Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With The Atlantic Staff Writer And "The Most American City" Author George Packer; Interview With U.C. Santa Barbara Professor Of Environmental Politics And Climate Policy Expert Leah Stokes; Climate Scientist Michael Mann Joins Christiane Amanpour To Discuss The Environmental Crisis Playing Out Across Our Planet. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 27, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:00:27]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up on this special edition of the
show. We look back at a year of unprecedented weather events and climate solutions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAH STOKES, CLIMATE POLICY EXPERT: This is the climate crisis. It is on our doorsteps.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: First, my conversation with the Atlantic's George Packer and climate policy expert Leah Stokes on how our changing planet will shape our
politics. Then, leading scientist Michael Mann on the importance of fighting back against climate deniers.
Plus, "On The Move," author and investigative reporter Abrahm Lustgarten explains the perils of climate migration and how Americans can prepare.
And finally, a win in the battle against deforestation. My conversation with the Brazilian president, Lula da Silva.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. In this holiday edition of our show, we look back at how 2024 was a standout
year and not in a good way for our environment. It was the hottest year on record, and global warming officially exceeded the 1.5 degree threshold for
the very first time. Everywhere from Japan to Phoenix, Arizona experienced scorching temperatures.
In June more than 1,300 people perished from extreme heat on the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca. And it's not just heat. In Valencia, Spain, residents
are reeling from historic floods in late October that killed hundreds of people. And in the United States, communities are rebuilding after
Hurricanes Helene and Milton devastated whole communities.
And yet, with all of this, climate denialism just doesn't persist. It spreads. Now, the United States, the world's biggest polluter after China,
has elected as president someone who has called climate change a hoax. President-Elect Trump has promised to undo climate progress both at home
and abroad. And he's nominated a slew of fossil fuel industry stalwarts to key environmental departments.
So with all that in mind, we want to revisit with people who are sounding the alarm and providing solutions to this existential threat.
So first up, my conversation with staff writer at the Atlantic, George Packer and climate policy expert Leah Stokes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Welcome, both of you, to the program. George Packer, I just want to start because yours is entitled Phoenix is a Vision of America's Future.
Describe how, what are all the intersecting issues that make it a vision of the future?
GEORGE PACKER, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Yes, The Atlantic wanted me to go somewhere that would give us at least a laboratory where we could see
how America is doing and where it's going. And Phoenix, I think, is about as good a lab as you can find because it really has all the major themes
and conflicts and issues of our time. It has political extremism in a big way. Every election year is a tense year in Arizona, and this year is no
exception.
It has a climate crisis that you just described and that I reported on in my piece, with unbearable heat, as well as disappearing water in some parts
of the state. And it also has the border and immigration as a huge factor in the coming election. Abortion is another one.
It's got this incredible nexus of issues, some of which divide people almost hopelessly and others have this odd effect of overcoming some of the
divisions that seem so permanent and insuperable in our country.
AMANPOUR: So before we get to some of the, you know, policies and things, I just want to read a little bit from your article because you experienced
that extreme heat firsthand and you struggle to walk even a mile from your hotel to an interview without feeling unwell. Here's a quote. Last summer
heat officially helped kill 644 people in Maricopa County. They were the elderly, the sick, the mentally ill, the isolated, the homeless, the
addicted.
[13:05:00]
Methamphetamines causes dehydration, and fentanyl impairs thought, and those too poor to own or fix or pay for air conditioning, without which a
dwelling can become unlivable within an hour. Even touching the pavement is dangerous. You know, were you prepared for that kind of extreme?
PACKER: No. I don't like really hot weather, so I dreaded it. But when you're in it, you have this sense of real danger, imminent danger. If I
lose my way on a walk, if I stay out too long, if I can't find water, you are risking your life. And people who are homeless, people who are
vulnerable in the ways that I described, are risking their lives every day and dying every day in the emergency rooms. Over the summer fill up with
people coming in whose body temperatures are 106 or 7, which is heat stroke, and can be fatal.
People find ways of coping. The city of Phoenix has lots of innovative methods of allowing people to come inside and cool off in these cooling
buses and cooling buildings. They're trying to plant more trees and build more shelters because it's a kind of naked, exposed city in the summer.
But it all feels unsustainable because driving, which is one way to cool off because you're in your car, which is air conditioned, is also burning
you up. Because air conditioning causes 4 percent of global emissions. And the temperature rises every year. There is no abating of it, and who knows
where it will be in 25 years.
So there is a sense of eight months of the year. It's paradise. And that's why people move there. And four months of the year, it's day deadly.
AMANPOUR: Leah Stokes, let me ask you about. You know, you study this. You also study the, you know, the politics around it, environmental politics.
So one of the things that George said, he quoted in his book, in the article, whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting. You know, there's
a lack of water. But apparently people didn't seem to think that was something that, you know, should be an election issue or political issue.
What are you seeing in terms of the politics around this now?
STOKES: Well, that's a great question. You know, the fact is, as we just heard, the climate crisis is happening now. For decades, it was sort of
viewed as a problem for the future, something that would affect our grandchildren or maybe poorer people in developing countries, you know,
maybe something for somebody else.
And what we are seeing is that this is the climate crisis. It is on our doorsteps. This is what we are seeing in the United States at just one and
a quarter degrees centigrade of warming. What happens when we blow past that 1.5 degrees target that, you know, governments around the world are
trying to hold us to? What if we go to 2 degrees or 2 and a half degrees? What does life look like for everyday people? And so this is becoming a
really important political issue.
And in the United States, for example, with the upcoming election this fall, there's going to be a very clear choice between somebody who says,
quote, wants to be a dictator on day one to drill, drill. That's of course Donald Trump and somebody who really is the best climate president this
country has ever seen and has really focused on this issue.
So will that play out in the election? Will people show up to vote for President Biden because of his climate record? I think it's too early to
tell, but we're certainly seeing the impacts are hitting everyday Americans every day.
AMANPOUR: Leah, I want to ask you a little bit more about the politics because George says, you know, solving the problem of water depends on
solving the problem of democracy. Here's another quote, the Republican Party there is more radical than any other state. But the chief
qualification for viability is an embarrassingly discredited belief in rigged elections.
So you've got that. How does that affect what people think about climate policy, Leah? Because there are conservative Republicans who do believe, I
mean, they may be a small group, but they do believe that climate should be a unifier. And way back when Republicans were, you know, it wasn't a
partisan issue.
STOKES: You are absolutely right. This is something that I've written about in my book and many other political scientists have studied. In the past,
right wing parties around the world were more supportive of climate action. For example, George H.W. Bush and even George W. Bush were supportive of
doing things on climate change.
Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry has really taken hold of right wing parties like the Republican Party in the United States. But many right wing
parties around the world, they have become really a chief constituent in the Republican Party. And you'll hear, for example, Senator Whitehouse from
Rhode Island talk about this a lot. The unlimited campaign contributions that we're seeing in the post Citizens United world means that fossil fuel
companies can pour so much money into our elections.
[13:10:04]
And they really have, for example, primaried the few Republicans, people like Representative Bob Inglis, who cared about climate change, and even
people like, for example, Senator McCain from Arizona, who cared about climate change. These people were challenged in part with fossil fuel money
by having these primary challenges. And that is part of why the Republican Party has moved so far away from climate action.
AMANPOUR: And George, when you were, you know, getting testimonials from all these people, you know, whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting.
But on the other hand, you know, there's no conspiracy theory, I'm paraphrasing now, that can account for a dry well. What feeling did you get
from ordinary people in Phoenix about whether this was an issue that should be legislated, that climate should be something that governments, not just
individuals, take care of?
PACKER: I think when you put it in the biggest terms possible, which is climate change, it immediately gets pulled into the vortex of the culture
wars and the partisan wars and the sides line up and nothing gets done legislatively. But if you look at it locally and in terms of a community's
water supply or even the well in somebody's backyard in a rural county, a conservative rural county in Southern Arizona, once people find that
they're losing their water, and it's in Arizona, it's partly because in rural areas there is no regulation.
Phoenix is highly regulated. And Phoenix has a lot of water. It's not about to run out. But exurban communities around Phoenix and even more rural
areas around the state are risking their groundwater. And it's because it's unregulated.
And big agribusinesses are coming in from out of state and even from other countries and pumping relentlessly. Local people, including MAGA
Republicans are upset about that and are now starting to demand that their state representatives allow legislation to pass that would regulate
groundwater. It's still stuck in the partisan gears of the Arizona state legislature.
But what's interesting to me is to watch actual personal experience of that incontrovertible fact. My well is dry. Change the mind of a voter. And that
seems to me like the beginning of a sane politics around climate.
AMANPOUR: In other words, when it happens to me, no matter what side of the political aisle I am on, I can see the devastating effects of it. And in
your piece, basically you say Joe Biden's infrastructure, microchip climate bills sending billions of dollars to the valley where you were, but I
hardly ever heard them mention.
I want to ask both of you, basically, we're not hearing much about climate in, you know, in any of the political manifestos and talking points that
both parties are using right now on the campaign trail. Leah, let me ask you about that. Do you think it's do you think people will vote on climate,
young people?
STOKES: Well, I certainly hope so. You know, the fact is the Republicans have put out a plan. It's called Project 2025. And people like Bill
McKibben have written about this in the nation. And it is a very detailed plan for how to dismantle our federal infrastructure. Things like getting
rid of the national oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which literally just keeps track of, you know, data around what is happening to our earth.
You know, they want to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency.
We saw what a first Trump administration would do, rolling back almost 100 environmental rules, pulling us out of the Paris climate agreement. And
what does a well-organized second Trump administration look like? If you want to know what it looks like, look at that Project 2025 document. It's
very scary.
By contrast, what the Biden folks want to do is they want to keep delivering. And as you're saying, why don't people know about it more?
Well, this law is just beginning to roll out, and we really need those four more years for all of those to start rolling into these communities, for
people to get electric vehicles, for them to put in a heat pump, to start seeing those benefits. You know, laws take time to really take hold.
And with those crucial years before 2030, whoever wins this fall election will really be rewriting world history when it comes to the climate crisis.
So I certainly hope people understand the climate stakes of this election, because they're monumental.
AMANPOUR: Well, interestingly, one of his previous transition people did say that they would reverse everything that Biden has. Do either of you
know whether any of Biden's climate initiatives have a sort of baked in or all or many of them reversible? George?
PACKER: Well, what I would add to what Professor Stokes said is I'm not sure that policy and voting are as connected as we think they are or as
they used to be.
[13:15:09]
I think people vote more and more along what I would call tribal lines. This is my identity. This is who I vote for. And if they discover that
Biden's three big legislative achievements have brought a battery plant to their town, they may not think, therefore, I will vote for Biden. It may
just kind of go in one ear and out the other.
I saw a lot of that just national politics and the ins and outs of Washington legislation having very little effect on people's thinking about
the election. And it's also, I think, the failure of the Biden administration itself to defend its achievements and to speak for them.
And that goes to the president himself, who is not a master of rhetoric. And rhetoric is important in politics. So that doesn't quite answer your
question. But I do think we shouldn't expect there to be a logical cause and effect if a bill gets passed by a president that leads to certain
electoral results.
AMANPOUR: And Professor Stokes, you know, overseas, we've just seen the European elections, and the Greens didn't do very well, which is very
different to what happened the last time where there were these parliamentary elections.
You know, all this emotion and enthusiasm around Greta Thunberg, which really powered a Green sort of momentum in Europe a few years ago, seems to
have not materialized this time. What are you seeing overseas as well? Because even the Europeans have tried to have a green recovery, so to
speak.
STOKES: Yes, I mean, look, the polling going into those elections in the last few days was worse than what the actual outcome was. It's true that
the Green parties did not do very well, and there was some surging in the far right, but it was not as bad as people were predicting in the polls.
And the coalition that will continue to govern does want climate action. And of course, as you know, what really matters is who is controlling the
countries in the European Union.
So, for example, the election coming up in the U.K. within a month, which looks like the labor government, the Labour Party may regain government,
it's going to be crucial that they actually govern on climate, that they use these years up till 2030 to make a difference, because as you were
saying, we could be seeing rollbacks in the United States. In fact, we would be if Donald Trump becomes president.
And so countries around the world really need to be electing climate leaders and having them deliver, because 2030 is just really one election
cycle away. The elections this year will determine the fate of our climate goals.
AMANPOUR: Because that is one of those benchmark years for achieving all the dates and the limits that we've been told by the U.N. You know, we have
been reporting on young people, for instance, in Montana, in the United States and elsewhere, elderly people in the U.S. and in places like, I
think it was Switzerland, who took, you know, the authorities, government, whoever it was, to court for their own human rights in terms of the right
to be, you know, healthy and to have their wildlife, et cetera.
Do you think, Leah, and even George, that they have weight in the political universe right now? First to you, Professor Stokes.
STOKES: Yes, I really think that George's reporting is showing what the front lines of climate change look like, as are these court cases. You
know, people are connecting the dots. They're starting to understand that climate change is happening now, and that's even starting to break some of
the partisan division as George was talking about.
And so these court cases are really starting to change the dialogue. There's also laws beginning to be passed, like in Vermont, really, just in
the last couple of weeks, that say that the fossil fuel companies who lied about climate change, they will be responsible for paying for some of the
damages that they cause. So we're really moving into the climate change era where damages are happening now. And I think that is going to start to
shift the politics.
AMANPOUR: And last final quick word to you, George. Did you come away with any optimism from all of that very intense reporting?
PACKER: Again, when I was very close to people's lives as they lived them and as they experienced them, yes, people were sane. They were rational.
They made rational choices about what they needed in order to make sure they would have water or even they would not die of heat.
But I think the bigger this issue gets, the more abstract, the more global, the harder it is to move people on it. Climate is a very low priority in
most polls before elections. It matters hugely who gets elected, as Professor Stokes was saying, but it doesn't necessarily get people elected.
And that's the worry I have year after year and why we keep kicking the can down the road.
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: George Packer, Professor Leah Stokes, thank you both very much indeed for joining us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, as the discussion around climate change is embedded in the culture wars, even objective evidence and truths are questioned. And
there's been a sharp rise in personal attacks on climate scientists. I spoke to one who decided to fight back. Michael Mann, Distinguished
Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. He sued for defamation, and he won after a pair of conservative climate
deniers, accused him of faking his data back in 2012.
I asked him about what he calls a victory for science, just after a jury awarded him $1 million in damages.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, firstly, you know, congratulations, especially as you frame it as a victory for science. What was it that, you know, that caused you to
take on this case? And it took you 12 years?
MICHAEL MANN, PRESIDENTIAL DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Thanks, Christiane. Well, you know, we sort of drew a line in
the sand. It's one thing to criticize scientists. That's all, you know, appropriate in science. In fact, good faith criticism, skepticism plays an
important role in moving science forward.
But making false and defamatory accusations of fraud, and comparing a scientist to a convicted child molester, which is what the plaintiffs did -
- what the defendants did in this case, clearly goes beyond the line. And we sort of, you know, we had no choice. We asked them to take down those
defamatory posts and to apologize. They refused to do that. And so we moved forward with the litigation, and it did take 12 years to play out.
But we're very pleased that the jury saw, you know, through the smoke and mirrors that they tried to put up during the trial, saw to the heart of the
matter, that they had engaged in false and defamatory allegations. They had done so with malice, hence the award of a million dollars in punitive
damages.
AMANPOUR: So to be clear, again, you have, you know, fought this because of the science, and you said, I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely
attacking climate scientists is not protected speech. And of course, this happens in a year where we have just reported several times now the news,
the shocking news that this year, 2023, the past year, you know, was the first 12 consecutive months of the, you know, passing the 1.5 threshold.
What exactly does that mean?
MANN: Yes, you know, I'm glad you asked about that, because as it also happens, just a few months ago, I published a book called "Our Fragile
Moment." And it's about really two very important things. The lessons we can learn from studying past climate changes about the climate crisis
today. But it really communicates two very important, mutually compatible and complementary facts that there is urgency.
And you've just spoken to that we see the urgency in the unprecedented extreme weather events that we are seeing play out in real time now. And
2023 was unlike any other year in terms of the extreme heat, the wildfires, the floods, the devastating consequences we're already seeing. So that's
the urgency. But at the same time there is agency. It is not too late to act.
And it's really important that we convey both of those things because urgency without agency leads us nowhere. It's not too late. Doomism doesn't
play a role here. We should not buy into false doomism and despair. Instead we should be engaged, we should recognize it's not too late to fight this
fight.
AMANPOUR: So on that fight, as we said, and maybe you can explain it from your perspective that the climate science appears to be increasingly
unassailable, obviously. So those who still don't want to do the work of reversing this and stopping this crisis are attacking people like you, are
you the scientists, trying any which way to not do the work that it takes.
Do you think, I mean, are they -- is there any sort of way you have of measuring whether they're being successful in the same way that for decade
the deniers were and the global fossil fuel industry has been?
MANN: Yes. Well, I'll tell you. Actually it's funny because the book that I wrote prior to that, to "Our Fragile Moment" was called "The New Climate
War" and it's about what you're talking about. Look, it's very difficult to deny that climate change is happening today for polluters to deny that it's
happening because we can all see it with our own two eyes. We know it's happening.
So they've moved on to other tactics. That's what the new climate war is about.
[13:25:00]
To delay, to division, to even doom mongering. Because ironically, if they can convince us, it's too late to do anything about the problem, it
potentially leads us down that same path of inaction as outright denial. So we have to recognize the new tactics that they're using. They're trying to
disengage us. They're trying to convince us it's too late. They're trying to convince us through any means possible that we don't need to take
action. And we do. And it's not too late to do so.
AMANPOUR: So let's talk about the action for a second. You've mentioned the two books that were really groundbreaking on what lies ahead and you also
are famous for the hockey stick graph. We're going to put it up. I mean, listen, as somebody who played hockey and was forced to play hockey at
school, I don't really recognize that, but I see the point that is going right up very, very sharply.
And people, you know, less people even believed you then. And it was made part of Al Gore's documentary, the one that won the Oscar "Inconvenient
Truth." And I recently spoke to about what you're talking about, you know, like people have to do something. But here are the people who really have
to do something. As he told me, all we have.
AL GORE, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: To do really is to overcome the political power and influence of the fossil fuel companies which have, you
know, been trying to persuade people that this is not such a big deal and they're trying to extend their business plan. And the Petrostates put up a
lot of resistance in the international negotiations. We are getting there and we will solve this. People should be of good hope on this. But the
question is, will we solve it in time? We have to speed up this process.
AMANPOUR: So Michael Mann, I'm sure you agree with that, but the question is how? You know, in one of your books, you know, shows how fossil fuel
companies have waged like Decades on 30-year campaign to deflect the blame, as we've been saying, and put it on people, on individuals.
And, you know, our wonderful reporter Bill Weir and many, many others in the climate sphere have been telling us how incredibly invested individuals
are. The recycling, the buying of the, you know, electric vehicles and this and that and all the things that they do, eating less meat, all of that.
How much though can be ascribed to individuals fixing this and how much has to be transformative, you know, industry, government policy?
MANN: Thanks. And I'm glad you played that clip by Al Gore. Al's become a good friend and he's a hero of mine. He has been fighting the good fight
for decades and he's still out there making a difference. And you know, we face this false dichotomy when we talk about climate action, between
individual action and systemic change. The reality is we need both, right? We should all do everything we can to decrease our own individual carbon
footprint. In many cases, those actions make us healthier, they save us money, they make us feel better about ourselves. They set a good example
for others.
But one of the tactics in the new climate war, those D words, there's division, there's doom mongering, there's delay, and there is deflection.
They have sought to deflect attention away from the needed systemic changes. Pricing carbon and providing incentives for renewable energy,
leveling the playing field in the energy market. They don't want any of that because it will hurt their profits.
But it's absolutely essential if we are going to achieve the reductions that are necessary. We need systemic change to do that. So they want to
deflect the attention entirely towards individual action, as if it's just about us changing our voluntary behavior.
We need both. Let's do everything we can as individuals, but the most important thing we can do as individuals is engage in collective action,
and that means voting. And we have an election coming up here in the United States that will define going forward whether or not we tackle the climate
crisis.
AMANPOUR: So actually, I want to ask you about that, about the power and the political power of young people, because you teach at the University of
Pennsylvania, you teach this climate science there. What are your conversations with the young students and how engaged are they and how
ready are they to go and, you know, put their, you know, sort of money where their vote is?
MANN: I love my students. I love the kids here at Penn. They are wonderful. They're great students. They're inquisitive, they're curious, they work
hard, and they're working hard to change the world and make it better. And so I see my role as a professor here to help provide them the tools, the
training and the tools to go out into the world and make a difference. And so many of them are charting a course to do just that.
And that's one of the things that gives me hope. People ask me why I'm hopeful. Where do I get my optimism from? It's from young folks. It's from
the passion and the engagement of young people who recognize that this is about the world that they and their children and grandchildren are going to
inherit. And if we don't act now that, you know, we leave behind a degraded planet for future generations, it would be deeply unethical and immoral.
And I have faith that young folks are going to be the critical ingredient here in why we actually rise to the occasion. We rise to the challenge. We
will do this.
[13:30:24]
AMANPOUR: And I know that, you know, obviously doom-mongering doesn't help anybody, but we do keep seeing these reports. And today a study released
says that the Amazon rainforest, known as the lungs of the world, I think could reach a crucial tipping point in 2050. That's not that far from now.
It's about 25 years or so. It's up till now proved pretty resilient to this crisis. You know, 65 million years it's threatened now. Tell us about the
studies, tell us what's at stake, what it means, can that be reversed?
MANN: Yes, it's actually one of themes in our fragile moment is that the climate system, to an extent the Earth system, is resilient up to a point.
But if you push too hard, you leave that sort of zone of resilience and you enter into the domain of fragility and we're right on that edge. That's
what this latest study shows with respect to the Amazon rainforest. There was a study out just a few days ago showing that there's another potential
tipping point in the collapse of the great ocean conveyors. This was popularized in the film the Day After Tomorrow. The film was a caricature
of the real world. But bad things would happen if this climate, if this current system were to collapse.
There are lots of these potential tipping points that lie out there. We don't know exactly where they are. So the only sensible strategy, it's like
the blind person walking towards a cliff. The only sensible strategy is to stop walking towards the end of that cliff. And that's what we have to do
when it comes to the climate crisis. That's what we have to do when it comes to reducing our carbon emissions.
We can still do it. There's still a window of opportunity, but we have to take advantage of it now.
AMANPOUR: So how do people like yourself who under, you know, regular attack, and also, you know, all those scientists who contribute to the
annual or the periodical UN reports on the climate crisis. Some of them have said over the years that, you know, we might as well not bother if
nobody's going to listen to what we're recommending. You know, it's very depressing for us. This is our life's work. These are the alarm bells that
are flashing. And it just doesn't seemed to be this part of it reaching a tipping point. How do you all in this field continue really?
MANN: Well, we continue because we do see progress. And it's really important for us to keep these seemingly contradictory notions in our minds
at the same time. It can be both true at the same time that we're making real progress and that we're not yet making enough progress. We have to
accept that duality. And we have seen carbon emissions level now globally. They need to come down and they need to come down rapidly. But the first
step is to stop going up that mountain. We've reached the summit of that mountain. We've got to go down the other side and we've got to reduce
carbon emissions by 50 percent over the next decade to avert a catastrophic 3-degree Fahrenheit warming of the planet. And so that window of
opportunity is shrinking, but it's not yet gone.
And if we see the policy actions that build on the progress we've already made, we can do it. I'll come back to this next election because this next
presidential election is going to determine the future path of global action on climate. Without U.S. leadership, there will be no global
leadership on climate. We have to set an example and we have to do so by electing, you know, by electing politicians, policymakers who will act on
our behalf, who will act on the climate crisis rather than just be tools of special interests and polluters.
AMANPOUR: I just want to ask you for a little bit of a personal thought on what you thought was achieved at the UAE. The Dubai Climate COP just
happened. And the next one is going to be held in Central Asia, another massive fossil fuel country. And in addition to which the government has
apparently, you know, put no women forward to be on their boards or anything like that. And many people say that's ridiculous because women are
very conscious and really much on the front lines all over the world of the climate crisis and the reverberations. What hope do you have for the next
COP?
MANN: Yes, let me just start out by saying that educating women in developing countries is probably the most important thing we can do to
solve the climate crisis. The more empowered women are with education, the more likely it is that they will be in a position to make the changes that
we need to make.
And so I have been disappointed and I haven't hidden it. I've been outspoken about the last climate conference in UAE, where first of all,
there were all sorts of issues about the host country and human rights. You've already alluded to that. And there was no real progress because the
host country was a petrostate. And the head of COP28, the head of the conference was a formal, actually not even former, was a fossil fuel
executive.
[13:35:32]
And so the UN Climate conferences have almost become a caricature in recent years, and they're straying from their mission. And we haven't seen the
progress since COP26 that we hope to see. COP26, two years ago, it was a real breakthrough. And it was the developments of COP26 that led to an
agreement among the countries of the world to lower carbon emissions in a way that probably now keeps us below 3 degrees Celsius, below 5 degrees
Fahrenheit. That's real progress because were headed towards maybe twice that much just a decade ago.
We made real progress at COP26. We've seen carbon emissions levelized, but they've got to come down. We need more progress. And we haven't seen it at
COP27 and COP28. In my view, there needs to be fundamental revision of the UN COP process right now because it is broken.
AMANPOUR: Even though they did call for a transition away from fossil fuels eventually. Michael Mann, thank you so much.
MANN: Yes, thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And now our next guest warns that much of humanity is on the verge of a great climate migration. Abrahm Lustgarten is a climate reporter
and he says Americans are already being displaced by this climate crisis and it's only going to get worse. His book On The Move explores how this is
about to profoundly reshape life as we know it. And here's our conversation from earlier this year where he laid out some advice for how we can best
prepare.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Abrahm Lustgarten, welcome to the program. Tell me.
ABRAHM LUSTGARTEN, AUTHOR, "ON THE MOVE": Hi there.
AMANPOUR: Hi. How does your personal experience and the moves you've made inform this book about Americans moving around? Jim to climate.
AMANPOUR: Yes, it was the catalyst for taking a story about global migration in response to climate change local and starting to look at how
Americans might also be displaced from climate change. I had been working on a story for a couple of years for the New York Times about displacement
around the world. And we had a terrible fire season. This was 2018, 2019, string of fires near where I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. And it
really made clear how much Americans are also being affected by rising heat, by smoke, by the danger of fires, by sea level rise on our coasts and
caused me to start looking not only at my own situation, but to consider from a reporter's perspective, what this means for Americans as the climate
gets hotter.
AMANPOUR: So we're going to discuss the effect in a moment. But in your book you write, people have always moved as their environment has changed,
but today the climate is warming faster and the population is larger than at any point in history. And in one chapter, you talk about Hurricane
Katrina and what it did to Louisiana. You detail the life of one woman who became a climate migrant. Just one story, but explain how climate, you
know, affects just this one individual.
LUSTGARTEN: Yes. So Colette Pichon Battle is the subject of this story. And she is from a town called Slidell, Louisiana. It was just a little bit
north of New Orleans. And when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005 and her area, her town, really devastated, she was living in Washington, D.C. And
she moved back to Louisiana. And she moved back with this hope of, from a legal perspective and from an organizational perspective and as a member of
her community, seeing if she could help rebuild and help keep that community in place and kind of prevent this migration, this diaspora. And
her story is a 15-year battle to do that and sort of slowly coming to realize that in some sense it is a losing proposition or a difficult
proposition southern Louisiana, and that's because Hurricane Katrina so many years ago was really the start of a shift of population out of that
region. And we see along the Louisiana coast, which is sinking and being subsumed by sea level rise, already a gradual decline in population.
And so Colette's story is kind of an example of the nuance of American climate migration, where it's not black and white, it is not a disaster
happens and people move, but it is sort of a long and emotional battle and a difficult decision to make. Or you tried to stay, you leave for a short
time, you come back, you try to rebuild, the rebuilding doesn't work out, or it's too expensive, and then slowly you kind of give up. And she's still
there and she's still fighting that battle. But that's what her community has gone through over all these years.
[13:40:06]
AMANPOUR: And interestingly though, you know, we're often looking at, for instance, Colette's story and stories around the world. You know, migration
is often associated with catastrophe and calamity, and where they go next, they're even worse off or barred from going to places where they could find
some kind of life. But you also say that there are potential positives to moving from one location to another in the United States. Positives for
four whole new parts of the country.
LUSTGARTEN: Yes. I mean, my hypothesis is that when I look at the data that projects the climate risks across the United States geographically, it's
going to squeeze from the coasts, from the west especially, and from the south northward, and that you likely see a shift of population in the
United States over the next couple of decades northward into the northern Midwest and into the Great Lakes region where there's ample water. And what
that means is a potential revitalization for a lot of those communities, or at least a lot of the opportunity for growth that comes with a growing
population, maybe an influx of younger families, energized middle-class families, but to seize on that growth, a lot of the experts that I talk to
talk about the need to carefully plan, develop policies that support that migratory movement, that prepare things like infrastructure and prepare
things like housing and, you know, and are ready to witness and smooth the path for that movement. But if that is done, that, yes, there's enormous
growth potential for certain parts of the country and of the world, just as there will be difficulties in other parts.
AMANPOUR: Yes, so you're describing sort of climate migration boomtowns, as you say, and you say if, you know, if the system reacts to this, is there
any evidence that there is preparation for this? Are there any parts of the country which are preparing to welcome, you know, new migrants from inside?
LUSTGARTEN: Yes, I think that's beginning, but it's early days. So for example, I did quite a bit of reporting up around Detroit and the southern
Michigan area. And there people were starting to have conversations, deep planning discussions about this issue, but hadn't necessarily put those
plans into action. But there was a recognition of the need for the kinds of things I said like investment in infrastructure. You see cities like
Buffalo, New York, claiming that they'll be a climate refuge and marketing themselves that way, but not really developing the policy yet. But
presumably that would come. And another interesting case study that I looked at in my reporting is the City of Atlanta, which in some ways is the
furthest along.
Atlanta, is modeled to be a real recipient of potentially millions of American climate migrants. And Atlanta has spent the last decade greening
and improving its infrastructure across large parts of the city in really positive ways that make parts of the city more sustainable. But now it's
grappling with a new set of challenges, which is sort of a teaching moment, you know, which is defending against the gentrification that's resulted
from some of their greening and the need to, you know, to protect some of those communities as you plan for incoming climate migration. So that's
just an example of how some cities are beginning to think about this now.
AMANPOUR: And how the balancing act has to be gotten right. On the issue of farming, you also talk about that, you know, that this could cause
industries and habits to change. Southern regions, you know, could get, you know, less yield. Northern regions. Well, talk to us about farming, which
is so central to Americans.
LUSTGARTEN: Yes. So two segments of my reporting. One examined the water scarcity in the western United States, in the Colorado River Basin in
particular, which feeds a great deal of our winter fruits and vegetable production in Southern California, and also a good deal of the agriculture
across Arizona and New Mexico. That industry in that region is extraordinarily imperiled. It will need to really reorient its use of water
if it needs to -- if it hopes to remain in the region where it's currently operating, or potentially we might have to see that agriculture shift.
And then more broadly, I use proprietary data analysis from the Rhodium Group, the economic and environmental research firm, and that data projects
agriculture yields declining across much of the country. And in fact, we've already seen about a 12 percent decline in crop yields due to climate
change since the 1960s. And now rhodium projects that those crop yields could decline as much as 90 percent in southern Texas, 30 to 40 percent
across the Great Plains, where we have, you know, really the breadbasket of the country.
So all of that suggests that with rising temperatures, which is what is really affecting those crop yields, we're going to have to reconfigure and
reimagine our agricultural industry. We're going to have to reconfigure and reimagine our agricultural industry. We're not going to face food shortages
in the United States. But where that food is grown might change. And the amount of wheat, for example, that we export and that we use foreign aid,
that also might shift. There's just really enormous changes in store over the next two to three decades, even under a fairly modest climate warming
projection.
[13:45:27]
AMANPOUR: Interesting. You also have a chapter called the Great American Climate Scam. What is that?
LUSTGARTEN: Well, one huge question that comes up when you look demographically at where people live in the United States is why, as
climate impacts have grown, as hurricanes have become more common and more powerful, and as heat has overwhelmed the south, why those are still some
of the fastest growing parts of the country. And there's a lot of reasons for that. But one of the sets of reasons is a host of perverse incentives
that the United States has always had to attract people and effectively blind them from the risk that they face in moving to places like coastal
Florida. And one of those subsidies is the provision of homeowners insurance or property insurance. And Florida is a great example of this.
After Hurricane Andrew in 1992, insurers were leaving the state and it might have suggested that property was uninsurable, but the state stepped
in and said, we don't want all these people to leave the state because of this economic. We are going to provide our own insurance. And so they
created a state-subsidized plan that basically said, anybody can get insurance and we'll promise it's going to be cheaper than any other
insurance on the market. And that's the type of thing that has attracted many more people to Florida and has been replicated across 30-odd states in
the country. And that's kind of just one example of policies that tend to sort of blunt the risk and the personal economic household decision-making
that people have to make about where they live in this country.
AMANPOUR: And now if you pull back a bit and look sort of more globally when you see the progress or not being made on trying to achieve that, you
know, the magical, you know, 1.5 degrees, well, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. But do you see globally sort of any progress
towards maybe slowing this migration process that you see?
LUSTGARTEN: Yes, so there's this study about the human habitability niche and it basically projects that conditions that support human life are
shifting northward. And as that is happening, somewhere between 2 and 6 billion people on the planet could be displaced from those ideal
conditions, potentially migrating. And so that research suggests that if you cut emissions, if you keep temperatures closer to 2 degrees Celsius,
which maybe is a realistic target at this point, that the number of potential migrants globally and in the United States would be cut by, you
know, by up to half, by close to half. So it really makes a big difference how quickly we cut emissions. You know, we have reduced our warming
projections from where were six or seven years ago. That's some progress. The legislation that's been passed in the United States and the goal set
here is some progress.
It gives me a little bit of hope, but none of it's happening fast enough. And globally we don't yet see the signs of countries like India and China
hopping on board, changing as quickly as needs to happen to reduce the net global emissions. And it's just critical that happens immediately at this
point, you know, to also stem the flow of that human displacement.
AMANPOUR: You just mentioned India. What about China? I don't know whether you noticed there was a fairly interesting positive analysis about what G
is actually doing and that he might yet be seen as somebody who did push the green agenda. Do you see that? Even though they still have their coal-
fired and trying to figure out how to kickstart their own economy.
LUSTGARTEN: Yes. So the smart thing that China is doing is establishing its leadership in a renewable economy in, you know, in electric vehicle
production and producing batteries and in creating renewable energy resources. So that's all great. And I think that's what that analysis was
about. And I have no bones with that. But its emissions are still astronomical. And those emissions, they just have to plateau or decline as
quickly as possible almost immediately. And the sooner that happens, the more the global effects of warming will be blunted and by extension again,
the migration that will result.
So yes, there is a positive example that China is setting. It's opportunistic, which is great. It should seize that opportunity to shift
economy towards renewables. But as long as it's still using all of those carbon emitting energy sources that their work is not done.
[13:50:09]
AMANPOUR: And very briefly, we've got about 30 seconds left. Are you concerned about, you know, since the evidence of Trump in his first term
was to, you know, roll back so many protections? Are any locked in and sort of Trump-proof now?
LUSTGARTEN: No, nothing's locked in. And there's an enormous risk of reversing some of the positive progress. Not both American emissions cuts
which have been legislated, but the example that we set globally. So I think it's a very precarious position and if you take back some of those
measures, it'll have dramatic consequences globally.
AMANPOUR: Abrahm Lustgarten, thank you so much. Indeed.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally tonight, it's all about leadership. And amid many grim milestones this year, there have also been moments of hope and
progress.
In Brazil, deforestation fell over 30 percent in 12 months. And it's a direct result of President Lula da Silva's enforcement of environmental
laws there and his pledge to end deforestation by 2030. And here's what he told me about that win ahead of this year's hugely contentious climate
summit in Baku, Azerbaijan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: There's been some good news for your country. Deforestation in the rainforest is at its lowest level since 2015, and you are getting
credit for that. You pledged to end deforestation by 2030. Are you on target?
LULA DA SILVA, PRESIDENT OF BRAZIL (voiceover): This commitment. I'm the one that took this commitment to announce that till the 2030 we would end
with the deforestation station in the Amazon rainforest. This is my commitment. And the same way Amanpour that I could say to you that Brazil
is experiencing a very interesting moment because when we're talking about discussing the climate change and the energy issue, Brazil has to be
undefeatable in producing wind power, solar power, biomass power, biofuels, green hydrogen.
Brazil has extraordinary energy potential. And we want to take advantage of, take this opportunity so that Brazil, amongst many things, we could
have a low carbon agriculture output. You know that Brazil has 90 percent of its energy matrix is clean energy source. And so we have 50 percent of
the total energy matrix is clean. And when the rest of the world has only 15 percent.
So on the climate aspect and on the energy transition, Brazil will make things happen. And that's why my commitment with the deforestation in the
Amazon rainforest. And I hope that the rich countries and I hope that the rich countries give a contribution with money that they have to contribute
because to keep the forest standing costs a lot of money. And because under each tree there's an indigenous people that lives. There's a fisherman,
there's a peasant. And we need to take care of the people that live in the forest. They are human beings and they need to live, they need to have
their livelihood.
So it's important that people that deforested in their countries, that have industrialized 200 years ago, now, they should take the commitment to pay
for those countries that still have forest standing, to preserve their forests. Because I will not be taking only care of the Amazon rainforest,
I'll be taking care of the planet Earth. That is the interest of the U.S. The interest of China. That is the interest of Russia, Mexico. And that's
the interest of Chile.
So that's why people have to have the awareness that to keep the forest standing in the Americas, in Congo and Indonesia, there's a price to pay
for that and people have to pay for that price. And this is what we want to do so that credit, carbon credit will really start working to help those
countries to keep their forests standing.
AMANPOUR: So you know what President Trump did in his first term? He pulled the United States out of the landmark Paris Climate Accord. Do you think
he's going to do the same thing again?
DA SILVA (voiceover): Well, I believe that President Trump, he has to think as an inhabitant of the planet Earth. And if he thinks as the rule of the
most important richest country in the world, most important has the high more technology and that is better prepared from the arms viewpoint. He has
to have the notion that the U.S. is in the same planet that I am and that in an island of 300,000 inhabitants is. And so all of us, we have to take
responsibility for the maintenance of this planet of the Earth. We need to guarantee that the planet should not be suffer a war more above than 1.6
degrees. We need to guarantee that the rivers should continue healthy with clean waters. And so we need to guarantee that the biomes of all the
countries should be preserved.
[13:55:24]
And so this is a commitment that I have not only as the president of Brazil, as a human being that lives in the planet called Earth, and that
there's no other place to live, only Earth.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: An encouraging message to leaders around the world to step up, save our planet before it's too late. That's it for now. Thank you for
watching and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
