International Law and Climate Accountability

We get it. Making tax digital can sometimes feel daunting, but with Xero's HMRC recognized software, you quickly get to feeling confident. If you're a sole trader or landlord whose income tax is going digital, not only is Zero MTD ready, it also gives you better control of your finances, like having the clear financial visibility you need every quarter to avoid end-of-year tax surprises. Change the way you see MTD. Search MTD ready with zero . If you were to spell out to someone why what's happening in Iran is affecting our energy bills, what what's going on? Yeah, so in short, I mean this is also the second time this has happened in four years, right? That we've kind of been at the mercy of these international oil and gas markets because of a dictator somewhere or an autocrat that's decided to go to war. Sometimes people say that I don't talk about the climate crisis enough, which is wild, because the climate crisis is an existential crisis, both to our planet, both to our environment, and to every single policy that anyone cares about. And so one of the responses to that is to say that's ridiculous. The climate crisis isn't everything, whether it's housing, education, health, our transport system, how we heat our homes, that's all the climate crisis. But the other response to it is sometimes to do an episode of this podcast which is about the climate crisis. Uplift are an amazing organization that talk a lot about tackling the climate crisis and they just transition. To explain exactly what that means, here's their chief executive, Tessa Khan. So I've wanted to have a conversation with you for ages around oil and gas and the climate crisis. Um and it feels like in that short amount of time everything's kicked off and the conversation is even more urgent than it would have been anyway. Just before we get into all of that, uh just by way of introducing you, you're the chief executive of Uplift. What do Uplift do? Yeah, thanks so much, Zach, and really delighted to be on and albeit not in circumstances I would say that are ideal by any measure. So Uplift is a research and campaigning organisation that I founded a few years ago to focus really on accelerating the UK's transition away from oil and gas with a focus on the North Sea as you know the UK is a major oil and gas producing country, but also equally focused on making sure that that transition is a just one. So it's one that works for the workforce, for the communities with ties to the industry and so on. So we'll get on to the just transition in a minute. If we start off with with what's happening in around them, the fact that our energy prices are spiking. It looks like uh bills for households could go up from between three hundred to five hundred pounds. There's there's a lot of worrying things being spoken about in the news. If you were to spell out to someone why what's happening in Iran is affecting our our energy bills . What's going on? Yeah. So in short, I mean this is also the second time this has happened in four years, right? That we've kind of been at the mercy of these international oil and gas markets because of a dictator somewhere or an autocrat that's decided to go to war or to wage an illegal war. So, in short, you know, the UK is pretty dependent on oil and gas within its energy mix. Um but the price that we pay for those commodities are set by international markets. And that's because while we produce oil and gas via the North Sea, we don't produce enough of it to make a difference to how much we end up paying for it. And also because those uh commodities are owned by private companies, they get to trade those and sell those on international markets that we're ultimately tied to. And so what happened in 2022, which is what we're seeing again happening now is a squeeze on gas in 2022. This time around it's both gas and oil, as the Strait of Hormuz, for example, has shut down, major LNG facilities have been destroyed in the Gulf, and as a result, there has been a huge spike in the price of oil and gas recently. And unfortunately, I mean we're really in pretty uncharted territory in terms of both, you know, the war itself, the fact that it's there is no pretext for the war beyond whatever the Trump administration and the Israeli government decide on the day. But also, you know, if you listen to the real experts, people like the head of the International Energy Agency, you know, they say that this could be worse than the two nineteen seventies oil crises plus the Russian gas crisis combined in terms of its impact on energy markets. So it's a really, I would say, scary time for so many reasons. Aaron Powell And I think there's two main questions I have for you. The second one, uh, comes the first in a moment is how do we stop these things happening in the future? What does energy security look like? But I suppose the more immediate question is what do we do about the fact we're in uncharted territory? Well, I think the first thing that we've got to do is look after people. You know, like people are still reeling from the shock of what happened in 2022 when their household energy bills went through the roof because of the spike in gas prices. So in the UK, we're dealing with millions of households that are in energy debt that can't afford to pay their energy bills. You know, and fuel poverty has increased significantly. That has so many implications, you know, from kids not being able to do their homework to people with health conditions, you know, suffering even worse circumstances is because they can't turn the heating on, for example. So the priority's got to be looking after people and making sure that that support goes to the people who need it the most. And then we've got to address the root cause of this because as I said, this is the second time this has happened in four years. And if you think about the broader economic implications of having a fossil fuel-based energy system, you know, half of the recessions that the UK is experienced since the 1970s have been because of fossil fuel price shocks. Like we have got to get off fossil fuels. We've got to learn the lessons that we seem to have to keep learning time after time, and we've got to transition away to the technologies and the energy that we actually have in abundance here in the UK that will protect us from this insane fossil fuel roller coaster that will, you know, protect households, but also will ultimately help us address the climate crisis as well, which is, you know, if you don't like volatility and food prices and energy prices, like wait until you see what you know climate change has got in store. There's a big conversation happening in the country right now about the coupling of gas and energy prices and how it artificially impossi Yeah. So basically the way that the UK's electricity market works is A diabolically complicated. But B , um, it's structured in a way that the most kind of expensive unit of electricity is what sets the price of electricity. And currently that is gas. And so even though increasingly renewable energies make up a significant portion of our electricity mix, so at the moment it's about fifty percent, but you know, there have been days, I think even in the last week where that's been sixty percent or more, um, gas still sets the price that we pay. And so, you know, that much cheaper decarbonised energy just isn't reflected in people's household electricity bills. And so, yeah, there are various proposals for how you break the link between those two things , which is becoming increasingly urgent given gas prices are going kind of ballistic once again. And how urgent do you think this makes a conversation about nationalisation or is that too complicated to do in the short term? I mean nationalization of uh energy companies I think you know is something that should be considered because of all of the ways in which the profiteering that happens in moments like this um mean that again, it just doesn't work in the public interest, the energy system. But it is something that would take time and a fair bit of money. And so I think there are things that the government can do in the shorter term to make sure that people are shielded from some of the worst impacts of this crisis. I've seen some outrageous things online recently about the fact that it almost feels bad to repeat the myth, but um fossil fuels being cheaper than renewable energy. Is there ever any truth to that, or is it just straight-up propaganda? It is straight-up propaganda. You know, the price of renewable energy has dropped significantly in the last decade. And so, you know, what's known as the levelized cost of electricity that's generated by solar and renewables, so taking into account all of the different expenditure that's involved in generating electricity, like that is cheaper than any new build gas power, for example. And it's especially the case now when the price of gas has spiked by something like 70%. And again, you know, when we talk about how much these things cost, the thing about fossil fuels is we never price in all of the bad stuff that fossil fuels are And climate change is, I think, a very good example of that. Not to mention the ways in which we subsidize fossil fuel production as well in this country. So right, I feel like the cost of inaction rarely gets talked about as opposed to to it the cost of action as well. You talked about a just transition earlier. What what would that look like? It's not something we've done before in this country, um notoriously, and I think that's partly why this is a really important thing to get right and to be sort of sensitive to the concerns that people have about it. And I think the example most people think about is coal mining and the way that that was, shall we say, phased out in, you know, in this country, which just has left, you know, kind of social and economic scars that have lasted for decades in the aftermath. So what you know we think a fair transition for the North Sea oil and gas workforce and and the industries connected to that would look like is really it's it's about both process and outcomes. So it's making sure that the right people are at the table when we're talking about what their futures look like. So not leaving it to oil and gas companies or governments alone to decide what you know it's not just about money, it's also about what they mean for a community's identity, you know, and all of the other services and sectors that it supports. So you've got to have trade unions at the table, you know, you've got to make sure that the workforce is represented. We think community organizations are also really important to represent and local governments. You know, this isn't just about kind of a super top-down approach to decision-making. And then we think that you know when you're talking about the oil and gas workforce, we've got to make sure that there aren't just alternative jobs for them to go into. And the great news, and you know, again, this is why I think there is such a huge opportunity in this country to set an example globally for how we can do it right. But like we're in this amazing position in the UK where actually we have an offshore wind industry and we have an oil and gas workforce that where 90% of them have skills that are transferable into renewables. You know, this is a transition that is waiting to hap pen. But we A have to make sure sure that the jobs are there, that they're good jobs, you know, that they're unionized, that they offer the same kinds of conditions that the oil and gas industry has, and then that there are pathways to get into them, you know, that there's the retraining and the reskilling support that's needed so people aren't left to their own devices and to their own expenses to actually make that transition. And you know, all of this requires planning and industrial policy, which again is just something that I think hasn't been done particularly well in this country. And the writing has been on the wall for the North Sea oil and gas industry and workforce for decades now. You know, production peaked in the late nineties and jobs have been declining since then, we can get ahead of this. And as I said, if you do you could set an example for how these sorts of industrial transitions can be done right. And that's an obviously uh segue to talking about Rosebank. What is Rosepunk and why is it pretty much the worst decision that this government could make? Yeah, so um yeah, it kind of is like a bit of a summary of everything that could be wrong with the UK energy policy. So Rosebank is the largest undeveloped oil field in the UK, um, developing Roseb ank would involve extracting about 500 million barrels of oil. And there's a little bit of gas in there as well. But if you burn all of that, you generate the same volume of carbon emissions that are created by the 28 poorest countries in the world in a year , um, or fifty six coal-fired power stations running for a year, like choose your metric. It's just it's it's really bad, you know, um from a climate perspective when we know, you know, the science is so clear that we can't have any new oil and gas production if we're going to stay within kind of safe climate limits. So it's bad from a climate perspective. It's also oil that is going to be largely exported, so 80% of the oil that we produce here in the UK ends up being traded internationally and we may buy it back, but it doesn't put us at any advantage compared to any other consumer. So from an energy security perspective, it's got nothing to offer. From an energy affordability perspective, it's not bringing our bills down. It doesn't have anything to offer. The other thing to say is that the development of Rosebank involves giving really significant tax breaks to the companies, Equinor and Shell, who are acting through this kind of joint venture called a Jura giving them billions of pounds in tax breaks. And some analysis that WWF Norway has done shows that it could lead, if the oil price goes back down to a kind of average level, to a net tax loss for the Treasury because of the rebates that we end up paying out to them. And they walk away with billions of pounds. And then the final I mean, it's not even the final thing, but I will limit myself to just one more thing about Rosebank, which is that one of the companies involved is called Ithaca Energy. And its parent company is an Israeli-owned energy company called Delek Group. And they have been specifically identified by the UN as operating in illegal settlements in the West Bank. And so basically the profits that go to Ithaca from Rosebank's development will end up being passed on to a company that's, you know, operating in in breach of international law in the occupied territories. So that's you know, it's something for everyone. And you said finally, but I want to line you up with one more thing. There's something about the geology as well of the Rosebank oil field right that means it doesn't even make sense in terms of uh most of the oil and gas has been extracted already? Well, ru well that that's the case for the North Sea basin more broadly. Um Rosebank is one of yeah, the but you know, it is getting harder, more expensive to find oil and gas that hasn't already been recovered, you know, and this is because the North Sea is such a mature basin. But it does involve drilling quite deep. It involves sticking a gas pipeline through a marine protected area as well, um th you know, close to the Shetland Islands. Like it's from a it local environmental perspective also I think a very bad idea. It feels like you can choose your terrible reason. Exactly. And say the government uh current are about to make a decision we say about to we we don't know it's been going on for a while now, right? That's right. Yeah. So um the last government approved Rosebank in twenty twenty four and then uh Uplift and Greenpeace litigated that decision successfully. The principal reason we were successful was because in approving Rosebank, the government didn't take into account its climate impacts in doing an environmental assessment, which is kind of astonishing given it's like the obvious environmental impact. So now the government has to remake a decision from fr from scratch, taking into account those impacts. And yeah, that's what we're waiting on at the moment. And can I ask you about tie backs, which is maybe something that people won't have heard of before. Yeah, of course. This is in relation to um the UK government's position that was in the Labor Party's manifesto, which was that they weren't gonna issue a new license to explore for new oil and gas fields. And so in basically translating that position into policy now that they're in government. They have stuck with that position and said that they are also going to introduce what are called tiebacks, which are kind of an allowance for licenses to be issued where you can kind of associate a new resource with an existing resource. So you're kind of tying back from that is the simplest way to so it's kind of limited in in the proximity of a new resource that would be develop ed. In our estimation, that would lead to something like 40 million additional barrels of oil being developed, which, you know, isn't great. But you know, Rosebank on its own is a single field that's five hundred million barrels. You know, just to kind of put that into perspective. Like I think if you're really worried about new oil gas, I mean we absolutely can't have new exploration licenses and we absolutely cannot have these massive new fields being approved. Now I've taken you down an awful route here that feels very dystopian. We're talking about the climate crisis and about what's happening in Iran and about the road bank oil field. Where's the hope in all of this? Like what what is the alternative? Well the I mean the hope is that we know exactly what to do and how to do it and it's all upside, you know, like it's genuinely this is not like in moments like this when we're so vulnerable, you know, ordinary people are so vulnerable because of a war that's being waged by deeply irrational actors, you know, thousands of miles away. Like this is a way of protecting ourselves from their actions. It is a way of uh ensuring that we have clean energy. It's also a way of creating industries and jobs and livelihoods and agency in our communities, you know, for decades to come. Like as I said, the UK is in this amazing position where we have one of the biggest offshore wind markets in the world because the North Sea, yes, it's it's, you know, been a pretty productive oil and gas basin for ages. Those days are now behind it. But what it is now is like one of the best wind resources. It's shallow and windy. It's like ideal conditions, really, for the UK to just be, as I said, an example for how you can create those resources in a way that creates local prosperity and jobs. And you know, one of the things that we really need to do is make sure that we are manufacturing offshore wind turbines and all of the kit that goes with it here. That's how we'll create actually long-term jobs. You know, if we just import those from China or Germany, which is the approach that we've been taking up until now, you just don't end up with the job creation that can rival what's happened in oil and gas. But as I said, we know how to do this, like there are signs that we are finally, starting to do it and you know I think there is an amazing story that we could tell in a future that we could have if we get that right. And I really love that because it leans into a story about economic sovereignty too, which I think you've got to be careful that it's not Britain first. We still want to trade with other countries, but actually if we started to manufacture everything we need to tackle the climate crisis and have clean energy, then that goes the jobs of the future too. Yeah. Um the part that I think is more difficult with that and it's totally okay to not have an answer to this is about the critical minerals that we need for the solar panels, for instance, so we know are often linked to problematic practices with the Uyghurs, for instance. Yeah. Um what can we do about that? I mean, you know, I started my career as a human rights lawyer and I like I you know, I think a just transition isn't just something that happens in one country. You know, it has to have a global dimension or it's not just and you know, I mean yeah, I think that's such a clear moral imperative for how we make this transition fair and sustainable in so many wa ys. So I think I mean there are a couple of things. The first is, you know, we need to have labour standards and environmental standards for the next generation of minerals and resources that we extract that reflect the standards that we want to see here in the UK. I think the UK government has taken some steps to introducing , you know, at least addressing the presence of slave labour in solar supply chains, for example. But yeah, there needs to be a lot of attention on that. The other thing I would say though is that the thing about critic a lot of the critical minerals that we need for our renewable supply chain is that they can be recycled. And so the idea is that ultimately you should be shifting towards circularity where there is a point at which, you know, you get to kind of ninety-eight percent recycling rates for batteries. Well actually it's technologically it's already possible to to do that and to just keep the life cycle of these technologies going and going. So you don't have to keep digging stuff out of the ground, you know, putting people at risk. And that's another good news story compared to, for example, you know, the alternative, which is the status quo, which we can't forget about, which is digging stuff out of the ground, also in horrendous conditions, creating loads of local and global environmental damage, and burning it once and it's gone forever, and then you have to do it again the next day. Right. You know, and that's like it it just from in terms of the sheer amount of volume of stuff that you have to shift to run a fossil fuel-based economy compared to one based on clean technology, you know, there is a huge difference. And as I said, there is an a a pathway to recycling and to potentially circularity that exists for the latter that doesn't exist for fossil fuels. That's a brilliant answer. It's one of my favourite things in this podcast sometimes when I ask someone a question, I get asked all the time. Income tax is changing for sole traders and landlords from April 2026. It's called making tax digital for income tax. So, if you're thinking ... I just don't know what to do . Tur ns Worry, Zero's HMRC recognized software makes it simple, so you'll feel more. Learn more about making tax digital for income tax with zero . I just want to interrogate a phrase you used about five minutes ago, which was um this is a way to uh give agency to our communities. Because I've long had a a theory that one of the reasons why we're seeing the creeping rise of the far right and fascism and frankly the right and the center when they're doing bad things, is because people feel or they accurately know that politics is done to them rather than with them. Yep. What's the opportunity here to empower communities? you know, industrial closures that are happening across the country as well. You know, and that and some of uh a lot of that is fossil fuel related. You know, as I said, there have been jobs declining in around the North Sea for years, but also we're seeing oil refineries close, steelworks close, you know, and people do feel like they desperately want control back that they, you know, need to blame someone. I mean, yeah, it's basically everything you said about how that contributes to kind of support for the populist right. And I think the one big opportunity beyond, you know, a a just transition where you really do a l give people a stake in their futures and and what an industrial transition looks like. I think the other thing is that renewable energy assets and gener ation are an opportunity for people to own, you know, local wind farms or own local renewable energy assets and make money from them, feel like they're doing something good for their community, like feel a real sense of pride in doing something that's kind of part of a national project, but also bringing down your bills, creating jobs, like ensuring that you've got clean air to breathe, all of those things are connected to a cleaner energy system. And I think if we enable people to do more community ownership, you know, and municipal ownership of those assets, then that is incredibly empowering for people and you know, we've got to make sure that they're supported so that they're not trying to do everything everybody has to do in their daily life and then also figure out how to, you know, take equity in a solar project or whatever, but you know, there are examples of that already happening up and down the country and it generating, for example, in Scottish communities, tens of millions of pounds that get reinvested in assets that the community really values. You know, that is like an amazing good news story and one that people can feel like they are responsible for. I love it. And and zooming out a little bit, um I'm always cautious of repeating the right narratives, but also sometimes it's good just to put them forward to see how you respond. And people say we can do all of this, but what point what's the point when China uh emitting a lot more emissions? And immediately I want to say that China are doing an incredible amount on renewables, but I will let you take that. Well no, you're right, Zach. I mean China, you know, installed kind of more solar capacity in recent years than, you know, the rest of the the world combined and they are responsible for prices coming down and everything else. So yes, but they are also still building some coal capacity and and obviously burning fossil fuels. You know, look, what I would say, and this is genuinely also based on my experience going to international climate summits and kind of engaging with governments from all over the world, but also I would say particularly in the global south, is that the A, the UK has a moral responsibility to move first and fastest in terms of decarbonisation. Like the industrial revolution started here, coal-fied power started here, the UK, despite its size, is still in the top ten historical emitters if you look at the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Like we have a responsibility to take this seriously and to to show some leadership. But the other thing is that what the UK does on the global stage still has a massively outsized impact. You know, and that is a legacy of all kinds of bad stuff that the UK has done and the and the way that it plays that leadership role globally. But you know, I think if a country that has the skills base, the resources, the talent, the wealth that the UK does cannot get on top of this and accelerate its transition, then w why would anyone else try? You know, and especially when it there's so much upside for the UK. And you know, and I know, as I said, when Rishi Sonak's government really took a step back from the climate agenda and and they tried failed their sort of you know anti net zero pre election strategy. That had an immediate impact on the climate talks that happened. Like people delegations from other countries were like, well what's if the UK's not bothering, like, why should we, with our significantly fewer resources and our kind of lack of the industrial legacy that the UK has that means it can do this transition, like why would we bother? Right. Why do you think this has become so politicized? Because it genuinely confuses me. Uh very often, and I can fall into this trap too. We can get into a place where we think actually people don't want decarbonization. Yeah. We hear it so much. But actually the polling shows over and over again. Exactly. The vast majority of people want want to not see the effects of a climate crisis. Yeah. Yeah, that I mean it is such a great question because there is this huge split between where the public is now and where like elite or political opinion is. And it's infuriating because you know, public opinion there are still major there is a strong majority support for net zero by twenty fifty. You know, people are incredibly worried about the impacts of climate change, which they are seeing in their communities today, you know, whether that's flooding or you know unprecedented wildfires in Scotland and you know water scarcity, it's it it's everywhere. Um and the fact that you know the media and kind of political bubble has decided that actually people aren't concerned about climate change is totally disconnected from where people are. But it's dangerous because the more people hear that people don't care about climate change, you know, that sort of social proof is really important. And that's why it's so important that if you do care about it, you should talk about it and let other people know that um that you care about it. But yeah, it is it is totally disconnected. And I mean I d you know, like it can s you can sound conspiratorial when you start to say this stuff, but obviously there is a right wing media ecosystem, there is also fossil fuel lobbying that happens, you know, all of these vested interests who have what they think is a lot to lose, albeit a habitable planet, is on the cards. So maybe that's good for all of us. But you know, they think the incumbent system works for them and they will fight like hell to stop this transition from happening. And so they're the ones who are seeding these narratives, you know, insisting that this is where the public is and it's just not true. I reflect a lot on the Extinction Rebellion which I was involved with in 2018 and 2019. And one of the first principles of extinction rebellion was tell the truth. And then I think one of the second ones was decarbonize. And it was very, very, very fast. Yeah. How do we balance this kind of need for urgent action because uh politics won't negotiate with science for science will win out. But also we know if we create pl if we if we say things but there's not a plan to make it happen. Yeah. That's also equally irresponsible. Like how do we balance that? Yeah, look, I mean, you know, I am v very attached to the science. You know, I think anyone who works on climate change i has to s like I you know, I call it kind of staring into the sun. Like the science is so stark about how quickly we need to move if we're gonna avoid the worst impacts of climate change at this point. That yeah that so that's one really powerful imperative. I think that the challenge is that, you know, we were just talking about public support for climate action. The one thing that that is contingent on is a sense that it's fair. Right. And I think that is where we have got to find some way of both moving as fast as we can, but doing it in a way that maintains the public mandate and support that we need. Otherwise you end up with, you know, what the right is trying to confect at the moment, which is some massive backlash that then also opens the way for them to get into power. And so I think there are ways of being ambitious about being ambitious about fiscal policy, industrial policy, where you can do both. But I think it's really important that, you know, when we talk about accelerating the transition, that we do it in a way that , you know, prioritises vulnerable people, that gives people the support that they need, that makes the people with the broadest shoulders, you know, carry the biggest burden, and so on. I like I do believe that that's possible. Absolutely. And it's uh in line, it's a kind of follow-up question. There's mitigation of emissions, which is to reduce our emissions, and there's climate adaptation, which is to deal with the fact that floods and wildfires are coming. Yeah. How do we make sure that we've got an appropriate focus on adaptation, but without people particularly hyper capitalists going, oh it's fine, we don't need to mitigate our emissions, we're just going to build higher flood defence. Yeah, I mean I think that is always the concern, isn't it, when the conversation just becomes about adaptation. But I think we are at this point in this country where like the impacts of climate change, you know, thousands of homes being and businesses being flooded repeatedly, you know, what were once in a decade floods are now annual. There are towns like Tenbury Wells where people are struggling to get insurance , you know, for their properties because of how frequently they're flooded. Like we're there, you know, that it's arrived. Um so I think there absolutely has to be, and the climate change committee says this all the time, like we are so far behind where we should be in terms of supporting resilience in communities. And also, you know, to take a kind of holistic view of what resilience mean means. You know, it's not just about flood defences, it's about making sure that communities have the broader support and infrastructure that they need to adapt to these new circumstances. And I just think, you know, communities have been gutted in so many different ways. Like it does just require much more ambitious thinking. Um but that we you know the you can only adapt your way out of this so far, you know, like there is only so far a flood defence is gonna take you. And that's why mitigation has always got to be part of the equation. And I think we need to whenever we talk about adaptation, like try to make sure the conversation is also about why we're here, you know. And the moment you ask why, you know, you get to the answer, which is largely fossil fuels, the burning of which are responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions. And we have to be addressing that with just as much attention and resource as we are putting towards communities. And more contentious than others. I think the most obvious being aviation and diets, other things that often trigger particularly the right. Yeah. I think one of the antidotes to this is citizens' assemblies. I'm always struck by I think they held uh some bigger citizens' assemblies and then they have the youth citiz en assembly speak then to the adult citizen assembly who then got more radical embolden their thinking, having spoken to the young people. What is the role I guess of of including everyone in this? There are things that are gonna have to happen in the next few decades and coming years that are about kind of the choices that we make in our own lives. And I think government has a responsibility to incentivize the right choices. You know, as I said, the way that things are priced currently, you know, whether that's fossil fuels or you know, arguably even some kinds of food, they don't reflect the true cost of those things, the true impact that they have on our environment or on our health, and so on. And so yeah, I think there are all sorts of ways that governments should be thinking about again protecting people who are vulnerable economically, but trying to nudge people who can afford to to do the right thing. And then yeah, beyond that I, think it absolutely it's sort of about making people feel like they are part of the policy that ends up being decided upon and you know, whether that's citizens' assembly or other kinds of participatory democracy. I mean, if like of it's just seems like so obvious that if what you're asking people to do is go on a journey that is ultimately in their interest, in our broader interest, you know, you should trust that they will get there themselves and make the right choice. And so let them, you know, like put them in the driving seat. And I also think there are so many ways in which that would solve some of our bigger political problems. And you mentioned that you've been to lots of intern ational climate summits earlier on and I feel like every year COP uh comes round the the UN summit on on climate crisis and the media kind of get interested in climate, I was gonna say for about a week a year, but as it's now about twenty-four hours. And I find myself conflicted every single year between saying, you know, it's the only game in town we do need to engage with these climate crisis talks, or not even climate crisis that in the way that they're seeing them, climate climate change talks. And actually this just isn't gonna work and at one point are we gonna say we need to have a completely alternate kind of system? I have sort of two views. One is that those big international summits are the only forum that vulnerable countries currently have for confronting richer, more responsible countries responsible for the climate crisis and trying to hold them accountable, you know, in it face to face, like one-to-one, kind of one vote each, so to speak and that's so important and if you think that you know climate the climate crisis is a matter of global justice then I have a feeling you'd end up designing something that looks a bit like an international climate conference to enable those conversations to happen. And that said, so I think you know they produce some kind of valuable outcomes, especially around those questions of like who pays, loss and damage, you know, accountability for damage that's already been incurred. On the other hand, and I say this as well as an international lawyer, like I think ultimately accountability happens at home. Right. You know, and that national governments we are especially in a moment when international law, uh the weight of those norms is kind of dissolving before our eyes, right? Like look at the wars that are being waged. Um So I think that you know if if what you're trying to do is persuade a government to do the right thing and all of these changes ultimately have to happen in our national economies, in our societies, in our communities, then you have gotta have a plan for doing that at home and going to a climate summit, as you say, for one week a year is just not the way to do it. Like you have to have a strategy for making yourself heard, holding the government accountable, campaigning, like just being on it 24-7 , the fifty one other weeks of the year and that all has to happen here at home. Aaron Ross Powell I really liked your point about we'd have to design it. I actually saw a brilliant play last year called Kyoto, which was a very good and it gave me an additional respect actually for the process where a little bit of me ans like we can't throw the baby without the bathwater just because Trump is trying to be like a bull in a China shop. To be fair, it's not just Trump, it's lots of leaders including actually at times the UK as well. Yeah. Um and actually there is an importance to the history of that of that happening. With your international lawyer hat on, um we're at this moment where Trump and Netanyahu have engaged in this illegal and unpopular war. Yeah. And it feels to me that Keir Starmer, whilst I'm pleased that he 's not explicitly joined, I still have questions around so called defensive cap abilities of using uh Fairfield and Diego Garcia. It's too big a question to ask you, I guess, but I can't find another way to phrase it. Like what do we do about international law? Because it just feels like we keep worrying that the law of the jungle will be what takes over. But it feels like in many ways we're already there. It is a great question that I think keeps a lot of international lawyers up at night. You know, 'cause it's like it's a system that well, you know, I think it's important to acknowledge that i in many ways it's been a facade for many years, you know, it's just the f flagrancy of the breaches that are currently happening. Like the you know, at least with you know, the war in Iraq in two thousand three, there was an attempt to get a UN resolution backing it and attempts to find some legal basis for it. That is no longer happening at all, right? I mean there's not even a political or economic basis, let alone a legal basis for the war in Iran. I think you you cannot have an international system that works without some norms and some constraints. And they extend across so many different areas. Like climate change is one of them. And I think it's a good example to say that you know the Paris Agreement set a target of one point five degrees of warming, which for all of the ways in which that system is otherwise flawed, that has been quite a useful North Star for all of us, not least of all the most vulnerable countries who fought tooth and nail to have that protected. And you can go to your court or your government and insist that that's observed and that's helpful. You know, there are yeah laws the Geneva Conventions that constrain, you know, how you can fight a war and th they still are reflected in army handbooks and, you know, like this there is value in that infrastructure and in those norms. I think, yeah, we're at a kind of pretty existential moment for that whole post-Second World War settlement and system and I think that's why it is so imperative that we model what a good intern ational citizen looks like, you know, h in terms of human rights, humanitarian law , climate change, all of those areas that ultimately have implications for other countries as well as our own citizens. And do you have hope for the future. Yeah, of course I do. I you know, I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. And I I mean, I'm I know you've said this before and others have said this, but you know, hope isn't something you receive passively. You have to go out and fight for it. And I feel really lucky to be part of a movement that, you know, people look at the U K and as I said, they see opportunity and they see a path forward where things get better and actually we can have a future that, as I said, involves people feeling agency over their lives, like local prosperity, uh, kind of being on a pathway where we have a livable planet, like all of that is still within reach. And I also in you know, the the polling that you were talking about and where the public is when you put them in a citizen assembly, like pi people are actually with you, you know, and in a way that is kind of beyond politics. It's sort of about values that speak to something much broader and I I feel so much common ground still exists in this country around that. And so I you know, I mean, yeah, I I do unequivocally, I would say, if you h'oplle. Now if there was a government minister here, they would probably say, well, first of all, we've got great British energy and also we're working on carbon capture technologies, sustainable aviation fuel, and lots of other kind of magic technologies. Yeah. How do we s respond to uh I was about to say I feel conflicted, I don't feel that conflicted. We need to just reduce our emissions and make sure we have a just transition. Yep. But there is some truth, right, that investing in technology is not a bad thing in and of itself. It's just we can't rely on that technology. Yeah. That's exactly right. Like those we have kind of left this all so late in terms of how fast we should have been transitioning away from fossil fuels that most models show that there's some role for some of those technologies. But they are pretty marginal. Like they do not do the heavy lifting in kind of getting us to where we need to be. And the the the worries that the focus on those technologies distracts from the one thing that we know absolutely will work that we can afford