e rentable for the people talking about poverty or markets and not just climate change four questions try that and then one at the top I radix Stefanski from University of St Andrews and the Oxford Center for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economy so I just want to ask you maybe you might know about this a little bit more measuring fossil fuel subsidies is just one type that's just one type of subsidy is there some mechanism around the world in the United States that measures other types of subsidies and that might help us also understand whether subsidies like that are big potatoes or small potatoes so I'm sure we're subsidizing fossil fuels a lot but maybe we're subsidizing other stuff as well it would be interesting to compare I'm Neil McCulloch from myself, independent consultant I wanted to ask a quick question to Kennedy I missed your definition of what fossil fuel subsidy reform actually entailed and so therefore it was difficult to interpret your odds ratio results but the most peculiar result from your odds ratio was that it seemed that the provision of overseas development assistance gave rise to a 90% reduction in the chance of a fossil fuel subsidy reform maybe I misinterpreted your graph but that would be surprising and interesting and there must be a story behind that I also had a second question for the whole panel which was really to do with what are the sort of circumstances that give rise to fossil fuel subsidy reform I think it would be fair to say I'm a development economist and I think it would be fair to say that climate change does not feature at all in the thinking of most fossil fuel subsidy reforms I've lived for eight years in Indonesia and was heavily involved in the analysis around the Indonesian fossil fuel subsidy reform and I assure you that no one mentioned climate change is the reason for doing it one of the reasons that these things get done is because of fiscal crisis the initial discussions about the fossil fuel subsidy reform in Indonesia happened under the SBY presidency when they were spending 30% of their budget on fossil fuel subsidies and they realized that really wasn't sustainable other reasons might be because you wish to shift resources into the things that you like for example Jokowi's fossil fuel subsidy reforms are primarily because he needed a mechanism for funding his health card and education card reforms which are key platforms key components of his political platform so I'm wondering whether you can give some hints as to the sorts of things that actually drive fossil fuel subsidy reform when it does actually happen Franz Matzner with NRDC in the US and I'm really intrigued by how we mix the campaign element of this and so as a campaigner in the US just one observation is one of the reasons we don't make the progress is because subsidies make a great political weapon but we've and so both sides use them and we mix and match our terminology of this you know one person's subsidies is another person's incentive so I do think that the definitional aspect of this matters to some degree because we've run into this problem a lot like it's a subsidy when it's going to something you don't like in our case fossil fuels and it's an incentive when it's going to wind and solar and we don't have a great way to distinguish those pieces and both sides like to use that as a political weapon but nobody really wants to do the forms because the scale of the money at stake that's being identified is usually too small at least in the US to actually pay for that thing that they want so it becomes just a horse trading and so so putting that together as an observation I'd love to get some advice from the panelists on how we could distinguish incentives from subsidies and also find a way to kind of as a community have a bigger number to play with because the bigger the number the more that's been the problem the president identifies $4 billion and it sounds like a lot of money but it doesn't pay for healthcare reform it doesn't pay for the big ticket items so how can we make that number as big as possible and distinguish it from the good stuff and one from Laurie sorry and one down here okay, Laurie that's two ODI and this one from down here and then we'll stop so it's Laurie from ODI thank you very much for your interesting presentations it has to be quick yes, so for me fossil fuel subsidies both to production and consumption really raised questions about the distribution of the benefits and costs of fossil fuel production activities and also about who carries the risk of investing in these industries and I think that in many countries there are still very big misperceptions around this for example in the UK the government is now providing a net subsidy to the industry while a lot of the big share of the population still thinks that it's a big source of government revenue so how do we actually shift the narrative how do we make sure that we get a wider understanding of the distribution of costs and benefits of fossil fuel production and consumption sorry, back to back ODI Sheila Whitley I'm with the Overseas Development Institute I'm very quickly I'm wondering if actually shooting myself in the photos I've started to work almost exclusively on fossil fuel subsidy reform if actually in the case of countries where climate is important that we may have leapfrogging over subsidy reform where it becomes much more of a focus on moratoriums climate tests other tactics to actually undercut fossil fuel production that might make the subsidy fights irrelevant in the context of climate and then here did you or I may misunderstood perhaps considered among other things prices and interest rates I didn't see interest rates if not do you think that it will change the calculation of the present value of and for so do you think that the reduction in subsidies so called subsidies will help in the reform we see that perhaps the reduction of subsidies will be compensated with reduction in taxes and royalties so go for it who wants to start do we need a mic down there there's a lot of stuff out here so I'm going to do my best to respond I think there's some themes that I was hearing so there are measures for all types of subsidies that was your question and indeed you want to do that you want your fiscal system you want your treasury you want an integrated budget that's looking at the ways government is using its power to redistribute resources and you want to be able to measure it so tax expenditures are credit stuff that cuts across sectors it's not granular enough you can't see which sector you can't see which projects that would be a huge improvement but that relates to the big number issue some other industries also have pretty negative effects also contribute to climate change and if you could get an integrated metric of the subsidies to energy plus energy intensive industries it would be quite useful I disagree with this whole question of differentiating incentives and subsidies I think it's not a useful discussion when in solar gets subsidies those subsidies are put in place for a particular reason just like the subsidies to oil and gas were put in place a hundred years ago for a particular reason and you know then everybody says well you know you're treating this sector differently than that sector it's fine to just say I believe this group should be subsidized and here are the reasons and then fight that battle and I think you're going to end up in a better place than trying to pretend that somehow you're different in terms of this moratorium and spending cuts I think it's an interesting strategy when you start winning all those battles maybe you can step back on the subsidy front one concern I have is that moratoria work best for publicly owned resources and lots of production is on private lands I'm also concerned that if you have a state owned energy company it's going to be very difficult to get that state to cap down on your supply so should be pursued could be useful but I would continue to work on both fronts so in general fossil fuel subsidiary reformers of course it's not by itself a game changer so it should be viewed as part of a suite of policies which also include mitigation measures for the losers of this reform which include green economy transition which include other sources of revenue for the government not just the fossil fuel industry so it's quite a big package of measures and the beauty of fossil fuel subsidiary reformer is that it's self-sufficient in itself in the sense that if you implement it you save money so you don't need climate change you don't need other arguments and that's what has worked in the past so the narrative this is rather to your question the narrative about fossil fuel subsidies has been historically very strongly influenced by agricultural subsidies and the definition we use in the WTO has been designed with other industries in mind so agricultural subsidies are not a very inspiring example but we can possibly learn something from them and it's billions and billions dollars as well so with your question with interest rates so there is a very wonky aspect of fossil fuel subsidies which is a concessional element of credit support for public finance it's very difficult to measure there are conceptual approaches how you can do it but yes companies especially state-owned enterprises very often get access to cheaper finance so this is an area where we can hopefully do more research bring more transparency of course this will increase the number and talking about increasing the number I think the best way is to treat both production and consumption subsidies together but there is a danger of increasing the number to the level where it stops making sense and unfortunately this is some of the criticism of the IMF estimates that includes externalities into their definition it's not like it's devoid of sense but it's not money that you can reallocate for other purposes so in this sense getting a bigger number can shoot itself in the food so we have to be careful about this well considering that in Mexico the company who produce oil and electricity are a national company so when they give the subsidy they are going to the subsidy to their own companies just the transfer of the well they sell the input in a low price so that's a big problem and maybe the first impacts are going to pass when the electric reform begins and the activity is because the private companies I'm not really sure that they agree to sell their input in low prices so that will be very interesting to analyze the first oil prices that they sell to the other companies and the impact in electricity prices so I think that's the most important impact so I think I'll respond to the very interesting question on how I defined a policy fossil fuel subsidy reform taking place so my conceptualization had two qualifications so one it looked at it as a national law or policy that is a national legal framework and number two from the database that I got it all the laws that were there had a relation to climate change whether implicitly or explicitly that was qualification number one qualification number two was because that database has the laws and policies disaggregated in different segments whether energy demand, energy supply red plus etc so I looked at the energy supply one so for those two qualifications we could get a strong approximation not a perfect fit but a very strong approximation to the hypothesis and secondly the peculiar thing about ODA was very interesting because one of the very strong arguments in literature is that the reforms are a very cheap economic tool or rather low cost economic tool like you remove the subsidies from maybe especially for developing countries you remove the subsidy from oil and you invest in more pressing needs like education, health etc but if someone else is paying for that why should you and secondly so that means like if you have government assistance to pay for health to pay for education there's little incentive to take that money from fossil fuel subsidies and put it there and I think secondly as well reforms are a very political thing and they're very much linked as well to the political cycles so most of the time and I think it was rightly said so the reforms are not especially for like climate change related things but they're more political in nature for example the politicians will have low cost energy which is better for them especially for their election prospects so for me that was my tentative argument but I'm very much open to better arguments as to that peculiar finding thank you Thank you very much Kennedy and I think I would encourage everybody it is an academic conference and part of that is about peer review and learning so speak to the panellists and talk to them about their papers and help share ideas I'm just going to say very quickly to wrap this up that yesterday we found it really hard to get to the pub that you'd organised for us to go and have a drink at before this conference because they were filming transformers and they were filming it here in Oxford and when I was a kid it was robots in disguise transformers robots in disguise now production subsidies are a bit like those transformer robots if you can find them and if you can identify them and you don't really know their impact on them on the outside you really have to sort of get under the hub to figure them out and to work out what reserves they unlock upstream and how to undo them so like transformers we also know we've heard here today there are goodies and there are baddies as well and some producers subsidies are much worse than others especially the ones up front that Yvette talked about but not all producers subsidies are bad and you know this is what you raised as well about subsidies for solar and renewables and so on so that's exactly what our panellists have helped us to understand today get to understand these transformers producer subsidies they start right at the beginning of the energy chain and help us to understand how we can beat them and how we can change them so let's really thank the panellists in a traditional manner also get them out later in the 70's the movie comes out in 2018 so we can be here at 4.25 for today's last session I'd like to start this session which is on equity by paying a small tribute and in fact by dedicating the session to Paul Bear who is a friend and colleague to several and maybe even many of the people in this room Paul was a deep and passionate and insightful thinker on climate equity and his ideas have infused the thinking that went into putting this session together and indeed his ideas have infused the climate community with a deeper understanding of climate equity and so with the will to carry on the struggle that he was fighting so passionately for I'd like to open the session so this session is on equity and just transitions and the first question that we're going to try and elaborate on a bit is what is equity in the context of climate policy and specifically supply-side policy we're going to try and bring into focus across the course of the several panelist presentations what are the various dimensions that arise how can we make it more concrete and understand it a bit better and the second is we can define what equity is does equity matter we like the idea of equity but even if we can define kind of a broadly satisfying understanding of what equity means with supply-side policy so what does it matter so here I'll cite the IPCC because we always like to cite the IPCC it's kind of comforting in a Pavlovian sense they said to paraphrase agreements that are widely seen as fair are more likely to actually work and that gets back to a point that was made at least once maybe a couple times this morning that climate change is a commons problem no country can solve their own climate change problem any country's reduction in their emissions or reduction in their supply of fossil fuels doesn't go very far as far as solving their own climate problem even if you're a big country even if you're a US or China what you're really trying to do is engage in a global cooperative effort because a global cooperative effort is the only way we can solve the problem and if you want to try and help bootstrap a global cooperative effort you're only going to be successful if you're seen as doing your fair share and if you're not then other countries will see you as a free rider and their more most sensible course going forward would be to invest in things other than suppressing their emissions and suppressing their supply and instead focusing on their own development and dealing with the increasingly inevitable impacts of climate change so with that I'd like to start with our first presenter which is Navroz Dubash Navroz is one of the leading thinkers on climate change in India he's the director of the climate program at the center for policy research he's a lead author in the most recent IPCC assessment in the chapter on national policies and in the synthesis report which I'm really glad that we're dedicating Paul in this session so I am going to in the time that I have can we get so what I'm going to try and do is give some content to this idea of equity through the lens of one country which is India not the only sort of country that deals with equity issues by any means but one of the sort of bigger perhaps countries that have a big role in shaping the debate now I want to start actually with a it's the PDF it seems to have messed up sorry folks maybe I'll use the arrows in that it's messing it up but I'll do what I can with what I have okay where I want to start is to talk about and I hear this in this discussion here today as well what seems to be an emerging very important global narrative around the fossil fuel transition and in that narrative what is the role of India right so the kinds of stories we're seeing in very important research articles I'm going to give you a few of these quotes the growing use of renewable power sources but rising emissions from China India and other developing nations are swamping that progress this is from science a very nice paper by Stecco and all I think he's here actually today which says a global renaissance of coal driven by poor fast-growing economies and then of course we have the Indian minister who sort of plays into the story by talking about how we're going to target a doubling of coal production to a billion tons in the next in the next five years now there's also sort of research that backs all this up so what I have here is a slide from BNEF and this was shown actually in an earlier session in the afternoon which shows that India is on track to actually increase its emissions by about 112% compared to 2010 levels so what this kind of narrative is growing towards apart from the very important point about fossil fuels is a story that says the only thing that's really important is what happens from here on out what happened before doesn't really matter what the context is need not necessarily matter and so I think what I when I've seen this over the last couple of months I've been trying to ask myself what makes sense in terms of narratives that emerge from developing countries that take seriously both development but also climate change that kind of bring those two things together so today I'm going to try and give you four elements what I think a useful narrative might be for India and I might be hamstrung by the fact that the bottom of my slides are being cut off but I'll just tell you what they say so the first part of this is what Shivan started by alluding to what happened before today 2010 which is the year in that BNEF study actually does matter and there's lots and lots of work on this the most important of which is actually the work that Shivan, Tom and Paul have done together which is represented here and the India story looks very different by this graph so these are the green part of these graphs are fair shares and India's INDC projections are comfortably within those fair shares and it looks a very different story if you look at this graph versus the other graph Indian research the yellow slice here that's cut off is India Indian research on the carbon budget says well India should get about 17% of the future carbon budget if we get 17% it would more than accommodate the kinds of numbers that the BNEF analysis shows so obviously we all know there are many ways of slicing all this up but the point is that story about historical responsibility and responsibility the UN FCC principle of responsibility understood as culpability is still very much sailing to the discussion and some of the new narratives I think are at risk for getting that the second, this is a more problematic cut off but we'll try and deal with it is that the context in the starting point matters a lot so what I tried to do here is I said okay what if you take on this axis is per capita, mean per capita income of various countries and on this axis down here which you can't see is greenhouse gas emissions per capita and essentially what we did is we looked at this for a number of years so at the bottom you have to imagine the axis down here that's 2003 2011 down here so let's start up here this is the US and the per capita emissions have been decreasing but of course at a very high level and the interesting thing is the decrease in per capita emissions doesn't do a whole lot to income whereas all the countries down here and India is actually down below this in the black border down here the lines are pretty much vertical which means that a unit of additional GHG is giving you an awful lot more in terms of income so where you are on this kind of plot really matters if you're down here perhaps you do a lot more with every unit of every ton of fossil fuels so that has to play into how we think about the sort of immersion narrative in a sense it's a different view on the old capability part of the CBDR RC principle so this is the second point that I want to want to make the third point then is to turn it around a little bit and say okay it's not okay to only talk about the context, history, the fact that India is in a difficult position but to also say what are the hard questions a country like India has to ask about its own future so we basically have been looking for the last year or so and what Indian researchers and other researchers have been saying about this future so this is now a different gloss on responsibility so responsibility as culpability versus responsibility understood as duty so we're trying to look at both sides of that responsibility concept and interestingly in this slightly confusing graph all the solid lines refer to basically reference scenarios for 2030 or 2031 or 2032 somewhere in that range the two green lines represent the envelope of policy scenarios and we looked at about eight studies and multiple scenarios so the first thing you see is just the enormous range even in the reference case this is actual current emissions so according to this India's emissions will double or maybe triple depending on what study you look at which again sort of echoes some of the the points about the quite correct care with which one should interpret model results that we talked about this morning the policy envelopes some of them actually overlap the reference envelopes and the reason we broke the reference envelopes up into two is because there are two different time periods when people when the modelers use current use scenarios so the current policy circa 2011 or the current policy circa 2014 with the latter being much lower now in the policy scenarios you see one all the way down here which is the only one that shows a slight increase in greenhouse gas I should say this is just carbon from energy and industry most the rest are up here right so what what this seems to say is very few people think that India can get to 2030 without at least some carbon emissions probably close to a doubling this is where everything is clustered and if you have and and and the other point that you take from this is maybe you can do a lot better than that say 150% increase with some very serious policy measures and it's unpacking those policy measures that I think is the hard work that we have to do how much time do I have left all this said you know well let me let me make one point when I go back when we look at all these the big difference between all of these different lines is actually the demand side if you actually can bring down your demand levels then India's quite ambitious renewable energy targets take you a long long way if you don't bring down demand there's really no way other than a lot more coal and how much more coal so this is those same model results with the coal numbers in grade pulled out and again coal according to the reference cases goes up two and a half times give or take depending on the more modest rate reference cases maybe doubling in the policy cases you're still looking at at least very close to a doubling or a little bit more than that so this is again the question is are these models the best we have probably not but this is the current state of the knowledge and I think this is the kind of questioning that's going on in India the other point I want to make is these are sort of top down models these are the folks who basically say let's look at capacity that's under that's being planned and under construction and the numbers vary enormously depending on what you start with so this is the proposed line I think this is carbon action trackers proposed coal plant line and this in here 134 gigawatts is the approved projects what's unfortunately lost down here is I have a separate set of separate bullseye for 2022 and that's very interesting because it shows a projection for 2022 that says if you start with serious demand side measures you can keep it as low as 65 gigawatts and if you include increased RE uptake it's as low as 50 gigawatts whereas if you look at it just in terms of the number of plants that are on the anvil in some way or shape or form it's 110 so my point is there's an enormous range and we have a lot of studies out there right now talking about how sort of the coal bomb and so on and so forth we have to put that in context and we have to talk about in particular the uptake of that amount of coal because I think some of these discussions about stranded assets and so on are very salient the fourth element of all of this is the story about equity at home which often in the Indian discourse tends to get set aside and I won't go into this is work in progress but it's basically an update of quite a famous study by Chakravarti and all this 1 billion large emitter story I get the message so but this basically updates that with much more fine-grained data and shows that you'll actually have a lot more high emitters than you otherwise thought on the order of 10 million now and on the order of 20 or 30 at least by 2030 and this is probably going to go up as we get some new data so I'm just going to end here I want to just make a couple of points I think in the post-Paris world equity is about the stories you tell the idea of getting some sort of everybody agrees to this as our version of equity that's long gone and so people are basically weaving equity into a whole set of different narratives and how we tell those stories and how we support them is really important internationally I really think this fossil fuel transition story that's emerging is a very important one the supply side story is very important if it is not leavened with some considered attention to equity I think it could really backfire because what it does if it says it's in the ground and that's true of all fossil fuels everywhere irrespective of context and history what are you doing you're basically creating an incentive to grandfather yourself and join China for India the obvious thing would be to do would be to say look all of this keep in the ground stuff will take another 5-7 years to get some momentum let's dig it up as fast as we can and let's lock in as much coal infrastructure so we have the flexibility you really risk creating that kind of dynamic and I think that's very problematic and then the national narratives then is to both locate country in historical and comparative context and ask these hard questions about the future including the internal equity story excellent thank you Noah please stay here if there are any clarifying questions hold them and you can catch the rose and the breaker and the reception and I'm going to use moderator's privilege to ask a question one of the main points you're making is that really there's a whole span of different fossil futures for India and more and more we're hearing a framing that really we're in a post-carbon development world the coal benefits are huge of going away from carbon the bus-bar costs of wind and solar are going through the floor and they'll be coal anyway so to what degree is some degree some amount of continued use of fossil fuels and maybe expansion of coal actually necessary for development in India and if there is another path what would make that possible this came up again this afternoon and as you know Shivan and many of you I've been banging on this co-benefits drum for a few years and I believe very strongly in it the challenge really is that I think that looking at 2030 and out if we haven't solved this problem by then we haven't substantially transitioned we're done anyway the real difficulty is can you make the transition over the next 10 to 15 years and that's where it starts becoming hard so for example a non-fossil fuel based electricity strategy and India has put these frankly quite outrageous targets out there of 175 gigawatts nobody's sure whether they can actually be achieved at home but even if you do achieve them we'll make a lot of progress towards them based on the kinds of numbers we have now it doesn't look likely that you could meet India's development needs and the big story in India at the moment is a job story right so India is going through this demographic transition we're talking about having to generate between 10 and 12 million jobs a year no other country has done anything like this without a serious manufacturing push manufacturing means industry, industry means steel cement and so on and so forth a lot of energy so the ask is really tough and renewable energy but the project at that pace seems difficult challenge we did a back of the envelope calculation and said that if India does its 40% fossil fuel free target for the INDC it would basically displace somewhere between 5 and 7% of India's 2030 greenhouse gas emissions that's it on the other hand that 5 to 7% is about 60 to 70% of South Africa's entire INDC okay so that's the kind of dilemma that we face in India our next presenter is Neuma Basi former director general of friends of the earth international, current director of the health of mother earth foundation in Nigeria and oil watch international and also I should say recipient of the right livelihood award which many of us may recognize the alternative Nobel Prize for his steadfast support of the very honor to have you join us thank you very much good afternoon brothers and sisters don't respond to greetings all right that's okay now I'm sure you've seen enough graphs for today so determine not to use not even one graph but I love those graphs especially the one sitting above the roof now the fossil fuel industry is incapable of operating in any sense in a way that's equitable there's no equity with the sector it's a sector that depends on exploitation without responsibility is it was form of extraction was form of relationship with people with the environment and with mother earth generally so talk about equity with regard to fossil fuel industry or dependence on fossil civilization is neither here nor there see something is operating in the climate negotiations because the climate negotiations as epitomized by the Paris agreement has nothing to do with equity the cardinal point is the nationally determined contributions and as said earlier this is not based on a global scientifically calculated requirement or action that needs to be taken to keep the temperature at other 1.5 or well below 2 degrees there's nothing it's just a shot in the dark you do what you feel like doing and I do what I feel like doing and so it's business as usual in a way that is so nice and so it's a real problem we're confronting to have a big big problem and it has historical roots because it appears that mankind always looks for the cheapest source of energy and if you can take it either through negotiation or take it by force and so whether it's energy from humans or from fossil fuels or whatever is the same paradigm the same mentality and the worst thing is that because of the world including where I come from we are forced to adopt the catch-up mentality without interrogating whether this is where we want to go who defines development, who defines growth the GDP service has been called by an intellectual gross domestic problem because it does not really measure up the truth about what's going on in any country and so that's the real problem we have this problem of the narrative and the historical realities and so oil, coal gas as I said earlier exploitation without responsibility resulting in massive human rights abuses in massive livelihood destruction and just this morning during the first break time I got information from Nigeria that there's been a massive pipeline explosion in the capital of Goni land in a place that at a point just a few meters away from where the military surveillance team is camped and it really really broke my heart because the governor of Nigeria just agreed to share with a major corporate in this area to begin a cleanup of the territory but at the same time we're still having these explosions on such a regular basis which are maybe worse than this by this time but it's not only Nigeria, I spent a lot of my time going around Africa and some parts of the global south just encouraging communities that the hopes they have when extractive activities about to start in their territory will be dashed and so I tried to get people prepared for the worst scenario and I've seen it in the global north I've seen a community in Rhineland where the whole community has been relocated where church was desecrated so it could be demolished for mining coal so when you find an industry that doesn't take anything sacred, doesn't respect territories, doesn't respect people it's just concerned with profit it's very difficult to deal with this kind of industry except I mean you cannot you cannot find a way to say okay we can do this responsibly, it's impossible there's no responsible mining I'm sorry to say that I'll take that back I have to get responsible mining now three cases Lake Tukana is the biggest desert lake in the world and it's located in Northern Kenya the environment is almost like a lunar landscape, beautiful pristine and guess what, when you look from the air it looks blue on the ground it's green and oil has been found around there and it's a UNESCO heritage site the Rift Valley of Uganda is a national reserve where mining should not take place and these are the same places where the oil industry is busy trying to extract they're extracting already in Uganda and luckily for Tukana as my friend would agree with me I think the people have managed to I get the government to say no drilling in Lake Tukana but in the whole region they're drilling exploration and without any barrier being extracted we're already having some environmental issues there in Ghana half a city it's the name of the territory along the coast fisheries purchase Ghana for one billion US dollars a year oil has been found where a lot of the species are endemic and fishermen cannot get to those areas anymore because it's a military that doesn't allow fishermen to get to where they should catch the best fish and so we're forced to compare the economy of oil and fisheries and oil is not going to bring Ghana one billion US dollars a year anytime soon oil will not employ up to 5000 Ghanaians but millions are dependent on small scale fisheries keeping their families and livelihoods and all this is going to be destroyed because somebody is looking for crude oil and so we some of us we've seen that because in Africa you have to search very hard to find a country where oil is not being either prospective for or is not being explored or extracted already and a lot of this is offshore except for those who are even the inland those who are landlocked oil is found around lakes and rivers and so we're thinking of building resistance around with the fisher folks around the continent and all across the continent so there's a movement that is growing on fish not oil using the example of Ghana and this is what we believe can be replicated around the world because I know some friends in Lofoten, Norway a very high fisheries area they don't want drilling offshore Lofoten either and so the movement against extraction can be built from different strands and different perspectives other from the economic argument or from the livelihoods argument from agricultural arguments we have all the arguments to stop extraction the only difficulty is how do we how can we survive in a fossil fuel civilization a former foreign minister of Saudi Arabia once said that the stone age did not end for lack of stones oil age would not have to end for lack of crude oil now we talk about keeping the oil in the Ghana family believe in this we've been campaigning on this even in my country that depends almost 80 percent 85 percent on fossil fuels we've been campaigning on this very strongly people have succeeded in keeping oil in the ground since 1993 more community the first shell out of their territory they still have explosions and pollution because there are pipelines crossing their territory but a small set of people have succeeded in keeping a big multinational corporation for taking oil from their territory I believe this shows to me that it can be replicated around the world don't you think so think so now thank you for agreeing on that now Yasuni ITT was defective in formulation in the sense that it was about exchanging keeping crude oil and getting half of the money now keeping crude oil so it should not be dependent on funds on I mean I have some because of the global fund proposal that we saw this morning the real thing is to preserve mother it preserved life we are kind is brilliant enough to look for another form of civilization so the economic consideration and all this we're just going to keep us locked into the same trap now so always international proposed our next zero countries in line with our next one of the former formulation in the Kyoto protocol so our next one are the rich polluting industrial countries such as UK can feel the pollution you can't feel it okay of course you can well come to a go and you see the pollution if you come to the bottom of the pipe where shell is extracting you look at the whole lake the whole water is covered with crude oil and it stays that way for years and I don't have time to talk more about that but our next zero is proposing that the UNFCCC should recognize territories and countries and communities who have kept or make it possible to keep fossil fuels under the ground I mean this is real climate action it's not artificial carbon capture sequestration and storage you leave it where it belongs don't bring it out and capture it just leave it there I think I believe I'm so happy that the international criminal court has decided that first extractive industries and those who destroy the environment cannot be brought before it and I think it's time to take the chief executive of these corporations before that criminal court thank you thank you your work has had its impact and had its power because you're bringing the concerns and the voices of people in these areas where extraction is happening to a level where decisions and policies are being made in part there are also within these communities well I ask you within these communities do you also see local, fully legitimate voices of people who are being impacted who feel compelled to support extraction because of livelihoods or because they see it as their way to expand their energy access do those voices exist and to the extent they do how do you reflect those voices I don't ask you a fair question that's my job okay yeah of course there are some voices in communities especially in places where fossil fuels are just discovered people always believe that look we're going to get the best of everything economic improvements, livelihood improvements we're going to have all the fastest we need, we're going to have the best of everything and I just give it a few years and all is gone so those voices of course everybody has a right to demand whatever they want to but it never plays out in reality and so my own unfortunate job is to continually douse the hopes of communities and individuals who think that they can be sustainable extraction of fossil fuels I'm not seeing it anywhere I'm not seeing it in Canada, I'm not seeing it in the US I'm not seeing it in Germany I'm not seeing it in Nigeria in South Africa people are working coal mines on fire for decades and people are having sinkholes and all kinds of things happening to the environment so anybody who thinks I agree they have a legitimate right to think they want to think about it's all leading nowhere Next speaker is Samantha Smith very happy to have on this panel she's currently the director of a new Just Transition Center but she has a very interesting past this work is in collaboration with ITUC previous lives she was with World Wildlife Fund heading up their Climate and Energy International Program in another previous life she was with Stat Oil Energy helping develop CO2 projects and wind projects so Sam we're very happy to have you on the panel and I don't know how you'll manage to balance all those different tasks but please do so thanks for that Siobhan it's true I have lived a few different lives but I'd like to think that they add up to something consistent so as you mentioned I am the director of a new center that's been established by the ITUC and the ITUC is the peak body for almost all of the world's unions so its union affiliates represent over 180 million people in 165 countries and I wanted to just for many people especially my brothers and sisters from North America unions aren't so familiar right I grew up in the US I studied unions at university and when I moved to Scandinavia and there were real life unions it was really exciting for me as a person so I just want to be sure that we all understand what we're talking about when we talk about workers and unions so for many people in the climate field when we think of workers and unions we think of coal miners for example we might not remember that coal mining was and in many countries still is one of the most dangerous jobs around with many large scale industrial accidents average working life for coal miners it's really quite short because of people's exposure to coal dust and injuries but actually unions encompass almost every kind of formal and informal worker and labor that you can think of so everyone from women who are working in the garment sector to financial analysts to environmentalists parts of WWF unionized to people working in the industry nurses teachers people working in shops the list goes on and on and of course where people don't have the right to organize and to be represented they nonetheless organize themselves so you have agricultural workers waste pickers who are in informal associations that are like unions so that they can have a collective voice and so that they have some power over their working conditions so when we talk now about the just transition I hope we can have all of those people in mind because the just transition as you'll see in a second is not just about people currently working in coal mines or in coal fired power plants it's about everyone who works because climate change is about people and it's going to affect all of our jobs in formal as we try to bring down emissions in a fast way and have industrial transition at a speed that has never been done before so there are many definitions of a just transition all are welcome you know it's a big tent but from the labor movements perspective this is a term that they came up with over a decade ago and what it really means is the social dialogue the tripartite dialogue between workers businesses governments and communities that produces then the plans at all levels from the workplace all the way up to the UN at the national level for sectors for communities that are going to bring down emissions but be sure that people still have jobs and that people whose jobs are disappearing are going to be treated fairly last but not least it's about making sure that no one is left behind so we've talked a lot about stranded assets and as I was listening to that I was thinking about something that we're starting to say in the labor movement about stranded workers in stranded communities and you don't have to look too far to the north of England or to coal towns in the US to see what that's all about so it is not a just transition is not something that we're going to get to through just economic modeling or through a top down discussion people need to be at the table it's their lives and communities that are involved and it's also I keep stressing communities because one of the things that we're hearing very consistently from union members is that they want jobs where they live right so it's not so helpful if your job is disappearing if all the cool new jobs in the wind industry are halfway across the country and far away from the place where you might have a house or have raised your kids now I'm not going to go into the sort of detailed policy driven stuff because as my brother Numa said we've had enough graphs and charts and policy so I won't try to do that but I will say that the international labor organization is social dialogue at the UN level so that's employers governments and workers and they have negotiated guidelines for a just transition to environmentally sustainable economies and societies for all so my presentation is in drop box please don't share it I don't think I have the right to all the pictures but you will find the links to these guidelines and I suggest if you want to know what the just transition is take a look there it's also in the Paris agreement it's in the preamble which discusses the imperative for the just transition of the workforce and finally there is goal 8 of the sustainable development goals also negotiated last year which is about decent work and has elements of just transition so again with all of those 180 million union members in mind I would say most of the trade unions they're members and leaders that I at least have encountered they want action on climate change just like everybody else and people who especially work in sectors that are going to be affected by climate change they really want action so everyone who is a first responder we know we're going to have more natural disasters more climate emergencies everyone working in emergency relief is affected by climate change health workers are seeing the impacts of pollution use of fossil fuels they care about climate change public transport workers really want action on climate change because they think there will be tons of jobs for their sectors and they have high union density so just to say that the interests of workers are a bit different depending on the sector but most workers including people in fossil fuel unions understand what's happening people aren't done and their main concern is what are they going to do in the future how will they have secure lives now workers have demands on just transition and the demands you might be surprised to see are not just about retiring coal workers it's actually about the new jobs investing in the opportunities for decent work the sectors where young people can be trained where they can have careers most importantly that those jobs are good quality and organized jobs so it's not so helpful if you're going from a highly skilled job with a secure contract in North America if that includes benefits for example to a job on a zero hours contract part time not skilled no opportunities to skill up so when we talk about the creation of new jobs also as environmentalists it's important to think about the quality of the job and is that job organized so that people can push back corporate power they want respect for people who built our prosperity because whether we like it or not and living in Norway I can certainly attest to it fossil fuel companies built prosperity in some developed countries and so we should respect the contribution of those workers not throw them away when they're old and their industry is dying but instead be sure that they have pensions and medical medical care we should have a social floor it's important for everybody a social floor that includes unemployment insurance that includes healthcare that includes all the things that make it possible for people to transition from one job to another without fear and finally we should try to formalize jobs so that all of the vast majority of jobs in this world are actually not formal people don't have contracts they don't have rights they don't have laws so especially in the fields of agriculture but also everyone who's going to be a first responder in disaster relief those jobs need to be formalized now I see the signs so I'm going to try since I know we're almost done I'm just going to try to be really fast I just wanted to say a few words about the ethical dimension of calling for leaving fossil fuels and for this very fast transition you should know that as I said many people in the labor movement are completely on board with that someone who's worked for social change for a good part of my life it's very exciting to see that things are starting to change and despite some of the things we've heard today I actually believe we're in the middle of a gigantic transformation but having said A having called for divestment having called for an end to fossil fuels we should also say B and B is about making sure that opportunities new opportunities are available for all the people who aren't in work today and for people whose industries are going to have to be phased out because of climate change I'm not going to say that there's this wonderful world of opportunity and climate change is only about co-benefits and opportunities it's not right you're talking about real transition transformation and very difficult decisions but we must be brave enough as environmentalists to take those hard discussions and to come up with the kinds of plans to support people in developing plans for their communities their companies their sectors and their countries plans that don't just talk about emissions and cost curves but that talk about what are people going to do in the future and how can they have safe and decent work thank you Sam what you say it makes so much sense it's so compelling we need to worry not just about climate impacts but also the impacts of the climate transition itself and how to help those who will be affected but it almost feels like there is a conspiracy of silence there's a real blind spot in the climate community who loves to talk about co-benefits and loves to talk about all the jobs in the green economy but arguably who have been really silent on the issue of workers and just transition and I just wonder if you could speak to why is that what dynamic leads to that so it depends which part of the climate community you're talking about so if you're talking about people from social movements or organizations that work a lot with social movements like Friends of the Earth they're very active on the issue of just transition and jobs job justice and community justice right but if you're talking about mainstream environmental organizations like my former employer WWF I think a lot of it is actually a class issue and an unfamiliarity issue because many people who are employed by green groups especially in the north are like myself middle class or professional background if you're from the U.S. as I said you don't really haven't seen too many unions and you might not think of yourself as a worker as someone who could and should unionize and you might not think of workers as people that you know people in your community people in your family so I do think that that is to some extent a barrier I also think that it's when you start to get to fairness and what's the right thing to happen we see it all across the climate shop then the questions start to become very hard it's easier to engage with numbers and with modeling so I think that now that we're at the point of implementing now that we actually have to do where we have five years to get emissions down really quickly we must be courageous enough to push away these barriers of class discomfort and to have the hard discussions the last two things I want to say about unions is conflict is not always bad if you're a trade unionist I mean people use strikes and walkouts and so forth as methods of negotiations they're not afraid of conflict but the point is that you can have conflict and then you can reach agreement afterwards and the second thing is that unions are democratic so all of the positions that I've talked about on just transition and climate change those have been adopted through voting of members of unions and adopted all the way up to the highest level union leaders are generally always elected and they're elected on a platform so you know when you're negotiating with unions that's the basis for their positions fantastic thanks Sam thank you very much our next panelist is Simon Keeney who's a professor here at Oxford in political theory and really has written many of the seminal pieces on climate inequity and in fact I consider him very much to have influenced the way that I think and the work that I've done so Simon, I'm honored to have you on the panel thank you very much Stephen for that kind introduction and for the invitation thank you also for mentioning Paul Bear who's work with Tom Athanasio and yourself I greatly admire so what I want to do in my so 10 minute slot is do three things firstly I want to say why we can frame the issue about stranding fossil fuel assets in lots of ways a scientific way an economic way a political economy way I think those are legitimate important ways but it's also a question of ethics and justice and I want to bring out exactly why that's the case and then the second and the third bit are to put forward some principles for what you might call supply side ethics so why should we frame it as an issue of justice justice by which I mean distributive justice is about the fair distribution of burdens and benefits so whenever you get a policy decision which confers benefits on some and disadvantages on others like it or not whether it's inconvenient to point it out that's an issue of justice and one thing we need to consider then is what's the justice distribution of those burdens and benefits if we take as a given which I think we should that we have to keep a lot of fossil fuels in the grounds then we have to confront a series of questions about just rights to extraction who has the rights to extract the remaining fossil fuel reserves how much on what basis who has denied that and why and should there be compensation for those denied rights to extract just fleshing this out a bit more when we allocate rights to extract on what basis is it an optimization basis which was mentioned this morning Professor Eakins is it a function of past extraction if you've used a lot in the past or extracted a lot you should have less now is it to do with the level of development is it some other criterion these are questions of justice the second one is compensation if you're told there's an opportunity that you were relying on to pull yourself out of poverty are you entitled to compensation then there's a question of whose rights you know who actually owns the fossil fuel reserves is it the private land owner or a company is it the government so it can sell them off and then pocket the gains is it the members of the country or is it the world as a whole are we going to be cosmopolitan and think these resources belong to humanity now my point here is my first contention is however one likes to look at it as an issue of justice because we have to confront these questions we can ignore them we can not give answers to them but they're still those questions so I don't think we should ignore them I think we should have an ethics for the extraction side or the supply side so a lot of climate ethicists have taught a lot about the demand side so who has the right to emit how should we distribute emission rights these trading schemes how should permits to emit be distributed if we have a carbon tax system what should be done with the revenues generated those are all kind of ethical issues on the demand side but we clearly have supply side ones but I think the kind of values that people often invoke on the demand side apply here in a different format the one and this follows on very nicely from the previous presentation is any just transition must honour human rights so if we're going to have an outcome which we will where some people's assets are stranded and they can't use them then we need to find a way of stranding them such that their human rights are honoured now what would be the implications of this when first thinking about this it struck me that some people will say will people have a right to develop we have this limited resource we should allocate privileged access to extract fossil fuels to those living in severe poverty so fossil fuel rich developing countries though in other words if we appeal to things like the right to develop should we allocate extractive rights primarily to those in developing countries so there's a couple of reasons why I don't think we should go down that route or at least it's a lot harder to make that argument than you might first think the one is this argument assumes that if you respect the right to develop it entails a right to extract natural resources there but if you're thinking about extraction because of domestic consumption because you want to use the coal for domestic use so this argument only goes if you haven't got access to other sources of energy so if we think of hydroelectric or solar or geothermal or wind or other renewables as soon as we put those into the equation you can't just go have a right to develop therefore have a right to extract you can't for a reason 1b which is there might be other ways to enable people to develop that don't involve using the natural resources country so it's already been mentioned several times already but the soon the ITT kind of initiative could be used as a way of facilitating development but delinking it from extraction the other comments I just want to make are if anyone thinks that appeals to development ground extraction rights then remember the first principle is about human rights and those are rights of individuals and so they have to ensure that any proceeds and this is true whether we have a soon the ITT type approach or another approach would have to to individual human beings not political elites who can pocket the money so for this to genuinely uphold the rights it has to be done in a way that meets people's rights to food water employment so forth the other comment is this could only be a short term approach so what I'm trying to say here is I think the right to develop has to be a fundamental part as indeed are other rights of a transition to a low carbon or zero carbon world but it doesn't entail necessarily that we just allocate extraction rights to fossil fuel rich developing countries but what about another principle historical responsibility now we're used to a kind of a extractor pays principle that says if you've polluted a lot you should pay or if you've omitted a lot you should pay I think there could be an analogue which is on the extraction side which is the extractor pays principle lots of people give you graphs and other people give you pictures I give you bodies of text I'm sorry about that but the gist of it is the more that an agent like a given society has extracted from extraction in the past then the lesser claim they have to the benefits of the remaining fossil fuels the less that a party has benefited from extraction in the past then the stronger they have a claim to the existing fossil fuel reserves or the benefits from them and I just want to stress and the benefits from them because I think this is an intuitively plausible principle if someone has been using a crop and they've received lots of benefits from it and there's someone else who hasn't had the opportunity to at any point it seems a principle of natural justice that the other person who's been denied usage can have a go but what it doesn't I think mean in this case is that they receive their entitlements in the form of extraction rights it just means if you've been denied access to the benefits of this resource in the past you're entitled to use and receive benefits from it in the future it's an ethic of sharing so again I think there are different ways of spelling out this intuition but one of them is compatible with just keeping it in the ground but it says to those who keep it in the ground who've not had the opportunity to use them in the past you can receive financial support and investment because you're forgoing an opportunity to which you're entitled okay so this sums up where I want to end really there's three points one is the stranding of fossil fuel assets inescapably raises questions of justice second is we do need an ethics then for the supply side and then third is I've given you two principles that I hope will resonate one about rights including the right to develop and one about historical responsibility and then try to tease out what that might mean for practical policies up there thank you thank you Simon I find this very compelling not only because it's grounded in basic fundamental ethical principle but that's also how we often act within politics we try and respect human rights and we try and hold people accountable for actions they've taken but in the rough and tumble of international negotiations where where the ethics seems sometimes anything other than an ethical ethic where to paraphrase Andy Warhol's comment that art is whatever you can get away with equity is sort of whatever you can get away with and so how does this link to what we might as a global community come together to agree on right thank you yeah I knowing that you were going to ask something like this I should have plugged this here are like three kind of replies that people have when I was young they used to be a cookery program and someone would do something and then they'd say and here's one I prepared earlier but it's not quite the answer to the question some of it anyway what I want to say is something about the role of ethics then in this because yeah people do stretch ethics and this idea of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities is a very nice doesn't trip off the tongue but it's a nice framing but and it's an ethical framing but then what turns out is people just twist and bend it to suit their interests the three things I kind of want to say when this are don't dilute the ethical principles here because people fail to comply with lots of moral norms some people kill, some people rape some people steal, some people torture what we don't do then is say okay well a little bit of rape or a little bit of torture is fine we stick to the ethical principle so I want to say let's keep the ethical principles demanding the next thing people sometimes can say is sometimes these do motivate people you know I agree that you know with Keynes here in the general theory where he says economists and political philosophers I'm a political philosopher their ideas both when they're writing when they're wrong do shape ideas and one illustration of this actually is the idea of dangerous anthropogenic interference or dangerous climate change many people who think of themselves as hard-boiled real polity think there's an overwhelming imperative to deal with this I can't make sense of that except as an ethical norm or an ethical value because why on earth would you do this that the best explanation is you think it's just wrong to mess up the planet maybe in itself and for future generations now here reply three is I think the best way to deal with this which is to say look people often do have ethical motivations and intentions to put it and harness it so there's this idea in international relations of norm entrapment people sign something thinking this is meaningless and then what civil society actors can do is latch on to that and say will you promise to transparent governments what are you doing about it or you promise to responsibility to protect what are we doing about it and so I think things like article 14.1 of the Paris Agreement or the dialogue part are kind of opportunities that people can have to say well politicians profess these moral norms here are four of which we can try and hold them to account for those I'm not starry-eyed I don't think this is going to revolutionize them but I think you can kind of tap into some of these moral motives and thank you very much and our final panelist is Greg Mutit a senior advisor at Oil Change International and also author of a report just out The Sky's Limit I think there might be copies out there but if not Greg can provide a URL which is a fantastic report some of which we'll get a glimpse of in this presentation thank you very much Greg I'm going to give you advance warning I do have a couple of graphs but I understand I'm the last presentation of the day so if you can just get through this one and I hope you've all got as much from today as I have I'd like to add to the discussion at this stage the first is to share with you this research that we published last week which haven't mentioned which tries to translate climate limits into what it means for the supply side and then the second is to begin to reflect on the equity dimensions of those limits now probably most of you have seen graphs like this before in fact we saw one like this this morning in Paul Eakin's presentation we compare the world's reserves of oil, gas and coal with how much we can afford to burn we find that it's three or four times as much now the key question that this graph asks is which of the left hand column sits in a green box within the carbon budget and which sits bashed red box as being unburnable but in the limit now we took a different approach to Paul and Kristoff to answering that question and we focused just on the reserves whose extraction is locked in by existing physical capital so we focused on existing coal mines existing oil fields, existing gas fields where the wells have been drilled, the pits have been dug the pipelines constructed so those are what will come out that's because of the capital that's already been invested and we found this quite striking result that the oil, gas and coal just from existing mines and existing fields where everything has already been built would take us beyond 2 degrees C only beyond 1.5 degrees C now the obvious conclusion from that is perhaps we should stop developing new mines and new fields now let's just think this through a little if companies or governments were to develop new coal mines, new oil fields new gas fields what it will do is it will add to the left hand column and that can only lead to two possible results one is it drives us further past 2 degrees C larger committed stock of fossil fuels or alternatively we find governments and others and people in general find a way to limit emissions keep within 2 degrees or aim for 1.5 degrees and a lot of what's in the left hand column becomes stranded assets and remember these aren't just reserves these are reserves that have been unlocked by physical investment in steel, concrete and so on now either way there is no significant social and economic disruption neither is an attractive prospect and so perhaps the most reasonable solution here is when in a hole you stop digging and so that's why we think that's why we propose a managed decline of the fossil fuel industry this oil, gas and coal we're not suggesting shutting the taps overnight as some of our critics like to caricature it what we're suggesting is if we run down the existing reserves of oil, gas and coal that gives us time to conduct an orderly transition a just transition while staying within climate limits now I'm going to move on towards equity my first conclusion there is that we need to stop developing new extraction infrastructure but that immediately raises an equity question which is what about those countries such as India for example which were counting on extraction to drive their development and so how do we square this you know when we look at this chart it suggests there's no room for anyone to develop any rich country or poor country perhaps a way to square this is by requiring richer countries to support a transition in those countries that have less resources of their own the third conclusion it also raises an equity concern which is the left hand column is actually bigger than the 2 degree budget it's a lot bigger than the 1.5 degree budget that implies that not only do we need to stop developing new fields of mines but some existing ones might need to be closed down but again we have the question of which ones I think Nemo pointed out very well that extraction can often have a negative impact on development for the communities who live there so a key element of any solution on equity must be to stop extraction where it violates people's rights and finally as Sam talked about a just transition is an essential part I'm just going to focus a little bit on the second and third of these and think about how equity relates to them now on the emissions side there is a very well accepted and very elegant approach to dealing with which has been developed by Paul, Tom and Shiven primarily and what that does is it looks at each country's capacity to cut emissions each country's historic responsibility for causing the problem and in proportion to those it gives each country a share of the effort that it would need to take and that allows conclusions such as the grey boxes here what would be a fair share for each of these countries marked on the map and compared with their Paris INDCs now Shiven and I have been talking over recent weeks about how could we develop this for the supply side if there is going to be action on the supply side of fossil fuels then equity has to come into it and can we work towards a similar framework to what has been developed on the demand side we've got some very initial ideas on that which I want to share with you but I'd strongly welcome any feedback as to whether this is a useful frame whether it's going in a good direction but firstly I want to observe that there are a few difficulties with the supply side when we think about equity the first is that some countries have geological resources of fossil fuels and others don't and if we're talking about equity why should countries that happen to have resources deserve any advantage from that that's the first problem the second problem is that the economic benefits are less closely correlated with past extraction than they are with past emissions this leads me to wonder about whether the historic responsibility for extraction is as useful in the supply side case let me give you an example that I know a little bit about which is Iraq now Iraq in the 1970s nationalized its oil industry at almost exactly the same time that oil prices went up as a result Iraq was able to develop the best healthcare and the best education in the region it developed its infrastructure and Baghdad became prosperous during the latter part of the 70s Saddam Hussein increasingly used that revenue and the political power it generated to repress much of the Iraqi population in 1980 he started an 8 year war with Iran that did considerable damage to both countries and then 10 years later he invaded Kuwait the Iraqi people suffered a lot as a result of a regime that benefited from the the rents from oil now I wouldn't look at Iraqis as having benefited from those rents so perhaps we need to question the linkage on the supply side the other point of course as Nemo has pointed out is that many communities suffer negative impacts of development one other problem I'll just raise here is that when we in the emissions side what we're doing is we're comparing with the baseline now when we move to the supply side there's another problem with that which is that if we set a baseline it's going to be somewhat influenced by how many reserves a country has and we run the risk of what's called the green paradox that lots of countries will want to explore more so as to set their baseline higher before any negotiation happens how do we approach this I think the first thing to say is that there's no right to extract per se any more than there's a right to pollute but there are economic rights and arguably a right to socioeconomic development the way we approach this is that as climate changes a global problem everyone needs to do their part and it has to be solved cooperatively and the way to solve it cooperatively is for each to contribute according to their capacity to carry that load and so when we look at those two requirements from my earlier slide we need to stop some of the existing extraction to move the committed volume back down towards the carbon budget and we need to forego future extraction equity can help us with both of those finally I'm just going to show you some rudiments of how do we begin to think about this the first is that it's crucial that where extraction violates rights it needs to be stopped or alternatively unless it can be reformed in a way that no longer violates rights but protection of human rights is a fundamental value when we come into how do we share the effort in proportion to the country's capacity we need to think what is it we're sharing how do we measure this effort and our proposal is that we measure it in relation to the cost of going through a transition here I've identified three different ways in which the costs of a transition occur first is that some countries forego export revenue Nigeria might be an example of this second is that some countries forego fuel to drive their own industrialization and India might be an example of this and the third is that there's a potentially socially disruptive transition for the existing fossil fuel production in relation to workers and communities so to conclude based on our analysis of the numbers we propose that no new oil fields, gas fields or coal mines should be developed no new extraction infrastructure built we propose that financial support should be provided for poorer countries to enable their transition to enable a non-carbon development pathway some fields and mines will need to be closed before they're fully exploited and equity should also help us in identifying which those are we stop extraction where communities rights are violated and we ensure a just transition for workers and communities my final slide is an advertisement for the report we released last week it's on our website at priceofoil.org thanks thank you Greg that was clear and brilliant and I have no questions since we've been talking much and working together I'll forego my moderators privilege so that we can get to the round of questions because we're being squeezed for time since we started late we have to end in a little bit less time than we had expected it's not equitable even though it's not equitable yes I'm going to take five questions I'm going to exclude the extroverted males who raised their hand early I was advised by Bob Massey to do this and then we'll just go one by one down the panelist and they can respond to what they want to one two three four thank you thank you very much there were all excellent presentations I have to leave the question open I don't know who to ask really it touches upon I think a very absent actor in the presentations the petrol state Greg mentioned it I think in equity discussion it has to be presented as a petrol state and the question is what would you do with this actor in terms of the unions in these states not being maybe under the model the NGOs maybe following rentist motives sometimes and the politics and the institutions of these states being very much historically bad dependent created around this thank you your question is relatively short and unfortunately we also have to ask the respondents to keep them wonderful presentations thank you very much I would like to ask Simon and Greg maybe for the historical responsibility which is the time frame because exploitation in Iraq was before Iraq was an state and it did not benefit Iraq before that at the beginning of the 20th century then what is the frame and the second is if there is a moral responsibility then we have to depart from the Pareto efficiency that nobody that everybody has to be at least the same of status keeping moral thank you so my question will go to the last presentation by Greg I'd be very much interested to know your argument for your preference to clean energy finance and not compensation given that compensation would look more ideal and green finance has inherent challenges that have been in climate finance for instance if it's loans over burdening countries that already over burdened we'll be very much interested to know your argument for the distinction thanks so my question is to Sam really because I think we need some examples of what this just transition is going to look like because so many communities just get left behind from post industrialization steel, coal changes in technologies so some good examples of where this might work and also for positive examples of how this could actually work in practice speaking in as an expert here look the TCFD is looking at financial recommendations on scenario analysis and what to do there's a strong movement to try and get them to come out with some reference cases at least the IEA now we found it hard enough to get these companies to look at the IEA so I just want to make the point where I totally understand this but in practical terms this could really like what reference case have you got the fossil fuel companies are looking for every excuse to say why they're not going to do this stuff so just sort of that my commenters might be aware that this is a tricky moment in terms of scenario choosing sure so I think three of the questions were directed to me and I'm going to do them in reverse order the first is about finance versus compensation just to clarify by finance I don't mean only loans and you raise a lot of important problems with that it can also include grants and in fact that would make more sense since it's carrying out a responsibility the reason I don't talk about compensation is because of the sheer scale that would be required to replace the revenues that come from the fossil fuel industry I mean we would be talking about trillions and I don't see a way of doing that instead I look at the opportunity cost and hence investment in transition rather than compensation for lost revenues I think there are also political difficulties with compensation related to why should a country that happens to have done well geologically deserve compensation on the question about Iraq the situation now is that since about six or seven years ago multinationals have been operating the majority of the oil fields and ever since they arrived corruption skyrocketed again I think the interesting thing about that is that it raises another dimension of the difficulty of connecting extraction with benefit given that high level of corruption over inflated expenses claimed by the companies and so on the benefit aspect of it becomes muddled and then finally on the question of petro states let me just throw out a nascent idea on this which relates to OPEC OPEC is often thought of as a cartel I don't think it's a very good one insofar as it is a cartel it hasn't been very successful at keeping prices flat during the time it's existed it can shift prices in the short term but doesn't have an ability to fight long term trends where OPEC I think was really significant was in the 1960s in its first decade and into the early 70s where there were the one of the most important aspects of international relations was the demand for permanent sovereignty over natural resources and in that OPEC facilitated its member countries renegotiating first with the European and American multinationals that were running the oil industries there and ultimately leading to the nationalizations in the 70s now the interesting thing for me there is that OPEC as a coordinating and facilitating body important transition for their future and an interesting idea for me is can OPEC play a similar role in relation to climate change wrap up right after this frown also feel free panelists to make any parting comments that you'd like okay can I respond to the question on the time frame and relationship to efficiency I mean it's a good question but it's a very hard question and time is limited so can I just say I think the way to think about the time frame is it does depend on what you think is the unit so if you think it's a country is the moral unit then you go right back to whenever Britain started or France today started extracting if you take an individualistic approach and you just look at individual human beings then you don't go back that far I think the further you go back that far the harder it is because you deal with those people who say what's it got to do with me I didn't go back then one comment on efficiency I'm pleased you raised that because I think you could combine it with an equity approach because you could say and I don't know if this will work but I'll say it and then I can get shot down is you might say that who could extract should be done on who could do it in the most efficient way possible but then if you are denied access to extraction and you're a developing country you're entitled to compensation for that so in other ways you separate the question who extracts from who should receive benefits you don't want to give it to someone who's very inefficient at extracting it's very leaky it doesn't make the best use of it I think could I just say a couple of things in relation to some things Greg had said because I think we're closer than he might think on this so what I'm calling the extract to pays principle doesn't say Iraq benefited therefore contemporary Iraqis don't because it denies that contemporary Iraqis have benefited it looks at it from the point of view of individual human beings so if there's been extraction in the past and it hasn't improved the quality of people's lives then the principle doesn't apply to them this also applies to countries like Eritrea Swaziland which don't have as I understand it fossil fuel reserves what it does says if you benefited if you genuinely benefited from the extraction in the past you have less claim now to the benefits from the remaining ones if for whatever reason whether it's corruption or you just don't have the stuff in your lands if you didn't benefit from these resources in the past then you have a stronger claim to the benefits of these resources now because others have had a go so contemporary Iraqis are not people who have benefited from it political elites thanks Simon to see if I can muster my voice for a couple of these questions so to start with your question about Petro states right several of us in this room are from Norway which we must say is a Petro state about 50% of the economy depending on how you count is related to oil and gas and and there's a tight nexus of power between the oil companies particularly the ones that are state owned the government the unions and the political elites now it's a small country of 4.5 million people so everything is tightly connected but but nonetheless we really are talking about this concentration of power when you're going to have a transition in countries where so much of the economy depends on fossil fuel then you have the question of the rents that the state is getting from extraction which are critical income for the state that's not only true for Norway it's true for any fossil fuel exporting country you have the effects on the currency of the loss and value of their assets you have and you also have the general instability of the economy as you start to go through transition now and that from a union perspective yes specifically about where are unions on this they're where you might imagine them to be I mean people in energy unions understand the changes coming they might disagree exactly on when it's coming and should they be affected and is the right you know time for the end of oil and gas 2050 or 2100 but they understand the changes coming and especially young people who are working in the oil sector they want to work on renewables in fact it's a recruitment issue for oil companies and for unions for oil unions to get younger people that's why the industry as a whole is aging young people want to go into the green part of the companies or work in a green job it's true everywhere how do you break up that power well some of it's happening from outside right the drop in the price of oil has lessened the financial power of the sector on the government on workers on different regions and I think that trend is just going to accelerate the other way you break up the power is through the efforts of civil society which even in Norway in these conditions has done a great job trying to illuminate and pull apart this nexus of power and we're going to get kicked out of this room okay so let me just give one good example you asked for a good example on just transition we have almost none that's the problem so when you say transition to workers they think job loss and stranded community but in Canada there's the start of a process I can't say it's going to be result in perfect outcomes but the government the Canadian Labour Congress are starting a process to appoint a task force on just transition come up with a national just transition plan there's going to be money attached to it there's going to be a massive infrastructure coming out in the first part of the year where some of it's earmarked for green things like public transport so we must see if that turns into the best example we have so far then there's some others I can tell you about later thank you I'm very much given hovering ominously so I'll be right thank you that helps let me just make a couple of quick comments I want to actually Greg and Given's work where they ended up make a quick comment on that and tied to one of the questions or the comments rather on scenarios so I think you all ended Greg by saying well really what this needs to be about then is financial support to enable to enable countries that will have foregone sort of industrial opportunities to make the transition that was one of the points you made and I just worry a little bit that we're falling into this game that economists have played with policy makers for so long which is well yes of course winners could potentially compensate the losers and therefore it's better to improving and then the compensation never comes and really that is we don't have a credible response to that right I mean so let me just give you and tie when you tie that to the scenarios story right the games people are playing with scenarios which I've I'm not a scenario model type guy but I've had to engage with it because I've been frustrated by what I see let me just sort of spell out a possible story the scenarios for India that I am seeing getting credibility and resonance in the international era are uniformly the IEAs there are six different Indian modeling groups never cited in the international literature so the IEA says here's the story for India here's the baseline story you combine what that new with the new carbon economy which again has a lot of muscle power money power behind it got a lot of traction and the new kind of carbon economy says you know what co-benefits are so massive that you don't actually have to pay much compensation you put IEA and NCE together that's very little money on the table and that's what's dominating the discourse right so there's a so in the political economy we really have to worry about that where I find the more where I really think the action is right now is in India there is a fertile debate about how much coal we need there are social groups there are grassroots groups asking this question pushing back against mining here's my worry this global discourse provides a reason to suppress that dialogue and that's my real worry that the perverse incentive politically is that the domestic political process gets skewed by a perception that you know all the stuff I tried to say about grandfathering and so on and so forth so I think just quickly one then the reflection on Simon's point I think we actually see eye to eye on a lot of this I don't think that disadvantage necessarily necessarily leads to a right to extract I think you have to absolutely ask the questions can you get there another way that's what I meant by saying ask the hard questions are you actually going to use any gains to bring about development for the global equity question but that's where the conversation has to happen at the national level and I think we have to find ways of making the international narrative supportive of that and be cautious about it undermining it thank you close it up alright two things number one is that it's a very strong link between fossil fuels and war in the world today in a narrative about Iraq would not only end with Saddam Hussein but also aim and also a refer to the invasion and the destruction of the country as well as the Libya and other places and so when you talk about equity and responsibility look at oil and war and the petrol military complex is so strong that fossil fuels don't feature at all in the climate negotiations in the Paris agreement somebody suppressing it even the military missions are not sure they are being completed in terms of carbon emissions and the carbon budget we are talking about so these guys are completely outlaws I would say and then I've not been able to bring myself to a campaign on transparency issues mostly because I believe there's a big gap in the campaign I applaud those who do it to follow the money and all that but a lot of people want to know what the oil companies are extracting they should publish what they extract when I know what they extract I know what they're paying they're not publishing what they're extracting these guys are stealing the world blind thank you I have nothing that I want to add because I don't want to stand between you and the reception which will occur directly across the quad except oh no just here directly across the directly out the door the only thing I want to say is thank you very much panelists you made for a fantastic discussion


Global fossil fuel consumption has caused an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2, levels due to the emission of greenhouse gases. As a result, global temperatures have risen significantly, leading to climate change. In order to combat this issue, many countries are looking to develop technologies that can capture and reuse CO2. These technologies include pre-combustion, post-combustion, oxy-fuel, direct air capture, chemical looping combustion, gasification, ionic liquids, biological CO2 fixation, and geologic CO2 capture. Additionally, these technologies can be used to produce valuable products like clean energy, chemicals, and materials. This article was authored by Jibben Potter, Biswa, Arpatra, Falkuni Putnayek, and others.


Ukrainian airstrike hits Russian manpower cluster on Bakhmut's southern flank. Ukraine's army aviation hit an enemy manpower and weapons cluster on the southern flank of Bakhmut as part of the effort to liberate the temporarily occupied territories according to Ilya Yevlash, press officer for the eastern group of troops. On the southern flank of Bakhmut, we continue our advance as our defenders are liberating temporarily occupied territories from the enemy by hundreds of meters every day. All the available forces and assets are employed there. In particular, our army aviation units did a very good job on October the 10th inflicting a powerful blow on an enemy manpower cluster. However, the Russians don't stop trying to recapture previously lost positions, in particular near Klesievka and Andriyivka, where they see no success. The enemy 365 times shelled the Ukrainian positions. We repelled four enemy assaults. We killed 165 occupiers in the Bakhmut direction, capturing one. We also destroyed a D-30 artillery system and five ammunition depots. Yevlash said, commenting on the situation in the Lyman-Kupiansk direction, the spokesman noted that on October the 8th there was a lull due to rains in Luhansk and Donetsk regions which prevented the enemy from intensively deploying heavy military hardware and aviation. Over the past day, the enemy has used Su-35s and Su-25s 20 times. They mostly fly in pairs and engage our positions, but they are wary of flying into the zone covered by our air defenses. They mostly operate from their own territory, the spokesman said. According to the spokesman, the enemy is currently trying to focus their main efforts on the areas near Sinkivka and Ivanovka in Kharkiv region and Makievka in Luhansk region.