The COP30 climate talks are under way In Brazil. What is the point of the conference?

Summary

Energy Gang — Episode Summary

Episode Title: The COP30 climate talks are under way in Brazil. What is the point of the conference?
Date: November 13, 2025
Host: Ed Crooks (Wood Mackenzie)
Guests:

• Amy Myers Jaffe (Director, NYU’s Energy, Climate Justice and Sustainability Lab)
• Amy Harder (National Energy Correspondent, Axios)
• Lisa Jacobson (President, Business Council for Sustainable Energy)
• [Key: A - Ed Crooks, B - Lisa Jacobson, C - Amy Myers Jaffe, D - Amy Harder]

---

Main Theme and Purpose

The episode analyzes the role and expectations of COP30, the 2025 UN Climate Conference held in Belem, Brazil. The panel examines what meaningful progress looks like at this year’s COP, explores the challenges around global climate policy and finance, addresses evolving US domestic policy, and discusses the broader momentum of the global energy transition. Special focus is given to the implications for business, policy implementation, and practical climate action, particularly in the context of Brazil’s unique role as host.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Evolving Role of COP Conferences

• Incremental Progress, Not Always Headlines:

  • Current mood is that COP30 may lack the “drama” or “big agreements” of COP21 (Paris) or COP28 (Dubai), but such “workhorse” COPs are still vital for incremental action.
  • “Just because it’s a trough from an intention or attendance perspective doesn’t mean it’s not productive from what COPs are actually meant to do, which is make progress on the Paris climate agreement and more.” — Amy Harder [09:12]

• Implementation vs. Ambition:

  • “Implementation COP” is a common descriptor, emphasizing practical steps over new international declarations.
  • “The word ‘implementation’ doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but it is the case that this is more of a workhorse type COP, and that’s what that reflects.” — Amy Harder [28:00]

2. Business and Subnational Leadership

• US Presence in Brazil:
  • Lisa Jacobson describes high-level US business and subnational participation, emphasizing clean energy's role in economic competitiveness, cost, and security.
  • “The message [from US Governors and mayors in Rio] was clear there that we’re just moving on… so many reasons to take advantage of clean energy and energy efficiency technologies... for cost effectiveness, affordability, energy security, and jobs.” — Lisa Jacobson [04:51]

3. Private Sector and Technological Momentum

• Shift From Policy-Driven to Market-Driven Change:

  • While policies, especially subsidies and climate commitments, drove progress over the last decade, many clean technologies are now economically competitive and capable of moving forward on market terms.
  • “We’re starting to see technologies where that technology is a better solution. That might be because countries aren’t trusting the global LNG market… or because renewables are just easier and cheaper to install.” — Amy Myers Jaffe [19:16]

• Business Commitment and Resilience:

  • Despite US political headwinds, especially with pending rollback of climate-friendly legislation, corporate actors and many states are continuing transition efforts.
  • “Businesses and many countries as well as international institutions… risk manage in their own mind for four-year transitions… but we are looking at decades-long transitions.” — Lisa Jacobson [11:51]

4. Policy Gaps, NDCs, and the Paris Agreement’s Future

• Global Ambition Lags Behind Need:

  • Recent Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) still put the world on track for 2.2–2.5°C warming.
  • “If you look at the commitments… you get to maybe a trajectory that gets us to 2.3 degrees of global warming. It still means that the Paris Agreement is out of touch.” — Ed Crooks [15:44]

• Is the Paris Agreement Enough?

  • Panelists agree it’s too early (and risky) to “move beyond” Paris, advocating for its flexibility amid changing realities, and reminding that global transformation takes time.
  • “It is not going to be linear… I think we performed very well in really hard-to-move sectors… It’s only been 10 years. That’s not a long time in these industries.” — Lisa Jacobson [36:45]

• Goal-Setting and Human Welfare:

  • Reference to Bill Gates’ COP memo: shift metrics toward human welfare and technological readiness rather than just emissions alone.
  • “Orient the metrics around human welfare... focus more on the readiness of technologies.”—Amy Harder, referencing Gates [38:52]

5. The "Who Pays?" Challenge

• Climate Finance Is Stuck:

  • The fundamental political and logistical barrier remains: who pays for climate adaptation and mitigation, particularly in lower-income countries?
  • “This question of who pays is still a giant barrier and the way climate finance works... where the opportunity problem comes is that, you know, a 1% tax on all first class airline travel or… shippers would pay some kind of a tax… you would use that to actually pay for some of the money that needs to go into low income countries and low-lying island countries.” — Amy Myers Jaffe [42:00]

• Disconnect Between Pledges & Reality:

  • Panelists note that much-hyped mechanisms often don’t translate into actual support, especially for adaptation, agriculture, and energy access.

6. Brazil’s Role & Sectoral Initiatives at COP30

• Land Use and Sustainable Fuels:

  • This COP is seeing a renewed focus on land use, agriculture, and a push—led by Brazil—for a global commitment to quadruple sustainable fuels production.
  • “Land management, agricultural sector focus, industrial processes—these things really will make a big difference. And then, you know, on sustainable fuels… now we have this commitment... If we just got half of them moving in the next five years… that is what we want to see.” — Lisa Jacobson [30:42]

• China’s Emissions Turning Point:

  • China’s Q1 2025 greenhouse gas emissions saw their first quarterly decline—an inflection due to policies and economic conditions.
  • “People do think that their emissions will permanently peak sometime this decade as the Chinese have targeted.” — Amy Myers Jaffe [14:36]

• Optimism Despite Bumps:

  • The group agrees that progress, though uneven, is real and structural change is underway.
  • “You can make pronouncements. NDCs are important to show the direction of travel… but it’s action on the ground that matters.” — Lisa Jacobson [32:20]

7. The Value and Limits of the COP Process

• Process Matters:

  • Gathering diverse stakeholders and building relationships leads to insights and bottom-up change, even if little appears to happen at the top.
  • “Just the simple act of getting the world together to think about climate change and to think about what should be done about it is actually valuable in itself.” — Ed Crooks [33:22]

• Direction of Travel Is Hard to Kill:

  • Despite attempts by various interests to block stronger action, the “direction of travel” towards decarbonization is deeply embedded.
  • “If COP 30 shows that it’s too hard to kill the direction of travel… that’d be a big accomplishment, I think, under the circumstances of a world that’s had wars and energy security challenges.” — Amy Myers Jaffe [35:07]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Practical vs. Rhetorical Progress:
  “Too much time was spent in Dubai on whether we were going to say we’re abandoning fossil fuels… when the substance of whether people were really going to do it or not was not tied to having four words or ten words in a communique.” — Amy Myers Jaffe [34:28]

• On Market Momentum:
  “We’re starting to see some element where the business case might drive things forward and not have to be always driven by some top down measure.” — Amy Myers Jaffe [19:16]

• On Clean Tech Resilience:
  “Technologies like EVs, wind and solar, are more mature and are moving forward despite the rollbacks… the more commercial ones will continue to move forward.” — Amy Harder [20:09]

• On Climate Finance Gaps:
  “There’s a big disconnect… countries really need money to salvage agriculture and to handle water, and a lot of the money doesn’t go to that.” — Amy Myers Jaffe [44:20]

• On COP’s Value:
  “Just bringing people together to focus on different parts of the world and what can be done… is healthy and important. Especially in a fragmented world, this coming together is extremely important.” — Lisa Jacobson [33:00]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [04:51] — Lisa Jacobson on the US business delegation and subnational leadership at COP30
• [06:40] — Amy Myers Jaffe on the diplomatic legacy and shifts since earlier COPs
• [09:21] — Amy Harder on COP cycles and the importance of “workhorse” years
• [11:51] — Lisa Jacobson on success metrics: private sector focus, long timelines, industrial decarbonization
• [14:36] — Amy Myers Jaffe on China’s emissions progress
• [15:44] — Ed Crooks highlights that current pledges still put Paris goals out of immediate reach
• [19:16] — Amy Myers Jaffe argues that tech and security are driving the transition, not just policy
• [22:50] — Lisa Jacobson on the US grid, renewables and market posture
• [28:00] — Amy Harder critiques the “Implementation COP” naming, sees value in practical progress
• [30:42] — Lisa Jacobson on land management, sustainable fuels, and focusing on actionable progress
• [35:07] — Amy Myers Jaffe on the unlikelihood of reversing the transition’s direction
• [36:45] — Lisa Jacobson: Paris is enough; the world needs time and optimism
• [42:00] — Amy Myers Jaffe digs into the persistent “who pays?” problem of global climate finance
• [46:34] — Lisa Jacobson and Amy Myers Jaffe on Brazil’s sustainable fuels pledge

---

Conclusion & Takeaways

COP30 may not deliver flashy international treaties, but the discussion demonstrates that meaningful work—on technologies, market shifts, land/sectoral initiatives, and finance—continues. The COP process is valuable as a forum for global convergence, idea sharing, and reinforcing the collective “direction of travel” toward decarbonization, even as hard questions about finance and ambition remain unresolved.

The panel’s tone is thoughtful, pragmatic, often optimistic about energy and climate progress, but realistic about the political and economic barriers still in play. The episode is essential listening for those wanting an on-the-ground sense of what global climate diplomacy looks like in a period less focused on headlines and more on implementation.

Transcript

[A]

This episode is brought to you by the American Council on Renewable Energy. Based in Washington, D.C. aCOR is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that promotes investment in American clean energy, infrastructure, development and innovation. In partnership with a broad membership that spans the energy value chain, AECOR advances the public policies, market research and industry convenings to position the United States as a global leader in clean energy deployment. Whether it's the latest policy and market developments, the legislative and regulatory tracking, industry data and analysis, or marquee events like the Finance Forum in New York or the grid forum in D.C. aCOR unites clean energy investors, developers, energy buyers, power generators, manufacturers and energy providers and more. To learn More about joining ACOR, go to acor.com membership.

[B]

It'S action on the ground that matters. So if this COP is going to elevate really transformational areas of our economy that have not been focused on, that are authentically unique to Brazil and this region, that is fabulous news and I.

[C]

Think it could wind up over time being seen as a more successful meeting than people are currently thinking it will be.

[D]

You know, I think back to Dubai in 2023 and my goodness, that was a high water mark. It was a big deal back then and now we're, you can call it a trough, but just because it's a trough doesn't mean it's not productive from what cops are actually meant to do, which is make progress on the Paris Climate Agreement and more.

[B]

And if we can capture the private sector aligned with policymakers across many countries, we're going to make this next decade really deliver.

[A]

Hello and welcome to the Energy Gang, a discussion show from Wood Mackenzie about the fast changing world of energy. I'm IV Crookes and on this show we're going to be talking about the COP30 climate talks. We're recording this on the first day of the talks in Belem, Brazil. And to talk about what we can expect from the conference and what it might mean for the world of energy, it's a pleasure to welcome back Amy Myers Jaffe. Amy is the director of the Energy Climate justice and Sustainability Lab at New York University. Hi Amy, how are you?

[C]

I'm great, Ed. I started today my new winter program where I've decided I'm going to swim laps in the morning, even in the winter, and not just in the summer. And today was my experiment on whether or not that's too cold. But I passed it and so I'm going to stick with it.

[A]

Wow, that is very impressive. Certainly. Yes. It's also a pleasure to welcome back Amy Harder. Amy is the national energy correspondent for the news service Axios. Hello, Amy. Great to have you back. It's been a while. How are you?

[D]

Yeah, likewise. Well, great to be here. Things have been good, they've been busy. I've been had a lot of life happen this year, but I'm thrilled to be back at Axios.

[A]

A lot of life happening. That can only be a good thing, I'm sure. It's also a pleasure to welcome a new guest to the show. Lisa Jacobson is the president of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy. Hello, Lisa. Welcome to the Energy Gang.

[C]

Hello, Ed.

[B]

It's great to be here. I am an avid listener, so it's just super fun to be with you all.

[A]

Yeah, well, likewise. Great for us to have you on the show. Now I know you're actually in Brazil right now and want to get onto talking a bit about that in just a moment. Before we do, perhaps just for a little bit of background, could you tell us a bit about the Business Council for Sustainable Energy? What do you do?

[B]

We're a Washington D.C. based energy trade association. We were actually founded in the Earth Summit which was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. So kind of coming back here to Rio. Well, first Rio today, Sao Paulo and soon Belem is a real full circle of 30 years of the organization. We work with energy companies across all different industry sectors, but predominantly in the areas of renewable energy, natural gas, energy efficiency, decarbonization technologies. So really what we can put to work right now for our energy security, obviously our emissions reductions and energy reliability and resilience. And top of mind for all of us is really how do we get cost down and make this affordable. So this is really the portfolio that's ready to go and we shape policy and we educate policymakers. We work a lot in federal policy spaces, but also in international policy spaces.

[A]

Fantastic. Well, Zay, great to have you on the show. Particularly good because as I say, you are there in Brazil, whereas Amy Jaffe, Amy Harder and I are not actually going for various reasons. I know we've all been to Cops at various times in the past. We're not going this year, but. But you are going. You're currently in Sao Paulo and then you're going to Belem later in the week, I think. Do you want to tell us a little bit about what you're doing there?

[B]

Sure, yes, I will be in Belem. You know, we have our team on the ground. We have over 20 of our members and partners as part of our delegation to COP30 in Belem across all the industry sectors that I mentioned. So very strong, dynamic set of executives representing, you know, U.S. energy technologies and ways to partner. But no, I've been here for a week. I can't believe it. I started out with two or three days in Rio de Janeiro for the Local Leaders Summit. Over 3,000 mayors, governors, policymakers at the subnational level coming together. It was phenomenal. And we had a very strong showing from the US as well. Governors, mayors. The message was clear there that we're just moving on. I mean, there's so many reasons to take advantage of clean energy and energy efficiency technologies. As I mentioned, it's for cost effectiveness, affordability, as well as our energy security and competitiveness and jobs and prosperity for our communities in the United States. So it's really great to hear that embraced from any vantage point that a particular local leader was coming from. So it was very inspiring.

[A]

Which brings me to what I really want to talk about on this show, which is the question of, I guess, what is it realistic to expect from COP30? As we're saying, many of us are not going to bully him. We're not taking the show there this year. Partly that just because it was logistically very difficult and expensive to do it, but also because I think there is a sense that we're not going to get anything very momentous coming out of these talks. Various reasons for that. We can perhaps discuss those in a moment. But I'm interested in all of your views on what you think we can expect. Amy Jaffe, maybe start with you on this one. What do you think?

[C]

Well, you know, Ed, I have a. Always take a slightly different take than, you know, sort of the general consensus. I think a lot of people have written this COP off, but I'm going to take a really gadfly approach. So in 2021, the United States took a hard push diplomatically to try to lock people into net zero commitments for 2050. Even though there was a lot of accomplishment and there were some, you know, talking about greater ambition and so forth, and the United States is back and a lot of hullabaloo. The bottom line is there was a bit of a backfire on who pays for all of this. It unleashed this sort of justice oriented, what's fair, who should pay. High emitters should be the ones who pay. It created a sort of an awkward situation with China and India that they push back on. And. And as a result, the United States created these just energy transition partnerships that were supposed to somehow help countries like South Africa, Indonesia, sort of transition away from coal. And those just energy partnership agreements were not too successful in the end on the ground. The Trump administration, of course, has canceled them. So now they're, you know, basically over from the US participation point of view. But I think it took away the blame game where you could blame the United States for pushing you too hard on a commitment and trying to force people to shut down their coal. And now the onus, I think, is on the whole global community to think about, you know, who is really negatively affected by climate change. And so you're getting different kinds of discussions either about adaptation, finance.

[A]

Right.

[C]

Or things that people can pledge to, like this global pledge to quadruple sustainable fuels, or lula's doesn't look like it's going to succeed too much Tropical Forest Forever Fund. But the focus is less around pressing, pressing, pressing, and more on, you know, what could we actually all do? Like, what could be a global effort that could be successful in moving things forward. And I think it could wind up, over time, being seen as a more successful meeting than people are currently thinking it will be.

[A]

That is really interesting. Yes. Not sure I agree with you, but I definitely think it's an interesting possibility. Amy Harder, what do you think? What are you expecting from these talks?

[D]

You know, not every cop is created equally, and if they were, then we would be on a boring, flat road that never necessarily accomplished much or changed the course. And so I think this is definitely one of those cops that's more of an ebb than a flow. You know, I think back to Dubai in 2023, and my goodness, that was a high watermark in a lot of ways, in terms of business interest and otherwise. And it was. It was a big deal back then, and now we're. You can call it a trough. But I do tend to agree with Amy in that just because it's a trough from an intention or attendance perspective doesn't mean it's not productive from what cops are actually meant to do, which is make progress on the Paris climate agreement and more. And so I anticipate it'll be one of the lower headline driving cops out there, but that doesn't mean there's not things that are accomplished. And I feel conflicted not being there. I do find it frustrating that the cop process makes it so damn difficult to get to these places. You know, my one plea would be to make it easier and more affordable for all of us. And so that wasn't the only, only reason why we didn't go either, but we're certainly still covering it from Afar. And so I think the fact that the talks seem to be continuing with a, you know, pretty surprising degree of momentum, as Lisa was saying, is a testament to the resilience that the world has to the Trump administration pulling back in all sorts of ways. And I know we might get to that more. But sometimes sticking to the path you're on in the face of resistance is in and of itself an accomplishment. I remember being in Marrakesh at the COP right after Trump won. Back then I was with the Wall Street Journal and my only job then was to see people's reaction to Trump's intentions to pull out of the Paris agreement. And nobody thought he would. And then of course we all know that he did and now he's doing it again. So I'm also cautiously optimistic that it'll be more progress than maybe advertised.

[A]

So Lisa, what do you think? As you're saying, you're there so representing US Businesses, you've also got a large contingent of US representation. What do you think can reasonably be achieved? What are your expectations for the cop? And I guess the one way to put that question, what would success look like?

[B]

Well, I think it's really interesting to read the many letters that the COP presidency put out and what there was, I believe nine or 10 of them. I'm very happy to see that early up there was a very strong recognition of the role of the private sector and we talk more about that also emphasizing nature based solutions and adaptation. Things that we are that are critical to this region and they're critical on the opportunity side for decarbonization. And Amy mentioned what I think is for me the biggest deliverable of this cop and it was only in the first day or two, even pre cop, was this quadrupling of the production of sustainable fuels globally. We have to focus on molecules as much as electrons and we have to make this economy wide. And my reflection on both the local leaders summit, which was again sub national politicians and policymakers from around the world, and then the innovation summits that I was at over the weekend was a focus on industrial sector emissions reductions which is so important and healthy we need to do it all. But these are the hardest areas. And if we can capture the private sector aligned with policymakers across many countries, we're going to make this next decade really deliver. And the businesses and all the many countries as well as international institutions don't function or I guess they're. It's not that they don't function this way. They risk manage in their own mind for four year transitions they're not just in the United States. We can think of many countries where the political priorities change. Climate change is seen differently at different times vis a vis other concerns. But we are looking at decades long transitions. And so last point, we're marking the 10 year anniversary of the Paris agreement. If we look back at just the US marketplace over the last 10 years with administrations that have favored very proactive policies on climate mitigation or resilience and administrations that don't, and also everything underneath at the state and local level, we have transformed our power sector. Is it on the net zero trajectory? No, it is not. But we have done a transition that people would have said was impossible with hundred year power grid and power system that we have in the United States. I think it's extremely exciting and this was never going to be a linear road. There are bumps on the road with change, but I see strong commitment. And then I said it was the last point. All right, one more last point. One of the plenaries, someone made the point, why are we focused only on who's not at the table? We need to focus at who's doing stuff. And there are many countries and many companies that are.

[C]

And I just want to add to Lisa's point, just to contextualize China. The first quarter, 2025, was the first time Chinese greenhouse gas emissions declined. And part of that was, I'm sure, the slowdown of the Chinese economy. But part of that is policies that they put in place to decarbonize. And so that is a really significant feature. And people do think that their emissions will permanently peak sometime this decade as the Chinese have targeted. But people think they will actually stay on that target. So that's really different than where we were talking about this conversation 10 years ago. And so, you know, these sort of high emissions numbers that we originally, you know, we mentioned Rio and all the sort of early cops were worried about, now it's, you know, not great. We're talking about 2.2 degrees warming or 2.5 degrees warming, but we're not talking about 3.5 degrees warming or 4 degrees warming, which would have been really severe for many locations in the world.

[A]

Right. And I hear what you say. I think that point about, as you say, the trajectory of global emissions has been changed. I agree with that. Your point, Lisa, about how the power system of the United States, many other countries around the world has been absolutely transformed over the past ten years or so. That's absolutely right. What's happened in terms of China's colossal investment in low Carbon energy, the way the Chinese energy system has been changed, the way that those products are being exported to the world, all of this is true. But a lot of the driving force for all of those developments was policy. And is it not the case that kind of the foot is being taken off the accelerator globally in terms of policy and in particular, when you think about the nationally determined contributions. So the commitments that countries are meant to make to emissions reduction, back before we were in the position we're now in in terms of international climate policy, the point of COP 30 was meant to be to increase the world's ambition for the countries of the world all to come out with more ambitious NDCs to drive emissions down faster in a way that would mean the goals of the Paris Agreement in terms of limiting global warming were in reach. We're not getting that. As you say, Amy, if you look at the commitments that do exist and countries have made more commitments, I think more than 70 countries have published new NDCs. You put all those together, you get to maybe a trajectory that gets us to 2.3 degrees of global warming. It still means that the Paris Agreement is out of touch. And obviously there's kind of risks around that we could end up with more warming because that global consensus of more ambitious policy is just not there. I know, Amy, I saw you nodding, Amy, Harder. I saw you nodding when I started to say that. Do you think that's right?

[D]

I definitely think it's worth emphasizing, and I'm going to be doing a story on that this week, actually, when the International Energy Agency releases this annual outlook, I think it's worth emphasizing and underlining that. Doing better than we thought we were. I think for those trying to address climate change, positive feedback helps. I think, typically, as far as humans go, carrots are kind of better than sticks in that regard. And so I think that's worth emphasizing. There's also been some reports by DNV and others that show, and I'm sure Wood McKinsey as well, that shows the Trump administration's rollbacks are slowing down the transition in the United States, but it's not having so far a tangible impact on the global trajectory. Now, of course, you know, I remain humble and we don't know what the future holds, but I do think the transition is happening such that it's not going to stop or go in reverse. I think it's going to slow down, if anything. And so I think that's really worth talking about. For a story that's usually just doom.

[C]

And gloomy, I Think the question is, Amy, and I'd love your opinion on this. And also Lisa, because you have such a great vantage point from the business community in a lot of locations. There are a lot of technologies that win on the basis of commerciality. You know, policy is helpful. I agree with Ed. Policy has been really, really material. You know, up until now it's been really a driving factor. And you know, the EU carbon border adjustment and some of their other sort of far reaching regulations, if you want to sell things to Europe, still kind of a bit of a driver. But I think the bottom line is we're starting to see technologies where that technology is a better solution. And that might be because countries aren't trusting the global LNG market because of what happens in 2022. So they're thinking about energy security, could be in some locations where renewables are just easier and cheaper to install. I do think we're starting to see some element where the business case might drive things forward and not have to be always driven by some top down measure.

[D]

I would agree with that. And you know, when you look specifically at what the Trump administration has done to repeal parts of the Inflation Reduction act, the administration has targeted more mature technologies, electric vehicles, wind and solar, which we can now say are more mature and are moving forward despite the rollbacks, you know, slower than before, but still moving forward. What's interesting is that the One Big Beautiful Bill, I think, as it's called, retained a lot of tax credits for a lot of the nascent technologies that still need support, like geothermal and advanced nuclear power and energy storage. Those are the technologies that actually right now need support the most. And you know, in my reporting, somebody said to me, you know, if you put the IRA off to the side, the One Big Beautiful bill would actually be one of the largest climate bills in history. It's just the fact that IRA was even bigger. And so it's a, it's, you know, that can be a hard pill for some folks to swallow. But if you look at it objectively, that is technically the case in terms of the money going toward it. So, you know, I think there's still some government support for a lot of these new technologies and the more commercial ones will continue to move forward. I think this isn't universal. I know we all have heard stories about grants and other loan guarantees being repealed, but, you know, I think it's a more nuanced story than perhaps televised.

[C]

Lisa, what do you think?

[B]

I think you have to look at what we've built out in the United States. Let's just look at the United States for a minute. For the last 20 years, it's been this mix of low and zero carbon technology. That's what we're going to build out over the next five to ten years. First half of this year, obviously prior to the changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill act, the solar sector grew by 18 gigawatts of new capacity. That is a very strong number. And then storage, you know, similarly very, very strong. 30 gigawatts of total capacity. Again, that was with these very favorable tax credits. Some of them, like for storage are still in though they will be used in the marketplace differently. But we have a posture of expanding energy needs in our country as well as around the world that's very different than the last 20 years where we really were flat in our energy consumption as a country while our economy grew. But now, for many reasons that we all know, you know, AI data centers, manufacturing, just corporate and consumer interest in electricity, you know, we are experiencing this new posture of expansive.

[A]

Hello Ed here. If you like Energy gang and you want to go deep into the world of climate solutions, I have a recommendation for you. Zero is a podcast about tech tactics and big ideas on climate and energy. It's hosted by our friend Akshat Rathi, who you may remember from the show in the past. He's a senior climate reporter at Bloomberg Green. You'll hear conversations with world leaders such as Mia Motley, billionaire green tech investors including Vinod Khosla, and CEOs of ExxonMobil, Uber, Siemens Energy and many plucky climate startups as well, all grappling with the ups and downs of the energy transition. New episodes drop every Thursday. Search for Zero from Bloomberg Wherever you.

[B]

Get your podcasts Demand and what are we going to meet that demand with? Especially in the next five to 10 years, it's going to be this portfolio of low and zero carbon technologies on the supply side and the demand side. And I think it's extremely important that the Trump administration retained and is thinking about how to support other technologies, as Amy was saying, like geothermal, like nuclear, like carbon capture storage. We're hopeful, like Amy Jaffe was saying, that hydrogen and other clean and sustainable fuels will continue to get a boost in North America because we are poised for such innovation and economic benefit to the United States. If we are in these markets and, you know, going to a lot of commercial conferences since one big beautiful Bill act passed, people still say, yes, there are challenges, but we want to invest in the US we want to partner with US Industry, you're best in class. And so that's why the private sector just needs to keep on with it. Some things will change, some things will get reorganized, some things won't happen. But the direction of travel is clear.

[A]

I accept all that. I'm sure you're right. To be clear though, as you say, the US Is adding a lot of solar generation, it's adding a lot of battery storage. It's also adding a fair bit of gas fired generation as well. Right. If you look at the projections over the next five years, yes. Essentially it's those three technologies which are meeting increased power demand, more solar, more storage and more gas.

[B]

Right? Well, I mean there's opportunities to decarbonize gas and you know, there are projects announced that incorporate carbon capture or other technologies. I mean, we're really favorable and hopeful for the prospect of renewable natural gas and biogas. I mean, hydrogen ready plants. I mean these things are happening. So I don't think this view that the emissions associated with some of these plants as they maybe envisioned for the first five years are going to be what their carbon intensity is going forward. It's a portfolio and I think the market will respond. It has been. Obviously the lack of federal leadership has an impact. We cannot mask over that. We could be doing much more with alignment and support across all of the energy sector. But on the other hand, we have a lot of work to do at the state and local level and we need to do a lot with workforce. We have to shore up our supply chains. There's a lot of work that needs to be done and that's what we're trying to emphasize with other businesses and B2B conversation as well as with policymakers. So we want to work with those that want to work with us. And there are many in the US that do.

[C]

And Ed, let's just be clear. Countries can build capacity, they can put in coal, they can put in natural gas. But the jury is out in my view, whether those assets will be stranded or not. And you already have companies and countries saying, most notably one of the biggest oil companies in the world last week was saying that, oh, they get it, there's not going to be increased oil use in the transportation sector. It's all going to move to plastics and petrochemicals. And of course the United States tried to nix the global plastics treaty. But the point is people acknowledge this change and you know, industry has a tendency to overbuild during cycles. We're seeing that now because there's too much oil capacity in the market, this 10 seconds, we don't know how that's gonna turn itself around. It might, you know, as China's economy maybe recovers a little bit if the trade war stabilizes on a non conflictual way. But bottom line is there could still be headwinds and you could wind up down the road with some of these fossil fuel assets becoming stranded assets over time.

[A]

Right, sure, yeah, that is a good point. So I want to think a bit about then the question of how COP30 might change any of these calculations. One of the things I've seen is it's been billed quite often as the implementation copies, which I don't really know what that means, I have to admit. I mean, it feels like a kind of a polite way of saying this is a cop, where there aren't going to be any big new international agreements signed. You know, it feels like sort of a way of saying this is about incremental progress and everyone getting together to say yes, we will do more rather than trying to do anything new. Is that right do you think?

[D]

I don't know who came up with the name Implementation cop, but I would not agree that that's a good name for anything. The word implementation doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but it is the case that this is more of a workhorse type cop, and that's what that reflects. And you know, I think that's fine. It's been 10 years since the Paris climate agreement and there's a lot of boring but important work to be done.

[C]

Well, I think the interesting thing from this cop, see if Lisa agrees with me, having been at the pre meetings, is that there seems to be an interest in talking about land use, which is sort of the unattended opportunity. You know, we had this debacle for several years in the carbon offsets market that made land use suddenly scandalous. But now we have more AI that we could throw at that and you have some big parties throwing down commitments. I mean, China is saying that when, when Xi Jinping gave his address on China's commitment for the new ndc, it was, you know, pretty lackluster. But he did mention scaling up forestry in China. Of course Brazil is trying to lead some kind of an effort, which again they've been criticized for being a little bit hypocritical, like they're making this big international appeal while they're actually doing some oil drilling at the mouth of the Amazon. But you know, I think that to the extent, and Lisa mentioned this, you know, new focus on industrial emissions and things like the IMO effort, which unfortunately the United States, you know, worked hard to scotch, but you know, still out there with shipping companies trying to make real decisions, including China, which is, you know, a majority of shipbuilding today. So there are some interesting opportunities for different focus that could come out of COP 30. That is not the traditional raising ambition. We're hitting net zero. We have to push everybody to hit net zero. There's not going to be a lot of that rhetoric, I don't think coming out of this cop. But it's almost like if you wanted to maintain optimism, what you would say is, well, people are getting down to some of the hard work, like getting countries like Brazil and China and others to say we're going to add forest land, we're going to preserve forest land is super important.

[A]

Yeah, that's really interesting. So Lisa, what's your take on that? I mean, do you think then that we might actually see real impacts from some of these sort of smaller scale things that Amy's been talking about, kind of sectoral initiatives and so on that might actually make a difference to what happens in the world?

[B]

I certainly think land management, agricultural sector focus, industrial processes, these things really will make a big difference. And then, you know, on sustainable fuels, that was not part of the conversation in a formal way. And now we have this commitment and I mean I will go back to which, you know, again, maybe not be new, but the whole energy focus of Dubai and the Dubai outcome and the storage, renewables, energy efficiency commitments, that's what BCSC is spending most much of its time on. And you think about Dubai as it was mentioned, and it was just this coming together globally and the high, high intensity, high energy, you know, hundreds of deliverables. Well, it takes time to make those deliverables work. We're in year three of those deliverables. The Global Methane Pledge. I mean, I could go on. There's so many initiatives. Some of them may not be priorities anymore, but we had so many, you know, if we just got half of them moving in the next five years, which I think we actually are, that is amazing that that is what we want to see. You know, you can make pronouncements. NDCs are important to show the direction of travel and countries priorities. It's a planning process, but it's action on the ground that matters. So if this COP is going to elevate really transformational areas of our economy that have not been focused on, that are authentically unique to Brazil and this region, that is fabulous news. We need to be bringing that into the conversation and show the art of the possible. And that's really what this cop is about for many businesses. You know, you think policymakers really know the art of the possible. You think your customer may know the art of the possible. Things are changing so fast and there's so much potential to optimize systems in our economy that, you know, I'm around tables where this year people talk about just basic optimization of systems, getting 20 to 30% efficiencies, and that is dramatic emissions reductions if we can execute on that. So talking to policymakers and others that are here about what we can do with existing technology, what we can do that will save money, what we can do that will help people, that's what this process is about year after year. And some years, yes, you're taking on new big negotiated agreements. Some years you're just bringing people together to focus on different parts of the world and what can be done. And I think that is healthy and important. And it's this continuity of a process that matters, especially in a very fragmented world. It's this coming together that we do globally is extremely important. And some people may be in or out at different times, but the mass is moving.

[A]

Right? And that's something I think I agree with very strongly. Having been to a few cops, it's very clear that just the simple act of getting the world together to think about climate change and to think about what should be done about it is actually valuable in itself. And just the connections that are formed, the exchange of ideas, all of that is valuable in itself. Even if, as you say, the governments of the world don't make massive amount of progress or any progress at all in actually driving forward international agreements.

[B]

But they have an international agreement, though. We already have one. It's called the Paris Agreement, which kind of took. I was around for 15, 20 years in this process, as some of you may have been too. But that was tortuous and it was not getting us anywhere. My first cop was Kyoto. So we wanted to be freed from that very painful and not always productive dynamic of renegotiating every year what we're doing now. We can work to put different aspects, add that to the table, but, you know, we have the direction of travel.

[C]

I think too much time was spent in Dubai, whether we were going to say we're abandoning fossil fuels or we're not abandoning fossil fuels, when the substance of whether people were really going to do it or not was not tied to having four words or 10 words in a communique. Right. I think what's interesting about where we are now is how difficult it would be for the oil industry to actually kill the direction of travel. And to me, if people would focus on it, that could be the big takeaway of COP30, not necessarily communiques or these big agreements, though there might be a couple.

[B]

Right.

[C]

It's really that killing the direction of travel, having 100 guys come or 100 men and women come from the oil industry to try to kill the deliberations, or have some country come and try to kill the deliberations, that you can't actually kill the direction of travel. Like if that were to come out, if that is what comes out of a cop 30, that actually it was too hard to kill the direction of travel. That'd be a big accomplishment, I think, under the circumstances of a world that's had wars and energy security challenges in the last couple of years, if it still can't kill the direction of travel. That's pretty interesting.

[A]

Yeah, maybe so. I mean, I want to come back, though, to something you were just saying. Lisa, you said we've got an agreement. It was the Paris Agreement. Is it not time to move beyond the Paris Agreement, though, just the way we moved beyond Kyoto, as you say. And the reason I say that is because the goal of the Paris Agreement was to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees C by the end of this century and to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. Seems clear that we're kind of at 1.5 degrees of warming or thereabouts already. Even staying beyond that 2 degrees threshold is going to be very difficult. And so question, what is the real force of Paris now if the world is apparently failing to meet those objectives, it's failing to make the commitments required to put emissions on a trajectory to meet those objectives. Don't we need something else?

[B]

No, I mean, that is, if you look at the language of the Paris Agreement and its structure, it had the flexibilities we need to adjust to the rocky road, the bumpy road of travel. It is not going to be linear. And if you look back at what we've done, I think we performed very well in really hard to move sectors in parts of the country, in parts of the world where obviously energy access is still a primary issue for billions of people on our planet. Then we look at developed countries, what they've done, and then we look at emerging economies where they're seeking to make this transformation because the technology is cheaper and it's superior technology in many ways. So I think this Takes time. It's only been 10 years. That's not a long time in these industries. So I also think we really don't know what the future is going to bring. I mean, I've spent a lot of time in the last six months just thinking about AI and the workforce. Right. I mean, if you listen to all of that, we have no idea what the next five to 10 years is going to look like. Especially again, mixing that with what I hear in the sector about the ability to optimize energy systems using existing technologies. We can catapult this and accelerate this in ways that I don't think people thought about five years ago. So let's make it happen. Let's just see. We may find that we do much better than we thought. And at the same time we clearly need to be thinking about adaptation. And that was a big focus of the last few days is the Brazilians interest and not just having that be a side conversation. Like we really need to be putting more time and effort and many of these investments are good for resilience and adaptation as much as they are for emissions reduction. So we got to look for those opportunities. And then back to Bill Gates. It's about people. It's about making lives better for people. So let's look for those sweet spots where we can make lives better for people and we can reduce emissions and make their communities more resilient. There are many opportunities with existing technologies to do that.

[D]

I've spent a lot of time covering Bill Gates memo in the last couple of weeks. And so I've read all 17 pages, which I suspect most people, most politicians anyway, probably have not. And to bring it back to your question, Ed, about whether or not we should redo the Paris Climate Agreement, I think if you got down to page 17 of his memo, he has two recommendations for the COP organizers. One being orient the metrics around human welfare, which is sort of the thrust of his argument. And then number two is focus more on the readiness of technologies. Now of course some people criticize Bill for being too oriented around technologies. As you know, I used to lead a news outlet that was funded by him. So I should say that as a disclaimer. But I tend to agree with him in that regard. And so instead of throwing out the Paris Climate Agreement, maybe there needs to be a rejiggering of how these climate talks work and what they focus on. And your question, Ed, also brings to mind for me this question about goals and what the purpose of goals are. You know, I tend to think in metaphors. And I like to run. So it's, you know, if you say you want to run a marathon, you know, at a six minute pace, that's pretty damn fast, right? And then you end up running the marathon at eight minutes and that's still really good. And the question is, should you have set your goal closer to eight minutes or is it good that you set it for this really aspirational thing and you keep striving for it? And I think we're, you know, mile, I don't know, we're in mile 10 of a marathon. We got a long ways to go. And honestly, when the goal was passed in 2015, it was probably already out of reach then in terms of the mechanisms that needed to be put in place to reach it. But maybe that's okay for this challenge of climate change. And so I think, I think more, I think we're trying to redo the Paris climate agreement is just a whole nother that which has opened up so much bureaucracy that the UN does not need more of.

[A]

Yeah, no, I see that point. That is certainly a powerful argument against doing that. I mean, just bringing it back though, Amy Jaffe, to what you were saying earlier in the question of kind of who pays for what does end up being pretty fundamental to this, right? At the Baku cop cop 29, a year ago there was this big push to try and get a very large amount of climate finance to flow from rich countries to low and middle income countries. The goal was maybe a trillion dollars a year or more. They ended up not getting anything like that. They agreed to just 300 billion a year. There is apparently still an effort out there to try and increase the scale of that. It's not clear to me that it's going to have any more success now than it did a year ago. But at the end of the day, that is what it comes down to, isn't it? Is the question of there is this global issue that we're all facing, who actually pays for tackling it. That's still a really hard thing to resolve, isn't it?

[C]

I would say that that is still like not. I kind of agree with Lisa, like you have the Paris Accord. Don't waste time trying to, you know, renegotiate that. I think this question of who pays is still a giant barrier and the way climate finance works. So a little bit of progress was made on this. I'd be interested to hear what Lisa's hearing on the ground. I, you know, as you know, I keep thinking that it's very hard to do that without some kind of carbon pricing. So it's too bad that we have the politics we have here in the United States. And so the IMO carbon tax is delayed. The reason I say that is not even just because of progress in the shipping industry, because I think the shipping industry and a lot of ports around the world are starting to kind of move forward on decarbonization slowly, but that sector is starting to, you know, focus on it. I think that where the opportunity problem comes is that, you know, a 1% tax on all first class airline travel or this thing where shippers would pay some kind of a tax and you would use that to actually pay for some of the money that needs to go into low income countries and low lying island countries and some of these very hard expenses that are more difficult to fund through commercial ventures and through traditional green bond markets and things like that. I think that's where the heavy work needs to be done. And I have to say, having studied the national adaptation plans of the Global south and then matching that and comparing that to the commitments of, you know, sort of grants and kind of like these international multinational funds that, you know, participate, there's a big disconnect. And part of that disconnect is the countries really need money to salvage agriculture and to handle water. And a lot of the money doesn't go to that. So I commend Bill Gates for his announcement to help small scale farmers who do in the end produce a third of global food production. On the other hand, no offense, 1.4 billion over four years is a pretty small amount coming out of a major foundation. And so I do feel like philanthropy and private sector. I had a student who worked for the Clean Cooking alliance this summer through my student fellows program and it was really disappointing after listening to the BS of the oil and gas industry about how we have to do something for these people who have no energy access and how propane is a solution. These guys weren't actually willing to give money to a charitable organization that actually does set Kenya and other countries on the trajectory to be able to improve energy access. Like I thought my student could just help with this program and they would gear up and get behind the tailwind of Secretary Wright and these energy companies were just going to pour money into. This is the only NGO that actually works on the ground with governments. I mean there are others that, that do it, but this, these guys go way into the weeds, okay? So they're a really strong organization and it was really uphill. Really uphill.

[A]

That is very interesting. That's a great call to action. If any listeners are out there who would like to support energy access, get in touch, and I'm sure Amy can connect you to the right people. But as you say, there does seem to be a disconnect there, and arguably that's symptomatic of this fundamental issue about what we're really arguing about here is resource allocation and who gets access to energy and who doesn't. Just wanted to focus in on one thing just because it is, I think, important in terms of concrete outcomes that could come from COP 30, this pledge on sustainable fuels, this target of quadrupling the output of sustainable fuels, meaning biofuels, plus fuels derived from low carbon, hydrogen, synthetic fuels and so on. This is something I know that the Brazilian government, the hosts, are very keen on. They've been supporting it. Has this actually been adopted internationally? Amy, do you know what's happened here, or do we expect it will get adopted? And if so, what might it mean?

[B]

I can start. I may not have the most complete information, but I know it was first presented by the sustainable business COP leaders maybe during Climate Week or in the last couple of weeks. And then Brazil, joined by several other countries, have made this announcement as of two or three days ago. And so I don't know what their goals are in terms of getting it adopted into any of the outcomes documents. But as I mentioned, the COP presidency has 10 letters issued on some really important topics. This sustainable fuels effort is so critical, so exciting. I mean, again, I sat in a bunch of different conversations with governments and industry leaders on it and other stakeholders over the last couple days, and it really got me fired up. So I don't know if either Amy has more information to share.

[C]

Well, let me just say this one thing, Ed, about it, because I like to focus on the positive. United States biofuels production hit a record high this past quarter, and ethanol itself hit 1.12 million barrels a day. And that's in addition to that. Then you have to add in all the other fuels. Right. So this is even something the United States, if it would have the wherewithal, could actually get behind, because the United States is really expanding its footprint in this area.

[A]

Right, but is that really a positive, though? That's the question I would have about that. Unfortunately, it's a question we're going to have to discuss on the next show because I know we've got. And we're out of time.

[B]

Ed, can I just do one plug? I mean, I know when this comes out, the day will have passed, but I want to commend you and your producers for putting together an amazing women leaders conversation here. But today, which is Monday, November 10, is a launch day for the Women Leading on Climate campaign. So I don't know if either, Amy, you are aware of it, but I'm happy to share it with you. But it's certainly something I'll be participating in. It's a, you know, call to action, very general, focused on women involved in climate issues. And I think it's a great effort. Catherine McKenna is one of the leaders of it, former Canadian negotiator.

[C]

Tell Katherine I say hi, cause we wrote a piece on this subject a couple years back together. So glad to see she's still out there in the trenches moving the agenda forward.

[A]

Yeah, great point. Thanks very much indeed for raising it. Thanks very much indeed. Oliver, it's been great talking to you. Many thanks, Lisa. Hope the rest of COP30 goes well for you. It'd be good to check back in again perhaps later on in the conference and see how things have gone then. But it's been great talking to you now. Many thanks. Amy Harder, great to be here.

[D]

Thanks again for having me.

[A]

Yeah, very good to see you again. Many thanks. Amy Myers, Jaffe, great to be here.

[C]

And as usual, nice to join Amy and Lisa.

[A]

Thanks to our producers, Stuart Duffy, Toby Biggins, Gilchrist and Dan Cottrell. And above all, as ever, many thanks to all of you for listening. We really value your feedback. So please do keep that coming and we'll be back soon with all the latest news and views on what COP30 means for the future of energy. Until then, goodbye.