engaged and triggered us and yeah, a load us to go into very important questions. I would like to remember the you that we, we are launching today actually the green deals. This publication by Juliana that you can find on our boats on our websites and how new websites that's the result of some of the foundation is actually providing to those kind of discussions we want to be enhancing and supporting those those discussions on global transformative plans. So on that note, thank you very much to to everyone who who attended and I think there are a lot of food for thoughts and for future discussions.