Futurist Gerd Leonhard - The Good Future Project: A Conversation with Tzeporah Berman

Hello and greetings everybody. I'm Gerd Leonhard Futurist in Zurich, Switzerland. I'm also the founder of the Good Future Project, a fairly young undertaking that tries to help people understand why the future is indeed not all dystopia or utopia, but actually positively doable and understandable as the Good Future. And today I have a very special guest, Zipporah Berman from beautiful Vancouver, Canada. And she is a 30 year running environmentalist in Canada, has a background at Greenpeace and various other places. But today we're going to talk about the Fossil Fuel Non Proliferation Treaty, the NPT for Fossil Fuel, which I think is a fantastic idea, comes straight out of my book and of course from, I think, what is it from Kim Stanley Robinson, right, the Ministry for the Future. It's all in there. So welcome Zabur, really nice to meet you. Can you tell us briefly your background of where you come from, what you're currently doing?

Sure, thanks for having me. I've been working on trying to figure out how social change is made and how to create advocacy campaigns specifically on environmental issues and for the last, I guess 15 years on climate change, for a long time. So I've worked in environmental policy and designing environmental advocacy campaigns. Along the way I helped to found an organization that was called Forest Ethics, which is now called Stand Earth, and most recently in the last two years have founded and now chair the Fossil Fuel Non Proliferation Treaty Initiative. And really the initiative grew out of my own lived experience and I think frustration in Canada looking at how our emissions just kept going up and up and up. Here we are, a wealthy country now with a government who believes in climate change. I mean, Prime Minister Trudeau came to Paris and stood with his hand on his heart and he said Canada's back. After the Harper administration had pulled Canada out of Kyoto. And so we got an administration that believes in climate change. I really believe they do. And they put in place a bunch of really great policies, the kind of policies that all of us who work on climate change climate policy have wanted to see. Price on carbon vehicle emission legislation, low carbon fuel standards, a lot of the suite of policies that everyone has called for. And our emissions keep going up and the government keeps approving more fracking and more oil drilling. Even in the oil sands where there's so much, it's a heavy, very polluting carbon, heavy oil. And I it was kind of that experience that made me realize that our governments around the world have been constrained trying to constrain emissions, creating targets to reduce pollution and negotiating who Gets to pollute what and how much through the Paris Agreement and at all these conferences of parties that we've just had the 27th of. But yet we're not constraining the production of fossil fuels. And governments don't believe it's their responsibility. We constrain emissions, but we can all produce as much as we want and then the markets will, will constrain production. And so I started researching this topic and trying to understand is it working? And it's not. The fact is that the markets are distorted by millions and if not billions of dollars in, in fossil fuel subsidies. In fact, the IMF now says that it's $11 million a minute in, in fossil fuel subsidies. So money going from our governments globally to the fossil fuel companies, oil, gas and coal, to help them continue to produce.

So to make a $20 billion profit every single day in the oil industry. That pays for a lot of votes, right?

Yeah, and so that's right. And so you point to a critical issue that these incumbents, the big, big fossil fuel companies, have had a lot of influence and sway over climate policy, over the development of the frameworks that we've created internationally to address climate change. And, and I think the, the, the real eye awakening moment for me was when I, when I searched the Paris Agreement for the words oil, gas, coal and then fossil fuels and realized the words don't even know they don't exist. Those words don't exist in the world's climate agreement. And so all of these issues, climate policy, the pathway to a good future is, are complicated. But what's not complicated is that 86% of the emissions trapped in our atmosphere today come from three things, oil, gas and coal. And we're currently on track to produce 110% more oil, gas and coal by 2030 than we can ever burn under a 1.5 degree scenario. A climate safe future. And so that's what the Fossil Fuel Non Proliferation Treaty seeks to address to try and create a companion agreement to the Paris Agreement where we're actually constraining who produces what fossil fuels and how much.

You know, I like the analogy to the nuclear agreement, the NPT 19 was it 61. Right. Where we actually kind of saved the world from having nuclear war by having an agreement that only some countries could have it and that there would be governance on this. Right. Just like we had governance for, for example, human genome editing and things like that. Right. So existential things. In many ways you could say that oil and gas has now become sort of a deadly weapon Right, well, absolutely. I always say it's a crime scene basically. Right, right.

Well, I mean that's no joke. We, we now showing us that one in five premature deaths globally, one in five come from the air pollution, predominantly just from fossil fuels, that more people die and lose their homes every year around the world now because of climate change, drought and extreme weather than any other issue worldwide. Even the World Economic Forum, which, which looks at the threats to humanity, used to have nuclear weapons as the greatest and most likely threat to humanity. Today it's failure to mitigate climate change, it's water scarcity, biodiversity loss. So fossil fuels today are weapons of mass destruction. It's a hard thing to get your head around because for decades, our whole lives they've been something that increases prosperity. And now we know, just like the stockpiling of nuclear weapons, they don't represent our safety right now, they actually represent what is threatening us.

Well, of course the good news is also that we actually do have the technology now to create alternative means of energy. Right. So solar is now cheaper than coal in many countries. Right. We have battery technology, we have all kinds of course, sea, wind and so on technology, we have all that stuff. And you know, nuclear fusion, that's another discussion. And even if, you know, of course I've been anti nuclear for a long time, since I was in the Green Party and in the 80s in Germany. But now the question kind of pops up. You know, I think basically what's happening is that if we play our cards right in the next 10 to 15 years, we can actually go to the place where we are, where we have abundant energy from those new sources, including eventually nuclear fusion, which is the opposite than, than fission. Right. So clean nuclear energy. But the timing is short. Right. We have a 10 year Runway here. Right. Basically it's. And so I want to know how you're going to see if that treaty will actually see the light of day. You know, how we can get people around the table, not the entities on nuclear. Do we need a bomb first? You know.

Well, you know, I think the fact is that we already have it. The fact that we're seeing the climate emergency now all over the world, from you know, the fires sweeping the planet to the floods that flooded a third of Pakistan this year, year alone to now the incredible climate induced drought in the Horn of Africa. One person is dying every 36 seconds right now in the Horn of Africa as a result of climate induced drought. So the urgency is clearly there and what the world has really woken up to. And I think we saw this recently in Egypt at COP27. The Conference of the Parties is that we're not having the success that we need. Emissions continue to rise and we're locking in more and more fossil fuel production. So this conversation has really exploded and opened up now in the international space, in part because in the last two years the Fossil Fuel Non Proliferation Treaty has been so successful. We have 101 Nobel laureates now endorsing the concept, including the Dalai Lama, cardinals from the Vatican endorsing the concept. The World Health Organization, the WHO has come on board endorsing the fossil fuel treaty. And, and we have over 3,000 scientists and academics. And what happened this year on the floor of the UN General assembly and then again at COP27 is we now have two countries, both Pacific island nations, Vanuatu and Tuvalu, who are proposing the treaty on the floor of the un. The impact that has had is that now we have interest from dozens of other countries around the world. And there are bilateral and multilateral discussions going on right now as we talk with countries around the world about what a fossil fuel treaty could look like. And we've convened lawyers and academics and diplomats who are now looking at the principles of equity and fairness and issues around debt forgiveness and other barriers to stopping fossil fuel expansion. Because you're right, we have the technology today to replace most of our uses of fossil fuels. But some countries have more access to that and more access to the funding that they need in order to constrain expansion than other countries. The barriers to stopping expansion of fossil fuels in the UK are going to be different than in Malaysia or Ecuador. And so that's why we're starting to develop these frameworks. Historically, from the point that a country proposes a treaty on the floor of the un, it can be as little as two to three years before we see a treaty come into play.

Okay. I mean, I think one of the major issues here is from my experience on this topic is the north and south divide, right? To leave the carbon in the ground. That's kind of the headline, right? To no longer take it out would require the countries who still have a lot of and who haven't actually done that, like Brazil, like of course, African countries, India and so on, right? To not do that, to not do what we have done, right? If they don't do that, we are in deep trouble because we're never going to not even reach the 2 degrees of maximum if that doesn't happen. So my view is that, and this was an outcome from COP27 is to put the money in from the countries that used to do this so that the new ones don't have to do it. Right. And this is of course a kind of global consciousness factor, right?

Yeah. But that wasn't the outcome of COP27. Because while COP27 started to address the issue of loss and damage with a fund for that, that's very different than helping countries with the resources that they need, for example, debt forgiveness or a new fund like a global just transition fund, that, that helps them create the infrastructure for the good future. Because the fact is that if we're going to electrify everything, if we're going to depend on renewable energy and battery storage and electrification of transport instead of fossil fuels, then we need big pieces of infrastructure. We need to upgrade grids, we need to. And that infrastructure is going to be expensive as well. And so those countries are going to need the support for that as well.

And ultimately, yeah, I mean, the latest estimate of the cost is, as far as I can see, roughly 3% of global GDP that it would cost at least kind of like the military, same kind of money. Right. No coincidence there. And if we're going to raise that money, we're talking roughly 150 trillion ballpark. That would also of course, generate lots of new jobs and new possibilities for commerce, of course. Right. So that's the good part. But how do we get into this flow, taking money away from here and putting it over there. Right. Like our Aramco for example, now is really working hard to put more out more oil, Right. So that they can maximize their output before they go, you know, bust basically eventually, because everybody's going to leave them, you know, divest. Right. So that seems like a tall order. And I would wonder how exactly will we create enough pressure for that to happen?

Well, let me address your previous question first around the Global south, because what I think a lot of people don't realize is that the majority of fossil fuel expansion planned today and within the next five years is actually in the Global North. So if we create an agreement to stop expansion and look at who gets to produce and how much fossil fuels, which we don't have a plan for that globally, then we can allocate more of the remaining carbon budget, such as it is, to countries in the Global South. Wealthy countries have to stop first. And right now the majority of oil and gas expansion that's planned is planned actually just in the US and then you have the UK and Norway and Canada all planning more expansion as well. Australia. So we need the wealthy Countries to act first and then that will actually leave more room for the global carbon budget. But we need all countries to stop expansion. And the question is, how fast do they wind down? No one thinks we can turn off the taps to fossil fuels overnight, but the question is with existing mines and fields, how quickly, how much do each of them produce and how, and how quickly do they wind down? And that should be a discussion that is coordinated with a plan globally that takes equity and fairness into account on where does the money come from. There's some new interesting proposals that were just proposed in Egypt a couple of weeks ago, for example, by Mia Motley, looking at a windfall tax. So if we taxed 10% of oil and gas, just the largest company's profits this year alone, it would have created 37 billion just in the first nine months of this year. So there's a lot of money that could come from taxing the oil and gas company's profits. There's a lot of money that can come from reducing the subsidies. And the fact is that we need that money to flow into a global, just transition planning and support for countries in the global South. But also there's a lot that can be done with debt forgiveness because we have lots of history globally of doing debt forgiveness for a lot of issues, Covid, for example. And right now there are countries who are planning in the global south new fossil fuel expansion which doesn't fit under our goals to reach the Paris Agreement. And they're planning it just to feed their debt. They're not even going to benefit because the energy is going to be exported and the profits are just going to feed their debt, the royalties. So these are ways to address some of these issues of keeping carbon in the ground that are currently being explored.

Yeah, I think I've looked at those issues before and one of the things that appeared was this. Our economic logic is to a very large degree flawed to support such a change because we're incentivizing bad behavior by rising stock markets, you know, and that's not just true for environment, but also for social media, for example, which is a cash cow, but destroying our society in my view, as you can see, that's a very. That's kind of the digital oil, you know, same concept really. So digital pollution in many ways. But so one thing we talk about a lot in the Good Future project is the kind of next, next kind of capitalism that would be fit for the Good future, you know, a broader capitalism. I think Al Gore called it sustainable capitalism. But you know, people, Planet Purpose, prosperity. That's kind of my personal motto. But going in that direction because I think one problem is that what you're suggesting is all very logical, but it's kind of like the free market is the free market. Right. And if we leave them alone, we will never solve this problem.

No. And that's why we need government regulation. But that, that's, that's our whole point at the Fossil Fuel Non Proliferation treaty is that the theory on climate change has been to cut with one half of what economists would say cut with one half of the scissors. We're going to reduce demand and governments are responsible for reducing emissions and reducing demand. But we're not going to cut supply because the markets will deal with supply. Then it's free enterprise, free competition, who gets to produce what is decided? Markets. But at a point when we know that producing more threatens the very existence of life on Earth, we need regulation on the fossil fuel supply and production in order to ensure that there is that there, that there are, that there is purpose and justice in the marketplace. If we leave it up to the markets around how much fossil fuels get to be produced and where, then there is no justice taken into consideration. There are no global carbon budgets taken into consideration.

Yeah, I mean, it seems to me very much like a dysfunctional market, you know, that the sort of invisible hand concept is completely flawed here because it only works for a little slice of the market and everybody else gets to just wait for that to improve. And this is killing us literally. Right. And so I think this is one of the deep paradigm shifts that we have to go through to actually make this a reality. I'm hoping very much that the new line of politicians that have come in, for example, in South America and also in Germany and of course New Zealand, which is the poster child for different kinds of politicians, but that we have this shift towards the openness to actually tackle this.

I'm seeing that behind the scenes. Since we had two countries propose the fossil fuel treaty on the floor of the un We've had a lot of countries wanting to talk about this, willing to talk about this, recognizing that we have to align our agreements, that we have to move quicker. You know, we, you know, some people say to me, well, we can't afford the time for a new treaty. We can't afford more of the same. We need these kind of bold new ideas that are going to be course correctors because it, you know, we are in the decisive decade now, and right now we're on track just to produce more fossil fuels and more Emissions and that will cost us more in the future. And so I'm excited about the support that we have received about the idea from all over the world now in such a short period of time. Today I just found out two more cities just signed on to the fossil fuel treaty. We now have 74 cities around the world who have endorsed with passing motions at their city councils. Amsterdam, London, Vancouver, L.A. and now Calcutta, the largest city in India, as well as Belem, Brazil, 74 cities and it's. And if you look at the history of nuclear non proliferation, you know, governments were swayed by their own interests and interests of the incumbents who would benefit for a lot of treaties. And it was cities who played an incredible role in pushing their national governments and civil society. And that's what we're seeing here.

Right. Cities are really taking the lead in many, many aspects.

Yeah.

And that's a good move because cities are now becoming like countries. Right. Calcutta is like what, 22 million or something.

I know, I know. So I'm excited to see that, that support, but also the support that we're seeing from the faith community. We have faith organizations representing 1.2 billion people who have endorsed and signed up to the fossil fuel treaty and are now preaching on it, campaigning on it around the world. And I think that that's really exciting. It'll reach a lot of people.

Great. Where can people find out more about the proposal?

Fossilfueltreaty.org and we, a lot of people say to me, what can I do to support you? Make it your own. This is an idea that we are producing materials and ideas for on fossilfueltreaty.org you can go and endorse it. You can also download materials to run campaigns in your own city for the fossil fuel treaty.

No, I mean, it's a perfect idea. I think it'll be a big part of the Good Future project going forward. Hopefully also the film that we're making. And once we have a gathering, the Good Future Festival, which we're looking at, you know, maybe we can talk more about this and see how we can get together for this as well.

Fantastic.

Thanks very much, Barbara. It's been a great pleasure. Thanks for your time and yeah, let's make the Good Future happen. Thank you very much.

Absolutely great to meet you.