Woman's Hour - COP26

Episode Date: November 2, 2021

The starting gun has fired on COP26, and the UK now has less than two weeks to get around 200 countries over the line towards stronger commitments on climate action. It's not going to be easy. Of the 25 COPs that have gone before, only one produced concrete targets for change. That was the 2015 Paris climate conference - aka COP21 - where two new ideas were launched onto the international stage: keeping average global temperature rises below 1.5C, and the notion of aiming for 'net zero'. Women were at the forefront of the Paris negotiations and we unite three of those women in a Woman's Hour COP special - Laurence Tubiana, France's Climate Change Ambassador and Special Representative for COP21 - who many recognise as the main architect of the Paris Agreement; Amber Rudd, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change at the time of Paris and the then leader of the UK's COP21 negotiating team; and Jennifer Morgan, one of a group of women who brought the idea of Net Zero to the global stage during Paris. She is now Executive Director of Greenpeace International. They discuss women's role in Paris's success, the origin story of net zero, the successes and failings of global governments in delivering on their promises, and their hopes for COP26 bringing about necessary change.Presenter: Emma Barnett Producer: Lucinda Montefiore

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Natalia Melman-Petrozzella, and from the BBC, this is Extreme Peak Danger. The most beautiful mountain in the world. If you die on the mountain, you stay on the mountain. This is the story of what happened when 11 climbers died on one of the world's deadliest mountains, K2, and of the risks we'll take to feel truly alive. If I tell all the details, you won't believe it anymore. Extreme, peak danger. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, I'm Emma Barnett and welcome to Woman's Hour from BBC Radio 4. Hello and welcome to the programme. This year's COP26, the global climate change conference that the UK is hosting in Glasgow, you may have heard of it, is dominating the headlines. Whether it's Her Majesty's virtual address urging politicians to put politics to one side for the sake of our children and children's children, or arguably the world's most famous female environmental activist,

Greta Thunberg, who had this to scream outside in a demonstration not far from the conference halls. We say no more blah, blah, blah. No more exploitation of people and nature and the planet. No more blah, blah, blah. We're sick and tired of it and we're going to make the change, whether they like it or not. Well, what about the women?

Some of the key architects of phrases we may throw about now as if they've always been in common parlance, such as net zero. Today, I'm joined by two of them and our former energy secretary, all of whom were at COP21 in Paris 2015, seen by those in the know as the mother to this conference six years later. You'll hear from them shortly. But we're told by politicians and scientists alike that time is running out. And my question for you today is, do you want the government to put more rules in place to force people to live more environmentally friendly lives, such as limiting the amount of personal emissions you are allowed, or a meat tax?

There's a dispute in the Cabinet on the issue of a meat tax between the Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and the Environment Secretary George Eustice, with the former preferring to encourage people to become more climate friendly while Mr Eustice, with the former preferring to encourage people to become more climate-friendly while Mr Eustice supports a meat tax. Without wanting to mix my food metaphors, carrot or stick,

do you want to see the government make rules about your day-to-day life to force change? Or do you think you can inspire or educate people's behavioural change? How are we going to get to net zero from your perspective? Get in touch with me here at Women's Hour. You can text me at Women's Hour 84844. Text to charge your standard message rate.

Do check those costs on social media at BBC Women's Hour or email me through our website. I've still got quite a lot of your messages from yesterday, I have to say, and they were relevant to put to some of my guests this morning, not least because when I asked

how you were doing, how you were feeling, what your faith levels were like in our politicians as we started this global climate change conference, it was safe to say a lot of you were not feeling optimistic. I also mentioned to you yesterday that research has consistently shown that women care and are more likely to make ethical choices because of their concerns around the climate. A lot of men also got in touch yesterday to talk about what they're doing, what they think should be happening. But how can that sort of behaviour be spread? That's what I'm interested in today. When we're going to be talking to people who've been involved with

setting policy, with setting goals, some of the architects of that Paris Agreement, what is it now that will change behaviours all these years on? First, let me cross to Rebecca Murrell, the BBC's global science correspondent, who is in Glasgow. Rebecca, you're there, of course, for the first major day of COP26. It actually started on Sunday. What are the main takeaways from yesterday? Yeah, well, it is kind of mad here. I've been to a few of these climate conferences before, and this is definitely kind of the biggest, busiest one. Yesterday, really, it was all about the world leaders, more than 100 of them turning up, huge motorcades going through the city,

roads closed off, a meet and greet with the host, Boris Johnson, on the blue carpet, not red. Maybe it should have been green. And you're here and you kind of have this bizarre situation where you're standing in a coffee queue at the conference centre and you see a scrum of people walk past and, ooh oh there's Justin Trudeau in the middle of it but yesterday it was all about the delivering speeches at the opening ceremony I mean we heard some really strong messages you know Boris Johnson a minute to midnight on the doomsday clock Antonio Guterres

the UN Secretary General saying we're digging our own grave Sir David Attenborough saying we're digging our own grave sir david attenborough saying we're turning a triumph into a tragedy and of course the the queen um at a royal reception yesterday a video message from her saying you know we won't all live forever but this is for our children and their children too so i mean i think at the beginning you couldn't have had a sort of stronger call to action um whether what happens in the next two weeks lives up to that who can who can say i mean there's there's a lot of work to do in terms of major commitments that may be on the table or we're expecting imminently where are we at with that well today it's all about forests really it's all about trees and more than 100 world leaders have signed up to stop deforestation by 2030 and this is a big deal you know trees suck up carbon dioxide but if you cut

them down or burn them they give it out and at the moment our major forests around the world have turned into carbon emitters i mean that's kind of mad when you think about it but 100 countries have signed up to stop deforestation and even reverse it by 2030 and i think the thing that's significant about this is it includes countries like brazil indonesia countries from the congo basin and it's got money with it to 14 billion dollars and it's calling for more support from indigenous communities too to sort of to look after the forest but i mean there is a warning note to this. Deforestation deal was also announced in 2014 and not much has happened.

So scientists are kind of greeting it with a cautious welcome. It sounds good, but we need to make it happen. With the carrot and stick question that we're asking our listeners today, and many, whenever we go to the issue of the environment, so many get in touch on this. In terms of what you're seeing around those sorts of rules, of course, there's the kind of global commitments, which is what this will be focused on.

But does it does it seem like it's going in one way or the other? Is it too early to say in terms of how you affect behavioural change? Yeah, it's interesting here because the process at these climate conferences is all about carrots, really. There aren't any sticks. You know, really. There aren't any sticks, you know, if you there aren't any sort of if you say you're going to stop emitting X amount by 2030, but you don't do that and you keep emitting a bit more, nothing really happens. It's not really pleased. You're not going to have told off. But it's sort of probably the biggest stick here is peer pressure. So at the moment, you know, countries don't really want to stand out as the ones saying,

oh, we're not going to do anything. There's a huge pressure on them to act. So it's an interesting process here, but it is all carrots. It's about trying to get people on board to do this. And remember, you know, the goal of this conference is to try and keep the 1.5 degree celsius um target alive because if if temperatures go above this um then we start to see the impacts of of of um of climate change you know it kind of creates a planet that's going to be quite difficult to to live on but it's about kind of getting people on on board here there's also been some concern about uh the british side of this and

our team only having two women uh around that top. We're going to be talking to three women who have been and are at the top tables around policymaking and politics. Is that an issue? Are you sort of seeing in terms of the leadership of this? Is it mostly men making the most noise? Yeah, well, yesterday it was kind of, it did seem to be a lot of sort of men in grey suits. But when you look a bit deeper, I mean, you do find the female voices. I mean, Greta Thunberg, of course, who's become the sort of face of the climate activist movement. You know, Prime Minister Mia Motley from Barbados saying, you know, any temperatures going above 1.5 degrees Celsius is a death sentence. But I think behind the scenes here, the negotiations, that's where it's kind of interesting. So, you know, during the Paris talks,

Christiana Fulgeris, who was executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, you know, who really sort of ran the show, she was a major influence on this. And now that's being given to Patricia Espinosa, who's doing the same thing. You've got Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh, who's really become the voice of the vulnerable.

She's speaking on behalf of a group of 48 countries who are most threatened by climate change. She's kind of bringing her lived experience of climate change to the meeting here. So I think the female voice here is really important. It just kind of wasn't so much on the main stage yesterday, apart from the Queen, of course, who's resplendent in green,

whose message really did strike home. Yes, the Green Queen, as she's been called in some of the papers today. Thank you very much for that report and putting us in the picture. Rebecca Morrell, the BBC's global science correspondent coming to us there from Glasgow. Many messages already coming in.

Louise says, people are inherently selfish. Unless the government pass regulations, nothing will happen. I don't hold out much hope until we're actually told what to do and made to do it. A lot of other people getting in touch say they've been sick of being told what to do over the last 18 months with regards to the pandemic. An anonymous message here saying we need to make better choices, but politics must not enforce them on the individual level. But for example, we could start with corporates and large scale subsidies. Take the oil companies to court, make them pay. Stop subsidies, things subsidising, excuse me, things like meat and dairy products and incentivise organic products.

Linda, good morning to you. Messaging from Bath, who says, I want the government to bring in legislation to force house builders to install solar panels on all new homes. Simple but effective. Stop pushing the onus on individual homeowners. I have to say there's some tension between if it should be on the individual or if it should be on the government or on institutions, or rather if there should be those rules there in the first place. But in an ideal world, the negotiations taking place over the next 12 days at COP26 will lead us to a low-carbon future where average global temperatures are kept within habitable limits. Of course, we're not in an ideal world, but among the doom and gloom, there are glimmers of light. Remember when all

arguments were about whether man-made climate change was real? Now it's not even a question, and we've got industrial giants like China and India committing to net zero futures, albeit more in the future than many would like. Those big ideas of net zero emissions and keeping temperature increases below 1.5 degrees Celsius made it to the world stage in 2015 in Paris at COP21. That meeting was steered and shaped by a host of women in key positions, and I'm joined by three of them now. Let me tell you who they are.

Laurence Tubiana, the current chief executive of the European Climate Foundation, but formerly France's climate change ambassador and special representative for COP21. She's a woman who many credit as the architect of the Paris Agreement. Jennifer Morgan, one of a group of women who brought the idea of net zero to the global stage, now executive director of Greenpeace International. And Amber Rudd, former Home Secretary, of course, but also former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change at the time of Paris, and the then leader of the UK's COP21 negotiating team. She now works

in the private sector advising on, among other things, energy and renewables. Welcome to you all. I'm going to start actually with those of you, two of you, Jennifer and Laurence in Glasgow at the moment. And I know, Jennifer, you've been to every single COP. Tell us, how's this comparing? I have indeed. I think this one's quite different. I mean, first of all, we all have to be extra careful because of the pandemic. So that that is a definite difference. I think a lot of the action at this COP seems to be outside or the attention is going into some of these announcements, which you need to look below and between them to see how real they are. And the actual rule making negotiations, which is quite important to finish the Paris negotiations, is just a smaller part of it.

And I think the other thing I just say is the level of impatience is very high, you know, and the level of urgency, I think, that many delegations feel after this year of so many climate impacts is felt. Is there? I was going to come to that about the pressure that people are under and the delegates are feeling. Laurence, good morning. Welcome to the programme. Thank you for joining us. And how are you finding this so far? Are you noticing that change in urgency, perhaps? I think, yes, that certainly you feel even in the statement of the leaders. I think everybody was listening very carefully to Antonio Guterres' very, very strong appeal. He was really strongly pushing and pressuring government with normally no UN Secretary General does normally. So I think that's the urgency feelings.

And of course, everyone, which I think was really impressive. And you could feel that in G20 as well, but even more here, that even if, of course, the protests and the young activists are outside, you feel that this resonates in the room. And that's why leaders want to make special efforts to look, you know, their reputation is at stake because they cannot betray totally the younger generation. And so you feel the resonance of the activist groups in the room and that translates into

some commitments. Even with countries we're not willing to do any particular commitment this year. You know, we have been suffering from the COVID and from four years of the U.S. outsider Paris Agreement. So we lost these five years, almost, not maybe some country like Europe has going on. So you feel now it's really the citizen movement that is now asking government to be serious, and you feel it in Rome, and that's the first time

I feel that as strong. That's interesting to get that sense of change and difference of that entering into those conference halls. Amber Rudd in the studio with you with me good morning and research shows that less than a quarter of people have any real idea of what COP is and so while this is very important to get the insights and try and go into some of the detail of what's going to change or what's going to happen there are people to whom this matters very little and it doesn't resonate with them.

How important is it that politicians bridge that gap and that faith is restored, I suppose? Thank you, Emma. Good morning. It's so nice to be here, particularly with Laurence, who I know well from Paris six years ago. 75 percent, though, do know all about it, which is an extraordinary statistic. And I expect is at least double, if not more, than what it was in Paris six years ago. I mean, just to pause a second in comparing them. In Paris, we were aiming for two degrees, but to keep 1.5 degree within reach. Now, everybody talks about 1.5 degrees. The ambition has grown since then, which is so encouraging. But you can look around you and see why. The evidence

of climate change with the floods, with the droughts, with people moving around, with not just the science, but the physical evidence around us is so clear that that urgency has been picked up. And simultaneously, there have been responses from governments making announcements that perhaps we didn't expect. In the UK, I would say, banning the internal combustion engine by 2030 wasn't expected this soon. And so I think there's reason for optimism to think that Paris set a goal, which we are now trying to achieve more to go further than. And also in the past six years,'ve seen technology developments which are going to make it possible if governments can step up with the necessary regulations. I suppose it's also just if people giving it a UK focus for a moment and with your particular experience around that cabinet table you know hot off the heels of a budget cutting air passenger duty on domestic flights was raised yesterday by some of our listeners as something that doesn't seem to fit and how that fits together as a bigger message.

Yes, I completely agree with that. And on the carrot and stick element, I would much rather see train travel becoming less expensive and the opposite with air travel. So I think the government's got that wrong in that respect. I mean, people going up to Glasgow and Edinburgh this weekend over the next few days are looking at flights, 30, 40 pounds perhaps, and train travel now, if you get it at the last minute, 100, 150 pounds each way. So we have got that wrong. And I think that the government should look at that again. Let's go to the situation with Paris and how to think about that and what that means today for this particular conference. And that's why we've in part brought you together today, because you all played key roles there. And Amber started to talk about it, Laurence, but one and a half degrees Celsius at the target. Was that extremely difficult to get that number in the first place?

Terribly, terribly difficult. Jennifer can remember and Amber certainly, it was at the last hour of the last day, very early on the 4am in this last Saturday, that we could put that 1.5 in the text, with last minute resistance from bigger countries, I would not name, but they were really a huge resistance. Because of course for them it was a giant step forward. You know we have been working around this around these two degrees, came back to well below two degrees C because of the South Africa in a way mastering the Durban Conference some years ago before Paris. And then that was the last mile that the small island were asking for,

the NGO were asking for. And, you know, for all the oil exporting countries, what does it mean 1.5? Just as very clear, it's the end of the oil and fossil fuel economy. So, you know, it's not a simple step. So imagine Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and many others, or even China say, well, what is 1.5 million for me, for my economy? So that was why it was so difficult to get it. But finally, the idea that finally we revise every time that it will be a process to get there was finally this acceptability. But it was, I think, a very, very wonderful move from the small islands, embarking many developing and developing countries behind

them that could make this possible. And that was, in a way, of course, we were just a conduit of that in the last hour, but there was mainly the pressure and their vision. Jennifer, it's fascinating to hear about how these things actually happened. the last hour, but there was mainly the pressure and their vision. Jennifer, it's fascinating to hear about how these things actually happen. The last hour of the last meeting, early in the morning, the pressure that has to happen. And yet there'll be some listening to this thinking, well, that's all very well, but should we have, do we have faith that it will actually be attained? Where are you with believing that that goal that you got to people, to the countries around the world to commit to will be not all countries will be attained well first of all i want to say it's incredibly important that

the goal is there um and the science has just really um come in since the paris meeting to demonstrate how important the difference is between 1.5 and 2 degrees it's hundreds of millions of lives it's complete a complete ecosystem. So I think that's even more present, I think, in many people's minds than it was then. And it was real leadership to land that and have that in the agreement, because it really is about many people's existence, if you're talking about small islands. Where we are today, well, you know, if you looked at the kind of calculation of how all the national commitments are coming in, the last one, I haven't seen one since yesterday, but it was the real economy to to phase out fossil fuels, to not explore new fossil fuels, to do that in a just way. And to see what the policies and the measures are of countries to be able to beat those commitments and meet those commitments. And I was going to say, let's come back to some of those details if we can, Jennifer,

because I also want to get a sentiment check from all of you at the end of our discussion about your hopes and all of that and where we are with those commitments. But Amber, something that you wrote earlier this year also caught my eye, which was just about how difficult, which is sort of what Laurence was alluding to there, these negotiations are. So, you know, actually take us around that table and what happens. And I did mention, and this was brought up by, I think, at least three of our listeners straight away yesterday, and the top, top team for the UK, two of the 12 are women, one of whom is not denigrating the role, but head of comms. How important do you think women's role has been in your experience around that table?

Or is that not part of it? Because it has been raised here. We are women's that I thought I'd ask you about. Yeah, thank you for doing that. I think naturally, I do share that view. I do think it's important to have women in good numbers, ideally 50%, but at least 30% in any important negotiation. As you sort of highlighted at the start of this show, plenty of studies will demonstrate that you get a more equitable answer and better government in politics, in big negotiations, if you have at least 30 percent women. So I think that teams that are less than 30 percent are missing out. And I would have liked the UN to have insisted that all teams had 30% women attendance. You would be more likely to get a fairer outcome.

One of the statistics I find so incredible is one from the UN is that when it comes to climate chaos, which will be forthcoming at this rate, 80% of the people being displaced will be women. And that is because women tend to be the ones who are at the lower end of the food chain, who are at home, who are looking after families. They're not in the groups of people trying to move around in the first wave. They will be the ones who are being displaced. We need to make sure that women's voices are heard. And it was remarkable at Paris, with Laurence particularly, and with Christiana Figueres, and with Patricia Espinoza, who's also now, of course, playing a role, that the women's voices were very much out there. They were going, were doing the media rounds, they were very, very visible. And if you have a situation where, like for the first day yesterday, we had all the world leaders, only 6% of world leaders are women, it gives a very male sign.

And I think we would do better to have more women at the front of this. And it's great to see that Jennifer is, you know, being very visible as well, because we need that so that people realise this is something that's going to happen to women and women need to be part of the solution. So how did we end up, do you think, with Alok Sharma being the president and then very few women on the British side, just thinking about our country? We're the hosts. Well, there's two separate issues here. Alok Sharma is the UN president, so he's separate in that. The UK team doesn't have enough women.

It's not the first time I will have said that. It's just one would hope it would have got to a different point by now. I agree. I agree. And I mean, you know, the whole issue about climate change is about climate justice.

And gender equality is obviously part of climate justice. And so I would much prefer to see the UK team, and they're not the only ones, the UK team. Plenty of other teams are just dominated by men at the top. And there's often a pushback saying, yeah, look how many women we've got in our overall team. It's not good enough.

I'd like to see more women at the top team. Laurence, just on that point, before we get to some of the goals again, what is your take on that? Women around the table and the importance of that it's crucial i can tell it was for me an enormous support in the negotiation for many many delegation in some cases they were playing already a big role but sometimes not and i i use that network of women all over, across the board during the two weeks. And you know why?

Because they were building the trust between us. And, you know, trust is an essential factor. If you want, finally, countries' representatives to go beyond the narrow mindset of national interest, which are always short-term. And this is about long-term. And, you know, the women, because they were trusting me and I was trusting her and we were transparent with each other, we could build a trust that finally, in a way, resulted in this explosion of joy of Paris. And why is this explosion of joy? I'm telling this all the time. Because everyone, every minister,

ambassador, whatever, seasoned diplomats, were happy to have gone beyond their narrow mandate. They were thinking about the humanity and they were like human beings again. And, you know, that's why women are so important, because then they were human beings and we are not the representative of their flags. And that's why Paris won. So we need to connect again and to connect between human beings to make Glasgow a success and to build the trust needed. Leaders are very important, of course.

All the elements, the practical elements, the technical will be very important. But the trust between the people who are trying from now many years, everybody's working on that since 30 something and you have the young people outside who are coming pressuring us to say to deliver and that trust is I think a virtue that women can can deliver and build. If you're just joining us we are joined by three of the women who are around the negotiating table at Paris often seen as the

kind of precursor the mother of this particular COP26 and trying to make good on some of those promises that we're hearing were so hard to get to. You're listening now to Laurence Tubiana, who's the current chief executive of the European Climate Foundation, but a woman who many credit as the architect of the Paris Agreement. Amber Rudd's with me, many former roles, but in this particular instance, former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. And Jennifer Morgan, I want to ask you, one of the group of women who brought the idea of net zero to the global stage, now executive director of Greenpeace International. On that story of net zero, Jennifer Morgan, a phrase that people now use,

it was one of the ideas that broke through in Paris. It refers to a state in which the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere are balanced by removal. How did that come about and how are we doing? Well, it came about, I think, because there were different discussions. One discussion was actually amongst a group of women who were saying, what's missing? We need some kind of thinking about other agreements where we had had, for example, phase out of CFCs against the ozone hole and how important that was in a, you know, to give a signal to the private sector to give that kind of long-term North Star. And it was in an informal meeting with women where

Fahana Yameen and others started thinking about that. And it was also kind of in conversations in other places as well, in different communities that were there, whether it be in the cities, whether it be religious communities, whether it be in government and NGO communities. And we then kind of realized, and I think this is another important part of that trust, of reaching out to those different communities that might not always come together around everything, but realizing we needed that and it needed to be science-based. It needed to be clear so that it was one of the main drivers because as important as the 1.5 goal is it's very difficult sometimes to translate into what it means.

And so I think now, you know, the clarity was so important. I think now one of the challenges is, you know, Greenpeace supports net zero, but we support a real zero and we can come to that. I think we need to get the standards right so that it is really driving the emission reductions that are needed in real time. really, in order to be taken seriously, that people understand what's at stake and how fast. I think the last thought I just have is we never thought that it would be just this long-term thing. We always knew that the next 10 years or the next number of years were fundamentally important. And yet, I was just going to say, if I may, because it's a very relevant point to that, you know, India only committed to net zero 2070 yesterday. That's 10 years later than China. Leaders of Russia and China aren't even at COP26. And the G20 over the weekend wouldn't commit to the ending of use of coal.

You know, on that point, talking to you as one of the architects of that phrase, net zero, you know, when you heard that news yesterday about India, you know, what was your reaction to that? Well, my reaction on India, because it was, well, 2070 is indeed, it's too long, it's too late. It represents India's perspective and the reality that there's a lot of inequity in the world. India didn't cause a lot of the problem. That's why we are now and therefore thinks it should happen later. But I was looking at their renewables commitments that was there. And that's now. They're scaling up renewable energy and moving away from coal.

And I think that's actually all the headlines were about 2070. But that actually wasn't the real story. The real story is about India's transformation of its energy system. And it needs to be more equitable so that all people can have clean energy access there. Thank you for that. Amber, to bring it back to you then and our politics, as it were, we mentioned there about cutting air passenger duty on domestic flights. You say it's an issue and an error. There's a consultation still on the new coal mine in Cumbria. And there's people getting in touch with us right now to the point about making public transport work. Do you think this government has squandered that trust by not having joined up thinking in the run up to this?

I actually have to say I think the government has been surprisingly good on really committing to some standards and some policies that we didn't expect them to, given where we were in Paris just six years ago. I mean, government has three levers. It has tax, it has regulation, and it has subsidy. And government can use all those three to encourage behaviour change and make it financially viable to do one rather than the other. And this government has been doing that. And I think that that is really encouraging. I like the way it's been investing in subsidising carbon capture and storage, which we're going to need if we're going to reach net zero. I like the

way it's made commitments on the technology side to the science side to make sure we can find new ways of doing it. So I think this government has been encouraging. I don't like the air passenger duty. I don't like the potential coal mine. But in the scale of things, the direction this government has been taking has been encouraging and will be yielding results. And I come back, actually, Emma, to the car one, which is that by 2030, there will be no new internal combustion engine cars for sale in this country, which is remarkable and a very good example of government regulation in order to drive behaviour change. So now they need to build the gigafactories and everybody's thinking about what sort of electric cars they're going to have to get. We've got to put up the chargers. But when you ask, as you started off

earlier, a carrot or stick, the reason why this conference is about government policy is that we need government to set those regulatory frameworks with tax, with legislation or with subsidy so that it does do the behaviour change. I don't think it's reasonable to ask people to do it all themselves. They need that framework. Would you support meat tax? No, I don't think meat tax is the right way to go at the moment. I think you can do other things at times to encourage people to eat more plant based diets. But I think that the public aren't ready to go towards a meat tax. Because the other thing I am a bit of a sort of bad fairy at sometimes in these conversations, is politicians know what to do. They just don't know how to get re-elected after they've done it.

You have to take the public with you. I don't think the public are ready for something like a meeting. I just also wanted to ask, when you were Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, is it the case you removed subsidies for onshore wind farms, gave more power to councils to decide whether they wanted wind farms on their doorstep? How does something like, tell me if that was the case, but how does something like that happen? Because you will know, having sat around that table

or those various tables in Paris, what globally needs to be done. And then you're sort of alluding to it there. You'll come to the brute reality of domestic politics and what has to be decided around the cabinet table. Exactly. And I did on onshore wind because we judged that politically it had been overdone in certain rural areas and the public were turning against it. That's what our policy and politics showed. But on the other hand, I would say I managed to do a very good deal with Treasury on offshore wind and offshore wind has become a great British success story.

And I don't think it's any good saying to politicians, why don't you do this rather than that, unless you can bring the public with you. We want leadership from the politicians, but we've also got to make the case for them so that they can stay bringing the public with them as well. But we talk about the public, we talk about protesters, we talk about stakeholders. Ultimately, they're also voters. So voters, I hope, will support the green parts that this government is taking. But you can't expect the government to go too far away from their voters either. Laurence, where are you on that? We're having a lot of messages come in saying there would also be support for those sorts of issues,

those sorts of moves like a meat tax, even if it is too early for the citizens. I do think that the citizen opinion and voices are beginning to be different. And of course, it's always complicated, the policy mix which adapted to a particular society. But my experience was, for example, the Citizen Assembly in France, where finally 150 citizens and the same experience has been Assembly in France, where finally 150 citizens and the same experience has been conducted in the UK, that when you put the problem of emission reduction to net zero, which again means zero, and the net zero means that you have really to change the whole system, whether on production and consumption levels

and the way we consume and we live, you cannot just have a top-down policy because it's such a systemic change. So you need people to embrace it in the best way. And it cannot be, again, a sort of tech expert or bureaucrats dictating what the lifestyle should be. And that's why the meat tax is a question mark. But then you have to ask the citizen what their view is because they have to be the engineer of the social change and if they have urgency and

power of action then they can design the solution and i see this coming more and more at least in europe but in many other countries the capacity to get citizen involved in the decision making in the shaping in the policy mix i think it's very important. Because one question that comes all the time, and in a way Amber was referring to that, if you finally want to get more access to clean transport, don't tax the cars only, you have to tax the flights as well and not subsidize them. You have to be fair and not in a way rely on the contribution of the middle class or the poorest household to make this happen, in particular on heating for example, again transport was the main thing or even food, where finally the more

polluting group of the society are the 1%. And these 1% are not finally, they have a lot of exemption of all this. So fairness and agency is a central piece for the policy mix, I think so. And consistency with the policy of government as well, because you have to be trusted as well, as I mentioned earlier. And have that faith and have that trust.

Jennifer Morgan, just to come to you, there's some loopholes though with net zero, isn't there? Take a flight, plant some trees. Are you concerned about that being overused? Yes, absolutely. I think if you, you know, if you look at, say, a company like Shell that has set a net zero goal by 2050, and then you see that they want to increase their fossil gas by 20% and that a large part of their net zero goal is going to be made up by planting trees and large parts of, like that, whether it be the Australian commitment or where there's really very little detail about how it's being met. And a look to these offsets, which basically we have no time for offsets anymore because we need to be reducing emissions by about 7% a year in an absolute term. So that's the offsets piece is something that is terribly worrisome. It's not scientifically sound. The problems that are associated with them haven't been sorted.

On that, though, I mean, it'd be interesting, of course, to get Shell's response on that. Maybe I can do that in a different program. But they're not here to, of course, respond to that. But what I was interested in is around also people's voices and that what Laurence was saying about the protests coming in to these kind of meetings and making the atmosphere different and the urgency perhaps different. I played a bit of Greta Thunberg, Amber Rudd, at the beginning of the programme. For some, she's a real symbol of hope. But she also did, you know, swear outside yesterday, say blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. In fact, I think the prime minister, Johnson, our Prime Minister, quoted the blah, blah, blah. Of course, we've also seen Insulate Britain, referred to as an offshoot of Extinction Rebellion, walking down the M25 on Friday and some of them being arrested.

Do you welcome that sort of protest? Where are you with that? Because you obviously understand the need and the frustration for that to be vented. But what do you make of what's been going on in that respect? Well, I welcome the activism that Greta has generated and continues to generate. So I think that is all for the good, I have to say. Interlate Britain, I do not welcome at all. We've got to be careful to keep the support for this incredibly important campaign. And by having people, stopping people go about their daily lives,

going to work, et cetera, going to school, you do not do that. So I think that that's a mistake because that is losing support for the incredibly important campaign. And it's a fine balance. It was great to hear from Laurence about the citizen assemblies in France. We have to make sure that we take people with us on this journey. And I do think that we are. I mean, as I say, you look at the comparison to Paris six years ago, when certainly in the UK, it looked like a kind of particular habit of David Cameron's, who was very committed to it. But in fact, now everybody's committed to it. The world

has completely changed. Have you been on any marches? I am off to Glasgow today, Emma. So watch this space. Are you going to go out with Greta Thunberg? Well, I don't think. I think Greta Thunberg is so far removed from me in terms of her influence, I can just wave at her. Have you ever been protesting? I'm just interested. This is an area that you now work in, in the private sector. Yeah, no, I haven't been out on any protests since I left government. And before that, when my life was private, it was

different. But I feel very much more... In a previous life, were you a campaigner on this? No, in a previous life, I was a campaigner on different issues, but predominantly on women's issues, which is why this particularly cuts through for me. Well, I want to come to that in a moment. But Jennifer Morgan, no stranger, I'm sure, as the Executive Director of Greenpeace International, to activism and perhaps what that can do or what it can't do. It's about, some would say, and Amber's referring to that, getting that balance right, but equally you need to disrupt, others would argue. What do you make about where those protests are at now? Do you think there is a risk of alienation? Well, I think that the protest and bearing witness peacefully is an incredibly important part of,

I mean, I think that the level of it and the scale that's been happening, which, of course, needs to be peaceful, demonstrates the level of, in a way, I hate to use the word, but desperation. It is often the last resort that people use when they've tried everything else. I can tell my own story. I've been talking to Shell since 1990. Three weeks ago, I was out blocking a harbor in Rotterdam in a kayak from imports coming in because I've tried everything. And Shell isn't listening. It's just one example.

And I know you can gladly have them on the show. So I think it's an incredibly important thing. I think youth who are doing this, that's where they're coming from. They want a stable future. I suppose it's the method and what you describe as peaceful, what others would describe potentially as disruptive and whether it has any impact because you could argue, of course, you've also had seats around these sorts of top tables, which perhaps has more impact. I mean, do you think walking down a motorway has impact? It's very dangerous, not least to say.

Well, I think you always have to be there's always a balance there. Right. I mean, and I think that the purpose is not to try and make the lives of everyday people difficult. The purpose is to bear witness and shine a light on those that are holding back progress or to shift power. You know, if you think about civil rights movements and what they have done, if you think about those big movements, I think that's the type of movement we are in now. And it will be broad, but it, you know, I think it's's always a balance but it needs to be heard well that that's perhaps a good summation of where you are at with this having also outlined some of the the potential issues with net zero and what people might be doing with offsetting or

might not be doing uh Lawrence to be honest to give get a final word from you if I may um that frustration that Jennifer just spoke about where are you with that? Are you feeling hopeful at the moment or are you feeling like walking down a motorway or getting on board a harbour or protesting? I mean it's sort of it's interesting to get your take these years on from Paris Yeah I am of course on the two sides no optimist, no pessimist really

and that's why in my view activism in the sense of action is really important. I see we have seen good signs and moves, and I think it's because of the feeling of emergency outside as well. So that's the resonance. I think the net zero now is a very, which is, I'm very happy, it was only consistent with the 1.5 in Paris, and really that was a translation of the carbon budget where we need to get there.

And so now everything is about seriousness and honesty and we need that. I think it was a good move to see the forest deal today because it's an important step forward. We know that we have to stop deforestation if we want to keep 1.5 alive. And of course, there are loopholes in a way that we don't have any legal obligation to do that. But that, of course, is the general situation

on international type, and it's a voluntary agreement. But it seems to me very significant, particularly for one reason, by the way, which is a trade dimension. You know, there will be elements and companies will trade from from these places, whether deforestation, whether it's for mining or for or for meat production, that will have an impact. They will not be investable anymore. So this is going in the good direction. Of course, the announcement of net zero is still, we have to check what they are in.

It's a short-term milestone, as Jennifer was saying. We need a sort of a standard for everyone. You know, there are parties, the governments are parties of the Paris Agreement. They have some kind of mechanism of pressure on them.

And you see, that's why they are reacting and proposing new targets, even if it's about two weeks. But then the other ones, the non-parties, whether they are the World Bank or the companies or the investors, even the local authorities, it's all voluntary, and there is no, in a way, across-the-board checking and standards, and that's, I think, the move we need.

And I was very happy to listen to Antonio Guterres yesterday saying, now we need for the non-parties something like a reference that we really do the job properly, honestly. In my view, truth and honesty is a key word for Glasgow's success. And for the moment, I think there is hope, at least I feel that. And it's good that the pressure is kept again and again, because without pressure, we will be always delaying action. Laurence Tubiana, thank you very much indeed. The woman who many credit as the architect of the Paris Agreement.

Talking to us from Glasgow, still in the studio with me, Amber Rudd, former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change at the time of Paris. And very interestingly, you mentioned there in a previous live campaigning about women. You were, of course, the former Home Secretary. And just while I have you, a few developments, of course, of late have been happening. I'm sure you've been following the issue of women's safety, not least since the tragic and brutal murders of Sabine Anessa, Sarah Everard, Nicole Smallman,

Biba Henry, and many more women. Women's safety on the street, there was a lot made of the police handing out leaflets and talking about how women's behaviour should change. I wondered what you made of that and what you think perhaps needs to change finally for women to take back the streets. Yes, I found that response very distressing, really. The idea that women were at fault somehow for this. It took us back to the age old idea of contributory negligence when I was much younger. So I welcome the proposals that we've had to really try to change the culture in the police. I found it very shocking the follow-up

from the horrific murders that there'd been these exchanges of a completely misogynistic nature between policemen and I think that that's some of those whatsapp messages yeah some of those well I think that that that I found I mean I had been home secretary for two years and I wasn't aware that there was that kind of approach really presumably I hope a very small core of male policemen but that needs to change and then somebody in the police in the particularly, but I expect it's wider than that, needs to really work on changing the culture so that women are respected better. And I do hear, for instance, that young women joining the police find it difficult, have not always had a good experience and have been surprised at the misogyny around them. Again, I hope it's just a small pocket, but that needs to change as well. Just on that as well, Priti Patel ordering a review

of the Met Police, do you think that should be statutory? I don't necessarily think it's right to leap to statutory. What is important is to act quickly and get it done. So I really welcome the fact that I think it's Dame Louise Casey who's been appointed to do that. I have huge admiration for her. She will not fall under anybody's influence. She will do the right thing.

And I really welcome the fact that she's going to do this review. She will leave no stone unturned. I think that's actually the Met's review. There are two reviews quite confusingly. And then there was Priti Patel's one and there was criticisms of that not being statutory. But yes, you are right. Dame Louise Casey is involved with one of those reviews. Do you think Rasa Didik is the right person to clean up the Met?

Yeah, I do. Even though she's been in charge of it while this has been happening? I don't think there is any purpose in trying to call for a new leadership at the moment. I would like her to oversee the changes that need to take place. And I'm confident she can do that. OK. And in terms of your view, just I view, I'm very aware while we're on air, I'm not asking you to comment on the specifics of this, but I mentioned Biba Henry and Nicole Smallman.

We had their mother, Mina, on not long ago, but two Metropolitan Police officers have admitted to taking and sharing photographs of the bodies of those two women, those two sisters, of course, found in North West London, and they've admitted misconduct in a public office. There has been concerns that faith in the police by women is not where it should be, especially when they hear stories like that. I think that is a horrific story, and I hope action will be taken against those officers.

That kind of approach, that kind of culture in the force that is there to protect us is just horrific. And I'm not surprised that faith in the police begins to wane after those sort of stories come through. And again, it just reinforces the need for change, change of culture, public change and consequence with that sort of behaviour. Do you feel safe on the streets? I do. I do feel safe on the streets. Yes. Amber Rudd, thank you very much for joining us. Going to that as well, because you talked about campaigning in a previous life about women's safety, but also for your insights looking back at Paris as the former Energy Secretary and where we are today. Off to Glasgow. How are you getting there? Train happily, but it is expensive. And again, that's part of the problem I'd like to

the government address. Amber Rudd, thank you very much. Many messages coming in. Just share a few of those. Jan says we definitely need the stick approach now. We haven't got any more time to mess about. We've got carrots and stick from the government. Another one from Rebecca. The problem is government and big business get all carrots and individuals get all stick instead of taxes, etc. When many are already struggling, we should shift the focus onto rewarding responsible individual behaviour. it's no good making all new cars electric if nobody can afford a new car and a message here you have a disabled woman delegate talking about a woman who's part of the israel delegation who couldn't access the cop 26 venue due to uh due to access issues so even when they do get in it speaks volumes about gender but more so about how disabled people are also

represented we're always the add-on to the end of conversations about diversity if mentioned Even when they do get in, it speaks volumes about gender, but more so about how disabled people are also represented. We're always the add on to the end of conversations about diversity, if mentioned at all, reads that particular message. Now, let me take you to the world of Helen Camach, who you may remember won the Turner Prize in 2019 with three others for The Long Note, a film about women in Northern Ireland. Her new show, Concrete Feathers and Porcelain Tax, is on at the Touchstones in Rochdale and at the Photographer's Gallery in London. Inspired by the Rochdale principles of 1844, I'm told it's a love letter to community and collectivism. Helen, good morning. Good morning.

Been talking a bit about activism, of course, towards the end of that, and the collective. Interesting also to hear about women coming together in very political settings to have that trust between them. Is that a big inspiration to you, community and how it works? And tell us a bit about this piece of work. Yeah, I mean, I think for me, there's something people talk quite often about how we've lost something in terms of the idea of community and collective and I guess for me there's something about not recognising the fractures that have happened historically. So there's the Rochdale principles, our seven principles, that were the birthplace, Rochdale, of the cooperative movement, the idea of working together which were about

the idea of membership of something collective, which was open to everybody. Something about people having control. So one person, one vote. Something about prioritising education, something about cooperation between different cooperatives. So this idea of how we work in a kind of intersected way, but also alongside each other. I was going to say, why did you come across these principles? Well, I mean, it was a commission. So, I mean, I know about the cooperative movement. Histories are kind of part of everything I do in all the different kinds of research. But actually, this was a commission. And it was a commission that was thinking about the presence of the Northwest, not just in kind of an art sense,

but in terms of public profiles about the value and the contribution of different parts of the Northwest. And so it's a commission that was, I guess, asking me to go in, work with a collection, work with an archive, and work with the community and try to reinvigorate, I suppose, and respond to those principles, however loosely or directly. And you've created a suppose, and respond to those principles, however loosely or directly. And you've created a film and there are also objects and the objects are, tell us about some of those perhaps to bring this to life. Okay, so the idea is, so it's a two screen film and I've worked with over, including

the lockdown, in kind of online online workshops different members of different kinds of communities there was a huge call out that went out in Rochdale and different groups came together and came forward and so one of the ideas right at the beginning that I would like what I wanted was to ask people to come into the archive and the museum collection and try to choose items that we could then start having discussions about. That couldn't happen. And so I went in with the producer that I was working with and we selected items that we thought would stimulate discussion and conversations. So we have sewing machines, Rochdale, the mill towns, probably nearly every person who's featured in the film, someone in their family worked in the factories in the mills so we have sewing machines we have paintings that we used one is

called the knitting lesson it's an older woman I guess she looks like maybe she's in her 60s or 70s and she has a group of small girls sitting around her and she's teaching them how to knit while material and fabric is drying. Again, a relationship with the mill towns. There's a painting called the Trick Track Players, which is a group of young men who are sitting around in a Northern African cafe bazaar, and they're playing a game called Trick Tracks, essentially, which is like dominoes. So it's this idea of being able to touch different kinds of collective actions and moments and bring them to life. And so we use lots of those objects, both in the film and in workshops, to start stimulating conversations about community.

I'd never heard of the Rochdale Principles of 1844. So in preparation of talking to you, I went to have a look at what they were. And obviously that's part of this that you'll raise the profile once again. But are you hoping what are you hoping people will take from it? Because you a lot of your work is, as you say, based on storytelling and how those stories connect. who's featured in the film. And she was saying, how did it go down in London? How was it at the Photographer's Gallery? Because it opened there first. And I think there was a fear from more than one person in the film that people wouldn't get it because they think, oh, I mean, one person said, you know, everybody thinks, oh, it's grim up north. And actually what I want people to take away from the film

is this notion that we can make connections with people no matter where we live because people are talking about relationships with families with friends they're talking about their childhoods they're talking about what it meant to live in certain kinds of housing and everybody has those experiences in some way or other and so I suppose what I'm trying to do is have conversations that are about community but also about family that are about poverty they're about fairness and equity so lots of the conversations we had were about whether life felt fair but it was also this way that you have a window into somebody else's world. So, you know, Pete is a retired joiner

and he walks us through a kind of nature reserve and then he takes us to a field that he's been rewilding with a group of volunteers where they used to be burnt out cars and people would dump all their household waste. And so it's this idea that we can touch something that actually has some magic to it as well, alongside some of the conversations that feel much more political in the film. I've only got a very short amount of time to say but you weren't

an artist until you were 35 I understand I mean you've always I suppose done things on the side but you retrained and you were a social worker before? I was yes so I worked in lots of different lots of different settings many different kinds of youth projects also a domestic violence project um and then also um kind of much more case holding social work um so yes I mean I guess I wasn't really even an artist at 35 that's when I went to art school for the first time so yeah I mean it's it's been a it's been a shift for me um but probably a shift that doesn't feel like such a huge jump you know the way that I work the kind of aim or intent that I have behind what I'm doing hasn't really changed I would say

probably. No and I also love the way you describe you know people looking into each other's lives because you know everyone likes a nosy don't they they want to be able to have a look connect and you can pick those objects and bring them together in that way and perhaps make them think about stories in their own life. And I can confirm it's not Grim Up North being a Mancunian. I'll just put that on the record just to correct it. I'm glad. I'm glad that you've corrected that. Just make sure I've got a response to those things.

Helen Cammack, thank you so much for talking to us. The show's called Concrete Feathers and Porcelain Tax, and it's on until the 13th of February next year. It's currently on at Touchstones in Rochdale and the Photographers' Gallery in London, where it started. Thank you so much for so many of your responses today and getting in touch with us

about whether you wanted carrot or stick actions from the government as we're into day two slash three of COP26. It's been fascinating to see all of them. I'll be back with you tomorrow at 10. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Thank you so much for your time. Join us again for the next one. From the makers of the Battersea Poltergeist, a new podcast series for BBC Radio 4, Uncanny. Do you believe in ghosts? No. Have you seen one? Yes. Real-life stories that are supernatural,

told by the people they happen to. Presented by me, Danny Robbins. There is a very strong sense of pure evil. Subscribe to Uncanny on BBC Sounds. I'm Sarah Trelevan, and for over a year, I've been working on one of the most complex stories I've ever covered. There was somebody out there who was faking pregnancies. I started, like, warning everybody.

Every doula that I know. It was fake. No pregnancy. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth. How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this? From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby.

It's a long story. Settle in. Available now.