 Good morning and thank you all for joining us today at the U.S. Institute of Peace for this discussion. After COP 27, what's next for South Asia? My name is Thamena Salikuddin, I'm Director for South Asia Programs here at USIP. USIP is this country's national nonpartisan independent institute founded by Congress and dedicated to a proposition that a world without violent conflict is possible, practical and essential for U.S. and global security. This year this month, Nations of the World came together for the 27th UN Conference of the Parties, better known as COP 27, where a set of wide-ranging issues related to global climate change are discussed. This year, however, the most prominent topics of discussion were really climate justice, climate financing, loss and damage, issues that usually don't take center stage at these annual meetings. And it is my great privilege to be joined today by Ambassador Dan Feldman, a good friend, and has a lot of personal insight both on, I think, climate change, but specifically on South Asia. And so we're really interested, Dan, for you today to be providing your reflections on how COP 27 affects South Asia particularly, but how this COP 27 was different maybe from previous meetings on climate change. Dan was ambassador and U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the Department of State, and most recently, Ambassador Feldman was chief of staff and counselor to Secretary John Kerry when he was appointed the first special presidential envoy for climate. As part of Special Envoy Kerry's team, he helped drive the U.S. government's international climate agenda, coordinating high-level interagency policymaking, engaging with corporate stakeholders, and contributing to key bilateral and multilateral climate discussions, including last year's summit. So you are at COP 26. It'll be interesting to hear the differences between Glasgow and Sharmal Shake. Currently Ambassador Feldman is partner at Covington and Burling, where his practice focuses on environmental, social, and governance counseling, business and human rights, global public policy, and international regulatory compliance. He's a member of Covington's global problem-solving initiative, so hopefully you can help us solve some of these tough problems. Lots of problems to be solved. Yes. Well, welcome, Dan. I'm very excited. We have an online audience with us today. We'll have a conversation on a range of questions, and we invite you all online to send us your questions on usip.org or using the hashtag South Asia Climate. So, Dan, I'm very curious. You've been so involved both in South Asia and on climate. You were at COP 26 and now at COP 27. In your sense, how has the discussion around climate change differed? How has it grown and changed? But also, what does it mean for countries in the global south, and particularly for South Asia, where there's a lot of climate fragility? So these discussions were particularly important for them. I welcome your observations. Good. Well, thanks very much, Tamana. It's wonderful to be back here at USIP. It's been such an integral force in convening and the analysis on South Asia and the region for so many years. It was an enormously valuable partner, both when I was in government focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also on climate issues. So thanks for continuing the relationship and having me back here. As you noted, I was at COP 26 last year helping to basically lead the US delegation with Secretary Kerry. There were several hundred USG participants last year, primarily from the State Department, but a real whole government effort in terms of close to a dozen agencies represented, many at the secretarial level. And it was a very consequential COP last year. This year I was there as a private sector member in our practice, in our legal practice at Covington, where I co-chair the ESG efforts. There's increasingly a focus on these issues by a whole range of multinational companies. Many of them represented there, and that was, I think, one significant aspect about this, about COP and where COP's are headed in the future. Let me lay a little bit of groundwork first in terms of what it was meant to be and what it wasn't meant to be. It was never going to be as significant a COP as last year's for a variety of reasons, kind of very unique to the cadence and tempo of the way COP's run. So the Paris Agreement came out of COP 21 in 2015. At that time they talked about a five-year ratchet where this would be reviewed. And the Paris Agreement is what originated these nationally determined contributions, which countries would develop as they sought to meet the climate goals, which at Paris were well under a goal of two degrees Celsius rise from industrial level, and which at COP26 last year, with US leadership, we've kind of helped to recalibrate to ensure that we were trying to keep global warming to 1.5C alive. That is the goal in terms of what the science tells us that we can live with. Every tenth of a degree over that leads to extremely dire serious climate events. And we're already seeing that. And the estimates are that we're already at about 1.1. So the goal was really to keep to 1.5 and what countries would do to ensure that they were working towards a net zero goal by mid-century. And the steps they were undertaking now in these next few years to make sure that they could actually achieve that and keep on track for that. So that was a five-year period after 2015. There was no COP in 2020. So Glasgow was that first five-year period. There was enormous focus on it because as well they had missed a year. There was enormous focus because the US was back at the table after leaving Paris in the Trump administration. So the importance of US leadership was very acute last year in Glasgow. And there were still significant negotiations around key aspects that had to be worked out. So the Paris Rulebook negotiations were finally concluded last year. And there was a very significant announcement in the final agreement about this phase down of unabated coal use last year. This year none of those things were on the table. So we knew going into it in part because the Global South had focused for so many years on this loss and damage issue, what were the, how could their needs better be met by marshalling resources and developing some sort of compensation for these significant loss and damage events. They had been trying to get this on the agenda for many, many years unsuccessfully. And because it was hosted by Egypt and was therefore an Africa COP with many of the most vulnerable nations in Africa, obviously many in South Asia as well, this desire to make sure that loss and damage was adequately addressed was previewed as one of the more significant aspects of it. And against this backdrop you've had these extreme weather events of the last year, the historic just devastating floods obviously in Pakistan, but also events in Nigeria, in China, in Europe, in the US. You know, we're seeing this increasingly all over. And so the need became much more acute to try to develop this. You also had these headwinds of the Ukraine invasion and what that did to global energy markets. And so at the moment that countries were trying to develop a path to net zero, there was suddenly an overreliance on fossil fuels again, which took us in the wrong direction, at least hopefully just temporarily. And so there's a range of kind of key issues on climate finance, on climate adaptation, on mitigation, most importantly, that are all being queued up for next year's COP, which will be in Dubai. So we weren't sure exactly what would come out of this year. It was a, as we wrote in our kind of summary of it right afterwards, it was a flawed but still quite consequential COP, in large part because of what was ultimately done with loss and damage. So the global south and kind of significant tensions with the global north did manage to get it on the agenda in the opening days of COP for the first time ever. And now that it was on the agenda, it means that it will likely permanently be on the agenda. So this will be now part of the annual discourse in terms of what's needed. What was very unclear is, and there were caveats to it being on the agenda, including that it would not deal with issues of liability in particular, which is what the global north is most concerned about. What was less clear is whether there would be an actual fund that emerged from it. There's been a commitment since Paris to try to galvanize as much finance as necessary for those who need it, up to $100 billion a year. That was supposed to have been done by 2020 and we're still not there yet. Getting closer, we're depending how you count the count funding. It's probably hovering in the low 90, but we're not at the 100 billion level yet. There's commitments on adaptation that haven't yet been met. And so the idea was, is it most effective to have yet another new fund? And how will this actually work? And we're all concerned by the global north. What happened in the closing days is that there was an announcement that there would be a fund. It was brokered mostly by the EU, which came out in the last 48 hours and threw its support for it. And then ultimately the US and others also said they supported it. But the devil will be in the details. And so that's what we don't really have to talk about yet. And they committed to putting together a technical committee that we'll start meeting next year. And then many of these details will hopefully be hammered out at next year's COP in Dubai. But these are really difficult questions. What countries will pay into this? What countries will be able to take advantage of it? How much money will there be? How will it be administered in what sorts of activities? And it's hard to imagine that there will be a whole lot of new funding for something like this. And especially in the US, where we've very successfully quadrupled the amount of climate finance that we've been able to contribute in since the beginning of the Biden administration. We're now up to a commitment of about $11 billion for FY24. But that it will be very hard to get beyond that, especially with now a Republican House. And so whether money will have to be moved from one fund to another to help contribute to this or find some other ways, I think is going to be quite difficult. That's on the loss and damage piece. And that's certainly the most consequential piece. And I think of note, the conversation just changed dramatically around that. I mean, this was something that we weren't really even talking about in any sort of official way. And even at the beginning days of COP, it seemed unlikely that there would be a fund. So the fact that this was actually announced was seen as a significant win by the global south. In other ways, it really fell short of what we needed right now. The science, I mean, is demonstrated by the climate events of this past year. But the science as put out by kind of the key UN entities and bodies assessing this are all ringing the alarm bells about what we need to do to reduce emissions. And the best way that we can reduce emissions is to cut CO2 use, particularly coal, but also other core fossil fuels. And expedite and accelerate the path to renewables and to non-fossil fuels. And that has to be done much, much more rapidly. And the world is really not on pace for that. So to do that more, there was an effort, for example, to say that we needed to peak all coal and fossil fuel use by 2025. And that did not make it into the final agreement. Countries were asked to come with a more accelerated NDC, nationally determined contribution plan. And only about 30 did. And though we estimate now that roughly two-thirds of the world's GDP is aligned with that 1.5C goal, there's some really tough nuts to crack that remain not aligned with that. And we did not see much progress in those areas. So at the very moment that we need to really accelerate, I mean, having a 2050 goal, net zero goal is great. But if you're not on track by 2030, there's no way that you can keep that alive. And to be on track by 2030 means taking policy and regulatory decisions now. I mean, this is the year. These are the few months that are actually going to be critically important. And that sense of urgency did not come out of this COP. Very interesting. I mean, I think your comments about loss and damage are really interesting. And that loss and damage is sort of the thing that everyone's touting as the big accomplishment of this COP. And yet, there isn't a timeline for operationalizing the funds or how the funds would be received or who gets them. And all of that is technical details that hopefully will be done by next year. But I want to pull back and think about what does this actually mean for South Asia? The countries in South Asia are particularly vulnerable to climate change and climate-related crises, as we're seeing flooding in Pakistan, but elsewhere as well, droughts and flooding in India. When you talk about countries being ready to meet that 2050 goal and to treat this as the crisis that the science shows it is, what was your sense from the South Asian countries at COP? How are they preparing? Are they prepared? Are they taking this seriously? Or are they only relying on sort of loss and damage and the money that will come in from elsewhere? I mean, what are they doing internally to really think about this crisis? So there's traditionally been several key pillars of the COP. And most people think of it, had thought of it to date as mitigation, the efforts to get countries to reduce emissions, to align with 1.5 as much as possible. And then adaptation, the kind of resiliency aspect. So building seawalls, developing advanced warning systems for climate events. And now we've added loss and damage to this. What ties all those together is going to be climate finance, because there are also estimates that came out, that have been coming out fairly regularly, but some very significant ones came out just in advance of COP, which suggests that we need to be spending upwards of $4 trillion a year for many years to come to be able to actually galvanize the investments in new technology to keep 1.5 alive. And what governments can do is just drop in the bucket of that ultimately. So that can only be done by engaging the private sector, making them a part of that. And that's one of the reasons why I think the very robust private sector delegations there were important. And I think a real positive signal about where the private sector sees itself in the coming years, although also fraught with issues. How is there transparency and accountability for what they're actually doing? What are allegations of greenwashing? And so how do you work through all these issues? For South Asia, I hope that now that the loss and damage fund has been established, that it will be funded in the way that's needed. And certainly there are many countries in the region, as most dramatically represented by Pakistan this past year, that would really need that assistance. By the same token, I think it's really taking advantage of the adaptation aspect that's going to be particularly important for some of these countries. So ensuring that they have systems in place, communications, pilot projects, working on a whole range of agricultural efforts, engaging women and others in the countries through environmental justice initiatives. There's a whole range of other programs that hopefully they will be able to better leverage. And some of them have done quite a good job on this already. The Global North is trying to make as many funds available in different ways as possible for some of these. But it's still a slow process. And then against the backdrop of that, we have to make sure that we continue the mitigation efforts as best as possible. Because without those mitigation efforts, the adaptation needs and the loss and damage needs are just going to grow exponentially. And you can't meet those. So we've got to try to be doing all these things at the same time. In the region, the only country that's in the top 20 meters is India. And so continuing to work very closely with India on their efforts will be very important. In other countries, I traveled to India last year with Secretary Kerry for one of his trips. He's been there now several times, meeting with Prime Minister Modi and others about the initially 4,500 megawatt, now it's 5,000, effort to put renewables on the grid by 2030. If they're actually able to keep to that commitment, that would align them with 1.5. But there's enormous needs in terms of financing those efforts to help them to get there. And in the meantime, they have one of the most significant coal pipelines still. So after China, they're the next biggest. So this is going to be quite important. But then with countries across the region, so when we were in India last April, we also were able to make a quick trip to Bangladesh, talking about mitigation issues there, but also a whole range of adaptation efforts that a broad swath of our interagency is involved in, whether it's USAID or TDA or DFC or others, there are very creative programs increasingly focused on adaptation. And one of the goals out of COP has been doubling the amount of funding that is going specifically to adaptation. Very interesting. I want to drill down a little bit on India. I mean, India, as you mentioned, is the largest emitter in South Asia. But it's also welcomed loss and damage. It has announced that it has a plan to reach net zero by 2070. And it is the United States' strongest partner in the region. It's part of the Quad. It's part of IPEF. All of these things have a climate agenda within them. How does the US government envision cooperation with India to further mitigation and our other climate goals? Both, obviously, in India, but in the broader Indo-Pacific region. I mean, has India been able? Are we on the same page with them? What are the things we're doing? And where can we be doing more? Yeah. So from the very outset of the Biden administration, when Secretary Kerry came in as the first special presidential envoy, he really laid out a goal to try to drive the mitigation agenda. But it's possible. And that really meant working particularly with the 20 top emitters in the world, which are responsible for over 80% of the world's emissions. So China is number one at over 30%. That's around 32%. The US is number two, but about 11% and dropping. We're cutting our emissions. The EU, if you count it collectively, is about the same. But any member state is only about 1% or 2%. And then you have India at about 7%. And those emissions are rising. After that, you have Russia at about 5%. And then a series of other countries, around 2%, 3%. But which are significant in some of them are quite difficult. Brazil until the recent elections, in that category, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Australia until the recent elections. So each country, Indonesia, each country has their own set of challenges in terms of how they would actually align with 1.5%. But given India's importance on this, this was developing that relationship and further strengthening. It was very critical to Secretary Kerry from his first days. And it was, as I said, one of the first countries that he visited, even in the midst of COVID lockdowns in April 21 of last year, again in September, and has made other trips there. As I said, the commitment for the 4,500 or now 5,000 gigawatts would keep them aligned with 1.5%. But at the same time, they're continuing coal use and reliance on fossil fuels. They've done some things very, very well. They really are developing significant renewable energy efforts, what they've put into issues like solar and some wind and some other kind of traditional renewables is very significant and should be a model. But their needs are also so great that we'll need to continue to try to marshal finance efforts for there. And so we've talked quite a bit within our own interagency, the types of projects that we could help contribute to, as well as with key partners globally. And this is where I think India is being part of the Quad. The climate was one of the three key pillars of the initial Quad discussions and continues to be. And we'll continue to try to use that and leverage it more. Other kind of regional architecture, including with Israel and the UAE at this point, as well as with the US. And there's been some very creative dynamic projects recently announced between Israel, Jordan, UAE, on desalinated water for solar. But great interest from the region that I think they're also looking at significant investment opportunities out of the Gulf and out of the broader region in India. And then trying to create the environment to bring down their coal use and hopefully limit it more. It's interesting that last year, in last year's COP26, it was China with India that changed the final language from a phase out to a phase down of coal. This year, India supported a phase down of all fossil fuels, although that didn't make it into the final text. But it's a critical partner, but with a number of continuing challenges. And certainly the view of the US is the way to address those is through continuing engagement. So we set up any number of partnerships throughout the interagency to continue to foster this. There's been very good working relationships through our energy department with counterparts through USAID, certainly obviously through the State Department. And so I think the breadth and depth of those interagency partnerships and the way that energy and particularly focus on clean energy and ensuring the finances there for clean energy is going to continue to be a real hallmark of the relationship. Very interesting. I want to move to Pakistan. So the floods earlier this year in Pakistan really drew attention to the dangers of climate change, climate conflict within the region. But I think Pakistan was a huge driving force behind the effort on the loss and damage fund. They very much welcomed that. But during your tenure as SRAP, you had the opportunity to visit Pakistan in the 2010 floods, which were devastating. And then Secretary Kerry, when he was there, he was one of the first high level visits to Pakistan. What do you see is the difference? When we're talking about mitigation, what are the things between 2010 and now? Is Pakistan ready for the next climate crisis? What does it need to be doing? Are there better ways for the international community to be helping Pakistan to prepare? Because it's not if, it's when the next climate crisis is coming. Yeah. Yeah, that was certainly one of the trips I remember extremely well because of just seeing the devastation. At that point, actually, it was then Senator Kerry, who was chair of the Senate Formulations Committee. Ambassador Holbrook was still the special representative. I was his deputy. It was occurring in summer of 2010. And I was yanked from a family vacation and went out with Senator Kerry as the first high level US delegation to tour the floods and to help deliver the initial tranche of US assistance. And we flew by helicopter over Multan over large areas of squalled rivers. And it was very, very sobering. What I think, and with the caveat that I haven't stayed, particularly involved on Pakistan issues since I left that role in 2015, what I think Pakistan did very well then, and again, seemingly quite well after these historic flooding which impacted such an enormously high percentage of the Pakistani population, is in the initial relief and providing of humanitarian assistance. I think the interagency, civ mill cells that were set up, the distribution of assistance, the initial response on camps, they're supplying food. I think all of that Pakistan can do quite well. I think where there obviously need to be much more focus and energy going forward is how do they put together an action plan and a system that helps address this preemptively. So are the communication systems in place? Are there early warning systems? What is the relationship like between the federal and provincial and local governments on much of this? Are the adaptation measures in place that help to address agricultural needs? Is there adequate weather tracking? I mean, there are any number of things which I think will not just be Pakistan. Virtually every country in the world is going to have to deal with it. I think the estimates are that over three billion of the world's current population lives in areas that are significantly climate impacted. But we will all need to do this much more comprehensively, much more systemically, much more preemptively, because this is going to happen again. I mean, when we toured in 2010, the sense was this was once in a century, once in a millennium occasion. Clearly, when it's much worse just 12 years later, that belies that. And we have to plan for this now on a much more regular basis. So my understanding just from hearing Pakistani political leadership and military leadership is they recognize this has to be done, but the proof will be in the pudding in terms of what's actually developed and implemented. And obviously it's hard to do at the moment that you're still dealing with the immediate after effects and the urgency of the now takes over from the planning for the future. But we know that this will occur now. We're in a world where these events will happen. And given Pakistan's geography, it seems like it will be particularly impacted by this. So let's try to ensure that we can invest in these adaptation efforts to forestall the worst of the loss and damage needs. No, of course. And I think it's very interesting that you're talking about this is not just a Pakistan problem. This is so many countries are vulnerable. And I think Bangladesh, India, Nepal, they're all countries that are highly vulnerable, susceptible to the impact of climate change. And at COP 27 specifically, these three countries were recognized by UNEP for innovative community level. Adaptation efforts. And I think that's a really important thing that the community level is where we start. But whether it's floods or droughts or other severe related disasters, is there a systemic way for these countries to cooperate? Is there something that the US can do to help them? Or are there regional forums, pathways for cooperation? Obviously one might be Sark, but is the Quad or some other format a good way to help them cooperate? Because they're facing many of the similar. Challenges. Well, in our time working in government together, we often refer to this region as the least integrated region of the world. And I think, unfortunately, that probably remains the case. So clearly the regional architecture is necessary there in terms of what's the best vehicle for that. I'm not sure. But I know that I was just looking through some of the announcements that President Biden made when he spoke at COP, and if you are interested, it's a very good lay down of what the US has done to date, as well as some of the key initiatives. But there was a significant effort, emphasis there on what we would be doing on adaptation with the PREPARE program in particular, as well as unleashing potential resources from a range of interagency. And so there was even just a fact sheet from the TDA about specific programs it was doing in Pakistan and Bangladesh and in India, pilot projects, contingency planning, scoping of potential. You know, there's a lot of thinking and trying to marshal resources to address these on a bilateral basis. But then I think it will likely fall to the region to figure out in some part what the regional architecture is that can best improve that. But I think that that would be an area that the Global North would be quite interested in helping to foster and facilitate, because I do think those linkages will be important in developing best practices, economies of scale, and these global events obviously are not limited to national geographic boundaries. And this is a case we frequently make to those who are still emitting quite a bit as well and who say, well, we need this to reach our own level of development. But the fact is it's a global amount at this point. So yes, we understand the case that the U.S. and other developed nations had the ability to emit as they did, as they were industrializing. We don't have that luxury at this point. And there's real opportunities in transitioning to a renewable future that this can be real economic engines as well. I mean, this provides enormous new opportunities as we move to not only traditional solar, wind, nuclear, but next generation issues on battery life, on green hydrogen, on a range of other very innovative kind of technologies that I think can revolutionize this and where there's potentially a lot of money to be made as well as helping to change the trajectories of these countries. I want to build on that point. So the technologies and the options for the future, you mentioned the private sector played a very prominent role at COP 27. I mean, some companies are really making efforts to be more responsive to environmental concerns, but there was a lot of greenwashing and a lot of concerns about fossil field companies being at COP 27. But I want to ask you in practical terms, what can both international but also regional and domestic corporations in South Asia, what role can they play to really actually where the rubber meets the road on climate change effects? I think there's enormous opportunity and potential for real work. As I said, the estimates of the investments that have to be made and the trillions of dollars annually are just nothing that is even in the ballpark of what we're talking about for government's ability to allocate, to appropriate and to spend. So it really has to be carried forward by the private sector. But you're right. The issue then is how do you ensure that this is real, tangible, implementable, accountable progress? And that will rely on transparency, I think more than anything, in terms of companies sharing what they're actually doing, being open to that, engaging with a range of stakeholders and having some kind of accountability mechanisms. But this impacts virtually every sector out there. I mean, yes, there were extractive companies represented at COP. Some of them who are really trying to diversify, perhaps others who are not and just hoping to get the credit for being there. But look at agribusiness companies and how the whole agricultural landscape is shifting so much and what that means. Look at transportation companies. There was a launch of a green shipping quarter initiative at COP this year. But also, things like sustainable aviation fuels and for airlines. There was a launch, President Biden and Secretary Kerry last year helped launch the First Movers Coalition, which is now about 50 or 60 of the major multinationals, but in particularly hard to debate sectors like construction and shipping and aviation. Financial services firms, in terms of marshalling their resources to invest in companies, I believe, in ESG. In virtually any way, you can find a role for the private sector. And it's going to be an ongoing conversation about what they're actually doing, how they're engaging, what the impact ultimately is. But there's real, there's both a need and I think a desire to help on this and key parts of the private sector. Very interesting. And connecting it to the countries who are in acute economic crisis. Sri Lanka first among them in South Asia, but definitely Pakistan and other countries. They're facing these economic stresses and when they go to multilateral institutions like the IMF, like the World Bank, what is the way to balance their immediate needs, their economic crises, and the need for continued investment on climate change? I mean, there's some talk of changes at the IMF at World Bank to actually balance this. What are your thoughts on it and how far along is this conversation? It was really aired and on the table at this COP and I think will continue to be a key area of focus on the issue of MDB reform and how it can better align itself with what the climate needs are. And obviously for key countries, as you mentioned, to access that will be quite important. I think the general sense is that some of the regional banks are doing better, including the ADB, but that it's lagging at the World Bank and elsewhere. And so there was, I think, a real effort to push some of the key MDBs further on this and to have it as part of the agenda and hopefully that will continue to bear fruit and certainly something that the U.S. interagency and Secretary Yellen has been quite focused on as well. So you see there may be progress by the next COP or it's slower than that? I think anything that takes place within an MDB setting is unfortunately maybe too slow for some of these countries. A little bit slow, but the recognition of the need for action is there. And I think I would hope that there's some significant action on that front by COP 28. Great. I'm going to turn to, we have some great audience questions and I invite everybody online to please send us your questions at usip.org or using our hashtag South Asia Climate. We have a really interesting question about China and the Indo-Pacific. What is the role, the greater focus obviously of the U.S. on the Indo-Pacific, how can we see the region of the Indo-Pacific and the Quad working on climate change and is there any role for China? How do we actually manage China and China's impact on climate change in the region? I'm so glad you asked that because it was one of the things I had actually meant to flag at the very outset in terms of what had been accomplished at COP 27 and hadn't yet. But as I said, from the very opening days of the administration sector, Kerry was quite focused on the world's biggest emitters and obviously China with 32, 33 percent of world's emissions is the most important to engage and between China and the U.S. we're approaching 50 percent of the world's emissions. So there has to be a dialogue between those two countries. If there's not and if China can't meet a net zero goal by mid-century, it's more 20, 55 I think or 20, 60 in their five-year plans, but if they can't then there's no way that the world stays on course for a 1.5 future. So there has to be that. And so Secretary Kerry, despite all the other turbulence in the U.S.-China bilateral relationship over the last year and a half has, with the support of the administration, has sought to ensure that there was a channel that could still speak about climate and try to accomplish something here. And that was in the midst of COVID last year and with Chinese lockdown. Secretary Kerry went there twice. And retained an ongoing conversation with his Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, who he had known for many years since in all the years working on climate and the international stage together. So last year there was some significant announcements, including from when Secretary Kerry visited China at one point and they put out a joint statement on this. And culminating in the announcement in Glasgow last year where they would form a methane working group together, China did not become a signatory of the global methane pledge, but as the world's greatest emitter of methane as well, they did commit to developing this an action plan, a work plan together, together with the U.S. last year in Glasgow. There were also some other significant announcements last year by China, including when President Xi announced at UNGA last year that China would stop funding coal internationally. But did not say anything about continued funding of coal domestically, nor commit to an earlier peaking date of the reliance on coal or fossil fuels before what they currently have. So there were some significant announcements, but not still likely enough to make sure that we're on track for 1.5. After Glasgow last year, given the turbulence in the bilateral relationship between U.S. and China, there wasn't nearly as much conversation as we had all hoped. And so what was significant at Sharma Sheikh this year is that given the conversation that President Biden, President Xi had in Bali, that they were able to reopen climate discussions as well. And that is just a critical channel to ensure that we try to keep every effort alive of meeting 1.5. Very interesting. We have some great questions coming in. South Asia's climate change adaptation will depend in large part on water cooperation from source to sea, a cooperation with China. What regional progress did COP 27 make in this area? Was this even discussed in terms of water cooperation and adaptation? I don't know enough about that. COP is a, I mean, there were 45,000 official delegates there. And it's an inherently chaotic environment and I think even more so this year because the logistical challenges of doing it in a place like Sharma were quite hard. So there were undoubtedly water conversations but whether they were part of official dialogues or not or anything else I couldn't tell you. There's a question on climate-induced migration and this is something we at USIP care a lot about because South Asia has a high level of climate-induced migration and it leads to conflict, obviously. But were there any discussions specific and I don't think migration was a real focus of COP 27 but were there any discussions on small island states and forced migration as island nations in the Indian Ocean become increasingly susceptible to submersion in the coming years? I mean, this is something that you hear in the Maldives from Bangladesh, from Sri Lanka, parts of these countries are going to be just unlivable, right? And you're having forced migration. Is there any thought whether it was at COP but within the US government on how we are going to be working with these countries in terms of this forced migration? Yeah, certainly enormous emphasis especially on some of the small island states that and others that you referenced. And so I think the loss and damage piece will certainly is meant to in part provide for some of the needs of this but how that will actually be operationalized I think in terms of what that means for climate refugees is still to be determined. There is an increasing talk about that both refugees and I think probably more accurately IDPs within countries that have to move and I think an estimate that there were over 20 million climate IDPs last year and the numbers could be in the hundreds of millions by a decade from now or by mid-century. But I think the other piece of that so there's the operational aspect of how to meet needs of specific refugee communities at this point. The overarching goal though still is that I think through adaptation mechanisms the estimates of IOM and others is that you could greatly reduce the number of IDPs that would actually face those consequences through better early warning systems and kind of a whole range of other adaptation initiatives that is the reason we're increasingly trying to provide a higher kind of more emphasis on what those needs are. That was what the global goal on adaptation is all about which is going to also be hammered out over the next year the President Biden's announcement on doubling the U.S. commitment to adaptation but all that is in part to be able to address the issue of climate migration and then next year we kind of touched on this question a little bit next year's COP is looking to be like it will be more consequential on several of these issues clearly on loss and damage but also on the global goal on adaptation on climate finance and most importantly it'll be the first global stock take where countries report back on are we actually meeting our goals exactly where we're headed on their on their NDCs and so this kind of effort at self-accountability is a really important one all this the mechanics of much of these things will be worked at over the next year hopefully culminating in Dubai next year yeah you and I have been to many pledging conferences no one follows up to to see for actually meeting our promises it's the implementation piece that's important interestingly Secretary Kerry talked about this COP from the very outset he gave the first major speech on it in Cairo in February as about implementation plus it was always known that this was going to be less glamorous in terms of like making these commitments and more what are you actually doing I think one of the things that came out of this COP is that implementation ties into all these other issues it ties into environmental justice it ties into adaptation it ties into increasingly the loss and damage agenda and so it's hard to to look at it discreetly without getting into kind of all these other aspects as well yeah no this is great now Dan I've really enjoyed hearing your insights on COP 27 specifically but more broadly I think I want to wrap up our discussion with some bigger picture sort of thoughts from you you know young people around the world really have been a powerful voice in the fight against climate change and South Asia we talk about the youth bulge all the time these are countries the vast majority of young people and this is their future right so what advice are you giving or would you give to these massive youth populations across South Asia I mean their initiatives like international climate change university proposed by Sri Lanka you know if it had the right investments but there are youth who care about the future of their country they're less worried about other immediate conflict but they know the climate conflict is coming and what advice do you give them in terms of how they can work together how they can mobilize but how they can have their voices heard in this debate first of all I think everybody in the climate community welcomes the the youth voice in this because it's so important because they're the ones that are going to have to deal with this mess over the course of their lives and continue to try to mitigate it as as best as possible I don't know if there's a single answer to what that means but it's certainly a kind of encouraging an amplification of those voices I understand you know the allure of Greta Thunberg and others and I think she has really managed to focus global attention on this in a very unique way on the other hand and I can understand why she you know refers to events like COP as more you know blah blah blah it seems like it's just more long-term talking and yet I don't know another vehicle that would provide the opportunity to engage in these ways and so I'd rather use what we have and try to make it more effective and efficient and ensure that those voices are part of this then try to devise something new I mean this has now been going on for close to 30 years and we need to try to continue to make sure that it is that it has impact but but starting from scratch on something else I don't I don't see being efficient so whether it's elevating youth voices at these COP's which we certainly try to do and I know Secretary Kerry always makes an effort to meet with the kind of youth activists there whether it's empowering you through U.S. initiatives and there was something announced by President Biden on youth initiatives there but I think I think particularly in some of these key countries so places in the region in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and others making sure that there's a platform given given to these voices whether it's through an educational institution whether it's it's through protesting whether it's through running pilot projects but we need to ensure that this demographic is a core part of the discourse because they're going to be the ones that we'll have to implement or deal with the consequences if we don't act effectively in the next few years hmm lastly I want to you know you mentioned the U.S. coming back into Paris was really welcomed around the world both at Glasgow, Sharma and Sheikh the U.S. has played a leadership role especially since the beginning of the Biden administration to really tackle climate change in a holistic way the work you did with special envoy Kerry it's testament to that but I mean what is the longer term vision how can the United States be working with South Asia in particular but countries in the global south what do you see as as the future of this and how can we be better facilitating this work in the region yeah well first of all let me say you know I think that U.S. leadership on this over the last almost two years since being invited in the administration has been enormously consequential I think that it we're not in great shape now as I said we're already at 1.1 C rise the estimates are that we were that we're currently on a trajectory of kind of 2.4 to 2.8 depending on the analysis but coming into 2021 it looked like we were well over three three and a half and I think the actions that President Biden administration took from day one including rejoining Paris on day one have made a significant difference showing that we're walking the talk in our own nationally determined contribution that we announced last year where we committed to cutting emissions 50 to 52 percent by 2030 to try to be on track for a net zero by mid-century was critically important but just as important as putting out that NDC was passing the IRA recently and showing that we actually would put the funding and assistance into into the effort to meet our those those 2030 goals but I think through any number of efforts through marshaling the rest of the global community around 1.5 through holding the major economies forum which are effectively the major emitters as well through quadrupling you know climate finance through IRA through infrastructure through Kigali I mean through any number of things we've we've really helped lead it there is certainly a concern heard around the world that you know what happens if the pendulum swing the political pendulum swings back and then Anex the next administration takes us back out of Paris and does a range of other things I think that at this point there's a degree of future proofing in all this and in part this is also the reason why it's so important that the private sector is so engaged the funding is now there to help McAlvinize and move us and we have to continue that process but it's also going to be important to ensure that there's a lot of other leadership out there and so state and local efforts are enormously important and in a place like Brazil where you couldn't get good federal you know significant federal action to still try to do it at the provincial level was very important and you see many models like that and then obviously the the private sector as well which looks at the ability to both make money and be helping on the road to a to a net zero future through renewables I think we'll have to continue to to leverage to adapt or if necessary to create the new kind of regional architecture to best incentivize this and so in a place like South Asia whether that's increased bilateral efforts between the U.S. and a range of these countries or between the EU and others whether it's multilateral efforts or most importantly I think are the are the regional efforts that we can then try to support and empower in a range of ways and then I think the really critical piece is finding the finance and matching it with the needs in many of these places so again trying to tap that from a whole variety of sources whether it's through global climate funds whether it's through specific initiatives of other countries in the region or others elsewhere but continuing to demonstrate that we can implement and operationalize the commitments already made and match resources to needs will be I think the area of most focus particularly an area like South Asia well thank you so much Ambassador Dan Feldman has been a pleasure to talk to you about this and it's such an interesting and you know developing area we want to continue to check back in with you and hopefully there are benchmarks that we're hitting by the next COP I want to thank all of you online for joining USIP today to talk about climate change COP 27 and South Asia we hope you'll join us again online to continue our discussion of all things South Asia so thanks so much thank you thank you Dan