This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, this is Democracy Now!, broadcasting at the U.N. climate summit, COP30, here in the Brazilian city of Belém, the gateway to the Amazon. I’m Amy Goodman.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And I’m Nermeen Shaikh. Welcome to our listeners and viewers across the country and around the world.
As negotiations draw to a close, nations are still sharply divided over the future of fossil fuels. Delegates representing dozens of countries have rejected a draft climate agreement that does not include a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. Over 30 nations from Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Pacific, the United Kingdom, as well as European Union member states, have co-signed a letter opposing Brazil’s draft proposals. The signatories include Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, Sweden, France, Palau and Vanuatu.
AMY GOODMAN: While petrostates, including Saudi Arabia and Russia, as well as some of the world’s largest fossil fuel consumers, China and India, reportedly rejected the proposal to transition away from fossil fuels, the U.S. did not even send an official delegation here to COP30, with the Trump administration boycotting the climate talks.
On Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres took questions from the press. This was the BBC.
JUSTIN ROWLATT: Secretary-General, what message do you want this conference to send to Donald Trump?
SECRETARY–GENERAL ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: We are waiting for you.
JUSTIN ROWLATT: Do you see a possibility of him engaging in this process in a positive way?
SECRETARY–GENERAL ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: Hope is the last thing that dies.
AMY GOODMAN: After the news conference, I attempted to follow up with U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres.
AMY GOODMAN: Secretary-General, what message do you think Trump’s not sending a high-level delegation — I’m Amy Goodman from Democracy Now! … Can you respond to the huge fossil fuel delegation that’s here, over 1,600 lobbyists? Should the U.S. ban the fossil fuel lobbyists?
AMY GOODMAN: Soon after U.N. secretary-general’s news conference on Thursday, COP30 negotiations were abruptly disrupted when a large fire broke out here at the conference site, shutting down the venue for hours into the night. About 30,000 people were evacuated, 13 people treated for smoke inhalation. The fire is a metaphor for the state of the negotiations and the planet, as the U.N. warns nations have made very little progress in the fight against climate change, putting the world on track toward dangerous global warming as greenhouse gas emissions remain too high.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: A recent annual emissions gap report suggested countries will not be able to prevent global warming from surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is the main goal of the Paris Agreement that was brokered a decade ago. Experts have said warming is likely to reach between 2.3 and 2.5 degrees Celsius, with the possibility of even higher temperatures if countries don’t fulfill their current climate pledges.
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu from the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, one of the dissenting countries.
Minister, we welcome you back to Democracy Now! We spoke to you when you were at The Hague just a few months ago. But if you can start off by talking about what just happened? You just came over to_Democracy Now!_ after participating in a press conference. There is going to be the final draft coming out of this U.N. climate summit, but then there’s also the Belém Declaration. Explain both.
RALPH REGENVANU: So, earlier this morning, we were informed by the presidency that there are about 80 countries who have put a red line on any mention of fossil fuels in the outcome from this meeting, this UNFCCC process, this COP. Any mention is a red line for them.
But I just came from a press conference where over 80 countries announced they will be meeting in Colombia next year, in April, for the first-ever conference of state parties on developing a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. So, this is a voluntary initiative outside of the UNFCCC process, which Colombia’s minister of environment announced. And as I said, we were joined by over 80 countries.
And this is something we want to do in response to the lack of a roadmap coming out of Belém. We were expecting, based on President Lula’s statement at the beginning of the COP, that there would be a roadmap. We were expecting that roadmap to come out, but it seems like it’s not going to. But at least we have this other process that is now underway.
AMY GOODMAN: What happened?
RALPH REGENVANU: We had over 80 states, we were informed by the presidency, who basically said, “We will not entertain any mention of fossil fuels in the outcome statement from the Belém COP.” And I find that astounding, considering that we all know that fossil fuels contribute to 86% of emissions that are causing climate harm, that is endangering the future of our islands and all countries in the world. It’s the future of humanity that’s being endangered by fossil fuel production. We had the ICJ advisory opinion earlier this year clearly stating that all countries have a legal obligation to wind back fossil fuel production and take steps within their territories to transition away. We had a — the ICJ also said, very clearly, 1.5 degrees Celsius is the legal benchmark. And here at COP, we’re seeing countries questioning and wanting to remove reference to 1.5.
So, it’s really astounding, the fact that we have scientific clarity, the IPCC has clearly given us all the guidelines we need, now we have legal clarity from the world’s highest court, and yet we don’t see the political action coming from states who are members of the United Nations and members of the international order. And the fact that they are refusing to accept the best scientific evidence and legal obligations as defined by the world’s highest court is quite astounding to countries that want to see real action.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Minister Regenvanu, if you could explain, what were the countries that were most opposed to coming up with this roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels?
RALPH REGENVANU: Well, clearly, there’s the Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the most vocal in blocking and obstructing any progress. We also have the — what they call the LMDC group, which is made up of high emitters, as well, from developing countries. We saw blockage also from the EU on adaptation finance, which is one of the big calls from the developing countries. We need more finance, as outlined in the Paris Agreement, for developing countries to be able to meet targets they set for themselves. So, but in terms of a fossil fuel roadmap, the big blockers are LMDC, Arab group.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Minister, if you could say more about climate finance? You’ve said in the past that climate finance is not charity. It’s a legal and moral obligation grounded in responsibility and capacity, as affirmed by Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement.
RALPH REGENVANU: Yes, I mean, the world has agreed in Paris that there is such a thing as climate finance from the developed, high-emitting countries to be provided to the developing, low-emitting countries to help them transition away. And what we’re talking about is a just and orderly transition away from fossil fuels. For countries that have fossil fuel already, production, that they can move away from that. For countries that have not entered that pathway, they can also move out of that. So, it’s for everybody to participate.
But certain countries don’t have the finances we need, like Vanuatu. We have a — we are a very small country, just graduated from least developed country status. Our existing budgets are being halved by having to deal with climate crisis, responding to extreme weather events. We need money to help us move.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain. Tell us about how climate change affects. Vanuatu, the low-lying Pacific island nations, the idea that some of these countries will disappear.
RALPH REGENVANU: Yes, we have countries like Tuvalu and Kiribati, for example. They are coral atoll countries. Those countries, their land does not go higher than two meters above sea level. So, already they’re losing. They have lost entire islands. And according to the scientific consensus, they will lose their entire countries in the next hundred years. So these are states that will be gone from the map.
Vanuatu is fortunate in that we are higher islands, but we also are losing most of our low-lying areas, where a lot of agriculture is, a lot of people live. So, for us, we are independent, politically independent states. We have decided on how we want to develop our countries. But we cannot. Our futures are being curtailed by the conduct of other large states, who don’t seem to care whether we have human rights equivalent to them, and basically, through their actions, are curtailing our futures, and especially for our younger generations.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: If you could go back — let’s go back to the question of climate finance, which is what is essential to prevent what you’re saying. What did this draft call for? It did say that we should triple, that states should triple the financing available to help countries adapt to climate change, so — change by 2030 from 2025 levels. So, in other words, within five years, triple the financing.
RALPH REGENVANU: Yes, that is what we’ve been asking for. I don’t know. I think it’s a red line. I don’t think it’ll get in the final text. But the point I want to make about climate finance is there are so many billions of dollars going into the fossil fuel industry, which is the cause of the climate crisis. If we get that money out of what is causing the climate crisis, we do have the funding available to help us with this transition, this tripling of adaptation finance we’re talking about. It’s very clear to us: You need to transition away from fossil fuels, is the way to get that finance that we are needing.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And where would the finance come from? What countries?
RALPH REGENVANU: From the fossil fuel industry, from the subsidies that are provided. We just see governments giving huge handouts to fossil fuel companies to continue to extend the production pipeline. But in reality, we’re seeing the entire world starting to move away. We are seeing the green energy revolution already in place. We are seeing many countries already getting more than half their energy needs from renewable energy. So, this is happening. It’s just obstinance and vested interests and profit that is keeping the fossil fuel pipeline alive.
AMY GOODMAN: Are these COPs worth it? I mean, you have, yes, the largest Indigenous population accredited here, moving in on a thousand, but you have well over 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists. What kind of effect does that have? And the fact that just mentioning the F-word, what Kumi Naidoo called, fossil fuels, has been completely nixed in this. Now, Brazilian President Lula says he is going to South Africa, to the G20, with this declaration calling for a transition away. This is a large oil-producing nation, where we are right now, in Brazil. But are these gatherings worth it?
RALPH REGENVANU: The UNFCCC process is a consensus-based process, and that is the problem with it. The problem is that we have a large number of countries who already know that we have to transition away from fossil fuels, already know that we need that language. We need to respect the scientific consensus of the IPCC. We need to stick to the 1.5-degree goal. But we have a certain number of countries who are vested in the fossil fuel pipeline — I would say not their populations, but certain members of the political classes. And so, we’re seeing these people blocking progress for the entire humanity. And it’s a result of this process that is flawed. So we need to fix the process. And that is something we are looking at, as well.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And could you talk about the fact that trade was also mentioned in the draft agreement, saying that in the next three COP climate summits, there will be a discussion of trade? What is that? Why is that significant?
RALPH REGENVANU: That’s significant because it’s one of the actual mechanisms that countries can hold against other countries to make them take climate action. So, it’s one of the few kind of binding measures we can use. If, for example, the EU says, “We won’t accept products from countries that have a certain level of emissions,” it is actually something that has the effect of a stick, rather than just voluntary compliance. And so, that’s why it’s so important, because we are lacking these sticks.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, we have just 30 seconds, but we last spoke to you at The Hague. If you can talk about the International Court of Justice and how climate intersects with human rights, and the finding, the transitional, if you will, finding, that took place this summer?
RALPH REGENVANU: This summer, the International Court of Justice handed down their advisory opinion, which basically said states have legal obligations to protect the climate system, which means they have legal obligations to transition away from fossil fuels. States have to control the activities of private actors within their jurisdiction that are contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, which means the fossil fuel companies, and that these obligations apply outside of the UNFCCC process. It’s a creation of the entire corpus of international law, including the very foundations of the United Nations. So, international cooperation, states allowing other states to continue to thrive and their populations to have the rights that are guaranteed under the U.N. human rights conventions, requires states to take legal action on reducing emissions.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you so much for being with us. Ralph Regenvanu is Vanuatu’s climate minister, one of the islands in the Pacific Ocean, one of the dissenting climate ministers here.
Up next, we turn to the Indigenous leader, member of the Munduruku community of the Amazon rainforest, a leader of the protest here that shut down the COP last Friday, Alessandra Korap Munduruku. Back in 30 seconds.
