HOST ETHAN BROWN: Well, I’ve got good news and bad news from the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP27, which just wrapped up in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt on Sunday. And I know everyone insists on getting the bad news first, which I really don’t understand. It’s the equivalent of eating pizza crust first. Like, objectively, the crust is the worst part of the pizza, but you’re not going to start with it. In reality, I do think ending on good news can make us forget about the gravity of whatever the bad thing is, so here’s what we’re going to do. We’ll do a Tip of the Iceberg double header — bad news this week, good news next week, and that way you can take your time and let it all wash over you. How does that sound? Oh right, this isn’t interactive, so I can do what I want! Happy Friday, Happy Black Friday I should say, I’m Ethan Brown, and this is Tip of the Iceberg, where I will break down some environmental news and then answer a question from our listeners on the air. Submit questions via Patreon, email, or social media. Patron questions go to the front of the line, so sign up at patreon.com/thesweatypenguin.

The Sweaty Penguin is presented by Peril and Promise: a public media initiative from The WNET Group in New York, reporting on the issues and solutions around climate change. You can learn more at pbs.org/perilandpromise.

It was a long, grueling two weeks for delegates in Sharm El-Sheikh, and that’s to be expected when you need to produce a document that nearly 200 countries can agree upon, but even for UN standards, this was tougher than normal. Imagine your Thanksgiving dinner last night, but with 190 clones of your annoying uncle, you’re locked into the house for two weeks, and you all have to write and sign a document at the end listing all the common ground you found. Brutal, right? The conference actually went into overtime, concluding with an all-nighter where delegates could be seen nearly falling asleep as the final agreements were read off at 6 in the morning. I could be seen falling asleep too, but in all fairness, it was 4pm here. I was just tired after a long night watching Koopa Troopa videos on TikTok. And there were a number of reasons why the conference took so long to wrap up, but one big one was the fact that the document failed to include a phasedown of all fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas.

One year ago, in episode two of Tip of the Iceberg, I discussed how at COP26 in Glasgow, the final document included an agreement to phase out coal, but at the last minute, India demanded a change to phase down coal. They received a lot of flack for this, but I argued at the time that it was a little unfair to go after India so harshly when (1) it’s entirely out of their control who Santa puts on the naughty list, (2) India still uses a lot of coal whereas most of the western world has phased down coal already because it’s really expensive here but are continuing to ramp up production of oil and natural gas and did not have to confront that in the agreement, and (3) a phasedown and a phaseout, at least in the short term, amount to the exact same thing. Down the line, the distinction matters, but not this second.

So I was pretty proud of myself when I learned that I really hit the nail on the head with that take from a year ago. That was as good as when I said Victoria Fuller and Greg Grippo were dating! What a bombshell! India showed up at COP27 and put forth a proposal to phase down all fossil fuels. In doing this, they made clear it was always about fairness and accountability, there was not some sinister motive in last year’s change of language. But what surprised some — even me a little bit — is that the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States supported India’s proposal, at least in cases that don’t involve carbon capture. And I wasn’t in the room, I don’t have a list of every country that supported this although I know it was a lot, but ultimately, there were countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, some African countries looking to expand their fossil fuel infrastructure, that blocked the proposal and led the final document to really not make progress from last year and, again, leave out oil and natural gas.

Now, don’t get me wrong. That was bad news. That was as bad as the one day where everyone decided Twitter was over and then, it just… wasn’t. Like, I’m sorry, why am I taking down everyone’s email addresses? Elon is a billionaire, can he not afford the domain name from Godaddy? We’ll talk about the positive outcomes from COP27 next week, but this was definitely the most disappointing one. In fact, there were natural gas deals that actually got done at the conference. And I’m sorry, how brazen can you be? That’s like bringing your side piece to your anniversary party, or selling Hawaiian pizza at a food festival. Oil and gas have to be phased down to combat climate change, and transitioning to other energy sources brings economic, health, justice, security, and environmental benefits all over the world. Just listen to our episodes on the Ghawar Oil Field in Saudi Arabia, the Rovuma Basin in Mozambique, and the Orinoco Belt in Venezuela for some examples of how transitioning away from fossil fuels helps the economies of these countries, whereas failing to do so just perpetuates a long list of problems.

But as usual, some stretched the bad news too far, so let’s add some context. In 2015, the entire world came together and set two goals: get the entire world obsessed with Adele and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius under pre industrial levels by 2100. It’s an arbitrary number. It’s not like things are fine at 1.4, and it’s not Mad Max: Fury Road at 1.6, but it’s a round number and we do know that if we were to exceed it, many of the irreversible damages of climate change start spiraling out of control.

Now, we’ve already warmed the planet by about 1.2 degrees, so scientists agree that our actions over the next five to ten years will play a major role in the feasibility of meeting this target. For that reason, a lot of people put a lot of pressure on COP27. It was like one of those arm cuffs you measure blood pressure with, except not oddly soothing. Leaders came into the conference saying everything from 1.5 is dying to 1.5 is on life support to 1.5 is alive but has a weak pulse. And I’m sorry, how graphic does the metaphor need to be? What’s next, 1.5 is coughing blood? 1.5 is falling onto a pile of loose Legos? 1.5 is in Marius’s arms singing A Little Drop of Rain? Seriously, what are these metaphors people are choosing?

And I hated this framing because as big a deal as these UN conferences are, they don’t have the power to decide the global temperature. That’s Al Roker’s job! UN conferences can’t accomplish everything, and they can’t obstruct everything. After the conference is done, countries have the power to do whatever they want. Yes, treaties help unify countries on their goals, hold each other accountable, and stay on the same page — they are really important — but you can’t tell me the fate of our single most prominent global climate goal rests on the shoulders of COP27.

I guess to their credit, many experts upheld the 1.5 is dying metaphor after the disappointing outcome on oil and gas at the conference. You all know I’m an avid reader of The Guardian and generally a big fan. I mean, if Ticketmaster were still working, I’d be at any concert The Guardian puts on. By the way, I have to thank them because I was not in Egypt at the conference, and so I heavily relied on their reporting and especially their live blog to be able to keep up with what was going on. It was really helpful, and really impressive they kept it going during that brutal all nighter on the last day. That said, some of the opinion pieces they published after the conference proclaimed that 1.5 is dead. And the pieces gave glimmers of hope, they weren’t all doom and gloom so I feel bad singling it out, but I’m sorry, 1.5 just isn’t dead. It’s on track to be, but right now, it’s not.

From a physical perspective, those opinion pieces and any climate scientist would agree. If the world peaks its carbon emissions by 2025, halves them by the early 2030s, and goes carbon neutral by the early 2050s, we should avoid 1.5. We can still do that. It still remains completely feasible from an economic perspective too.

But beyond that path, we need to remember what the goal is: limit global warming to 1.5 degrees by the end of the century. That’s a ways away. That’s like Murph from Interstellar’s birthday. That means in theory, if we were over 1.5 for a little bit and then sucked enough carbon out of the atmosphere to actually become carbon negative, we could get back down under 1.5 by 2100 and meet the goal. Now I’m not saying that’s a good plan — every tenth of a degree leads to more damage and cutting carbon emissions now is significantly less expensive than capturing them later, and I’m sure whatever straw we use to suck the carbon out will be made from single-use plastic. I mean, who wants to suck carbon with a paper straw? Gross! But global temperatures do have natural fluctuations, in large part related to El Niño and La Niña events. That’s why 2016 still remains the warmest year on record. We had an El Niño event back then, which gave a slight boost to a year already heavily impacted by human-caused global warming. 2016 was also the year The Rock was named PEOPLE’s Sexiest Man Alive and god damn did those pics heat the planet up!

And because of those fluctuations, 1.5 is a bit arbitrary. We could have one year over 1.5. We could have five years over 1.5. But I’d still call it a success if we do end up bouncing around that line but ultimately finding our way below it. You know, like a cardiogram. Oh, damn! Wow, it’s really hard not to make death analogies, I’m just realizing! Again, we shouldn’t make climate policy with that intention, it would be ridiculous to lower our ambitions over a technicality like that, but it does explain from a scientific perspective why it’s not quite accurate to proclaim 1.5 dead.

But in my opinion — and here’s where I differ from those opinion pieces in The Guardian — I don’t think it’s dead from a political perspective either. For one, like I say all the time, we’ve made remarkable progress in the last seven years. Not enough, but in 2015, global warming was projected to reach 4 degrees by the end of the century. Today, based on current policies, we’re on track to warm by 2.6 degrees, and if we include pledges from countries, that number comes down to 2.1. Now, 2.1 is still monumentally worse than 1.5, I’m not saying that’s good enough, but we are making a dent. We’re on a moving train, we just need to pick up the pace a bit. Turn it from a commuter rail to an Amtrak. Plus bonus, you can spend two hours looking for the café to get a stale soft pretzel with barely any salt on it, so, how can you pass that up?

If we look to energy specifically, I’d even say the outlook improves. I mentioned two weeks ago how this year’s World Energy Outlook from the International Energy Agency found that the world is on track to see its emissions in the energy sector peak in 2025 and then start to fall, with coal falling in a few years, natural gas by the end of the decade, and oil in the mid 2030’s. Is that fast enough for 1.5? Of course not. But it’s not like these industries are on their way to unlimited growth. They’re not a pile of laundry during seasonal depression. Their days are numbered largely just based on the fact that solar and wind are usually less expensive, and electric vehicles are expected to become less expensive than gasoline-powered vehicles at some point in the not too distant future as well. It’s not that absurd to speed up that transition as much as we can to enjoy those economic benefits sooner and make huge strides for the climate in the process.

Furthermore, like I said before, COP27 can’t stop countries from making progress. If the United States, the European Union, and India all want to phase down fossil fuels, do it! Be the world’s climate leaders! Those three alone consumed over 30 percent of the world’s fossil fuel energy in 2021. The rest was some dude in Canada who refuses to shut off the water while he brushes his teeth. But okay, you slash that 30 percent and not only do you make a massive dent in climate change, but think about what that means for some of the countries that might be standing in the way of a fossil fuel pledge. To use Saudi Arabia as an example, Saudi Arabia exports most of their oil. If we look at the top countries they export to, India is third, the U.S. is fifth, Belgium is seventh, the Netherlands are tenth, and France is eleventh. You lose all of their business and that’s a 23.2 billion dollar hit. Plus, I’m sure they’re losing Argentina’s business after that World Cup game. What an upset! All the while, Saudi Arabia is facing extremely bad heat waves, and is also a prime location for the development of solar which could be a moneymaker in its own right. I know the U.S., EU, and India couldn’t change their minds at COP27, but if those three made good on their phasedown anyway, do you really think Saudi Arabia wouldn’t suck it up and come to the table? Suck it up through a plastic straw, obviously? That’s just one example, but you get my point. Yes, eventually, you need the whole world, but there’s enough countries on board that if they take ambitious steps forward on their own, the rest of the world would have a tough time ignoring it.

And this starts to get to where even though I’m disappointed, I’m also optimistic. This fossil fuel pledge wasn’t on the table before. Now it is. Next time the G7 meet, who’s to say they can’t agree to a fossil fuel phasedown amongst themselves? That group would be ​​Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. Totally doable. If this idea marinates a little bit for some of the hesitant leaders, they see the whole G7 on board, they see India on board, a coalition starts growing and becoming louder, you know? There comes a point where you have to give in just to maintain good standing with your allies. I really don’t see it out of the realm of possibility for a fossil fuel phasedown to be adopted at COP28, and for a lot of progress to be made without the pledge between now and then.

So no, I don’t believe 1.5 is dead. That’s my opinion, but I think it’s a fair one. It’s alive, just riding a motorcycle without a helmet on a highway in Manhattan. Wow, really can’t stop making these analogies. The result on fossil fuels was disappointing, but the way the conference played out absolutely leaves room for hope on this. So let’s not crush people’s spirits by acting as if it’s fact that 1.5 is out the window, and instead, let’s outline the path to get there. Let’s continue showing why it is — from an environmental, economic, health, justice, and security perspective — the path of least resistance into the future. If we can do that, we’ll be able to avoid the worst possible climate outcomes and ensure the world only stays as hot as Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson makes it.
SEGMENT 2
—

Welcome back to Tip of the Iceberg. It’s time for “Ask Me Anything,” where our listeners get a chance to ask me any environmental questions they may have. Submit questions on our Patreon, email, or social media. Questions from patrons go to the front of the line, so be sure to sign up today at patreon.com/thesweatypenguin.

So my Grammee asked me this question, I think a lot of people have either asked me or been thinking it though. The question is essentially, “there’s a Republican House, Democratic Senate and President, how is anything supposed to get done on climate now?” And it’s pretty simple, really. We just work together.

As I discuss a lot on this podcast, back in the early 1970s, we had a Democratic Congress and Republican Presidents Nixon and Ford. In that time, we passed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, established the Environmental Protection Agency, established the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, had the first Earth Day, and a whole lot more all within a six-year timespan. People read Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, they saw oil spills, they saw lakes literally catching fire, and they got on the same page about the importance of environmental policy. Even if they disagreed on a lot which they did, they ultimately found common ground and made progress. Fifty years later, these bipartisan laws have remained the cornerstone of environmental protection in the United States.

But Ethan, that can’t happen in 2022! We’re too divided! No we’re not. In the last four years, can you guess how many bills were bipartisan? 94 percent. Yeah. We might hear about the 6 percent like the Inflation Reduction Act that are bitter partisan fights and make great news, but in reality, a lot of climate stuff has actually gotten done with support from both parties. In the last four years, some examples include the infrastructure act, BEST Act, USE IT Act, Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, and Great American Outdoors Act. These aren’t climate bills, but they had climate implications, and received bipartisan support.

I know lobbyists and just general politics can sometimes complicate things, but in general, I consider climate to actually be something very easy to find common ground on. I have friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle and to be fair, I’ve put a lot of thought into the right ways to approach people and engage in these conversations, but I find it remarkably easy to find common ground on climate. On many issues, particularly social issues, different parties can desire different outcomes. One side might want something super restricted, another might want it less restricted. But everyone wants clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. It’s a question of how we get there, not where we’re going, and that’s a much easier thing to work out. So no, it’s not easy, but if both sides can engage in good faith bipartisanship here, they can absolutely make a lot of climate progress. Seeing the legacy of the 1970s, bipartisan environmental bills may even be the ones that best stand the test of time.

Thanks so much to everyone who asked me this question, and thanks to all of you who listened to Tip of the Iceberg. Take two minutes, help out the show, and get a shoutout at the end of the show by leaving a five star rating and a review on Apple or Podcast Addict OR join our Patreon at patreon.com/thesweatypenguin. You get merch, bonus content, and your questions moved to the front of the line for Tip of the Iceberg. The Sweaty Penguin is presented by Peril and Promise: a public media initiative from The WNET Group in New York, reporting on the issues and solutions around climate change. You can learn more at pbs.org/perilandpromise. The opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the host and guests. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of Peril and Promise or The WNET Group. Thank you all for listening, and we’ll be back next week with another Tip of the Iceberg breaking down the good news from COP27, so I will see you then.