COP29 conversations: Zac Goldsmith

Interview by Dr. Joshua Wells

About Zac Goldsmith
Zac Goldsmith has been a committed environmentalist throughout his life – as editor of the Ecologist magazine for a decade, as a Member of Parliament for nearly a decade, as a Government Minister, and now as a member of the UK House of Lords. In 2019, Zac was appointed as a Minister attending Cabinet with portfolios across both the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office and the Department for Environment. 

He served until June 2023, when he resigned citing the Government’s increasing apathy in the face of the environmental crisis. As a Minister, his responsibilities included forests, oceans, biodiversity, climate change and the illegal wildlife trade as well as the Pacific region and UK Overseas Territories. 
 
Zac was extensively involved in the delivery of the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration at COP26, the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework at CBD COP15, and the formation of Global Ocean Alliance of nations committed to increased ocean protection.

Do you remember when you became aware of climate change and when you first became concerned about it?

I have always been deeply concerned about what we are doing to the natural world; it’s something that has been with me for as long as I can remember.

There hasn’t been a time in my life when I didn’t care a great deal. I remember enjoying all the nature programs, like those featuring Jane Goodall, without fully realizing that these incredible things were at risk. My awareness of that danger developed gradually, through school and family influences, especially from my uncle. As I grew older, it all became clearer to me, much like it does for everyone else.

What are the main challenges to addressing climate change at the international level?

The problem, which the UK tried to address directly at COP26, is that climate change has been overly simplified. People have reduced the entire environmental issue to just climate change and carbon, which really misses the bigger picture.

The root cause of climate change is our abusive relationship with the natural world, which manifests in many different ways. It’s not just about releasing emissions through our chimneys; it’s also about cutting down rainforests, depleting our ecosystems, and destroying mangroves. Climate change isn’t just a climate issue—it’s also a livelihood issue, a biodiversity issue, and a security issue.

So, all these things are interconnected—climate change is just one outcome of our relationship with the natural world. My concern has always been that if we focus too narrowly on climate change, we risk overlooking other critical issues. We could install as many solar panels as we want on buildings, set up wind turbines, and achieve energy efficiency—all of which are essential steps—but it will mean nothing if the Congo, the Amazon, or the remaining forests of Indonesia are destroyed.

This invites a question. Do you think the terminology around climate change has skewed the conversation? Has it made people too focused on carbon emissions and caused us to forget broader environmental considerations?

No, I don’t think there’s a problem with the language of climate change. We have climate change, biodiversity loss, and deforestation; all these terms have value as long as we can maintain the bigger picture.

What positive message would you give about our chance to tackle climate change?

In relation to carbon and reducing emissions, there’s a significant business opportunity. There’s a huge potential for economic growth. The kind of economic transition we’re currently experiencing doesn’t happen without creating enormous opportunities for entrepreneurs and businesses.

It’s quite an exciting process, which is why I can’t understand why some Conservatives are sceptical. It’s remarkable to see how quickly renewable energy has taken over. Investment in renewables has consistently surpassed that of fossil fuels for the last three or four years in a row, and this shift has happened incredibly quickly.

Because there’s that sort of Capitalist upside to embracing the energy Revolution, it has been easy to imagine. But that’s not true of biodiversity, forests are still 40 times more valuable dead than alive in the very narrow modern context.

But the reality is that they’re priceless. You lose the Amazon, and you lose agriculture. The Congo Basin produces about half of the rainfall for the whole continent of Africa. So these things are really priceless, but in conventional economic terms, the financial pressure to destroy a forest is vastly greater than the pressure to protect them.

That dynamic is very different and that’s why I’m always trying to get the focus as much as possible on nature when it comes to spending for example, public money, development aid and climate finance. Governments should really be filling gaps that the market can’t fill. That’s why repairing ecosystems, protecting the systems, and trying to create economic activities that result in good news for nature is important. We should be spending a lot of our effort doing that because the low-carbon transition is going to happen.

For example, if Donald Trump takes over with his climate scepticism and his passion for coal, it’s not really going to change the direction of travel. The market is much bigger than politics, and the market has already made its mind up. There’s a question about how fast we’re going and maybe politicians can slow things down if they want to, but it’s happening.

But that is not true of species. It’s not true of ecosystems. It’s not true of mangroves. Unless humans actively decide we’re going to replant the mangroves, re-farm the coils and protect the existing forests, it won’t happen. It’s why politics matters so much in that context.

Your answer points both to the powers of the free market and the limitations of it. It demonstrates the power of the market in relation to renewable energy, but the limitations due to the incentive to exploit nature. How do we square this circle? Do we accept the economic system for what it is, and policymakers just need to find tools to reduce the impact on nature?

I think the case for intervention is undeniable. One of the earliest examples of an environmental initiative which involved regulation was the landfill tax in the UK. For the first time, waste was made into a financial liability and companies knew that if they wanted to reduce their tax and their liability, they would have to reduce their waste. They did, and it was designed to escalate over time to really reduce waste quite aggressively over a period of time.

If we find a way to write policies like that into the market, into the rules, then we will see that immense power, which is the market yielding good results.

There are other examples of where that square has been circled. Gabon has managed to increase the number of jobs, and the amount of economic activity that results from logging, even while reducing the amount of logging that’s happening. So logging is a good thing in Gabon. There’s no net deforestation. It’s managed in such a way that it has very little ecological impact.

Could you reflect on the UK’s relevant policy in this space, such as the biodiversity net gain requirement?

One of the things which was so mad about the last Government was that we created this new market via the Environment Act. As a result of the Environment Act, we saw a flurry of activity, including teenagers going to University to take advantage of this new sector and councils recruiting people. However, the Government said, no, we’re going to scrap the biodiversity net gains!

In the end they didn’t scrap them, but they certainly made it clear through planned leaks that they had the intention of scrapping biodiversity net gains. It strikes me as so un-conservative to create a signal and when the market responds just as it’s supposed to respond, and then to change the signal!

It’s insane. It’s bad politics, it’s bad economics, and it just seems so un-conservative as well.

You were a member of Boris Johnson’s cabinet throughout his time as prime minister. Could you reflect on what you think was achieved on climate during that administration?

The UK had an okay record before becoming COP president. No other countries were really shining examples of what needed to happen, but the UK wasn’t at the bottom of the class.

Being COP President required the Government to prepare and initiate a round of international diplomacy on a scale that the UK had never really done before.

Given that it was only a few years prior that we’d had Brexit, the world was really wondering, who is the UK and what is the UKs purpose in the world?

So, there was a lot of ego associated with COP26. The Government really wanted to demonstrate that the UK could pull it off. It was the biggest international event the UK had hosted in terms the number of foreign dignitaries. It was huge, so the UK had to get it right, and that meant that every Government department suddenly had to start grappling with climate change in a way that had never happened before.

You had the prime minister chairing climate change committees every two weeks. Each one with a different theme, some on finance and some on the UK’s domestic record, which recognised that the UK could not go around the world asking other countries to do things if the UK was looking a bit crap at home. It really focused the attention of the Government.

The UK did pull it off. When the UK took on the presidency, 30 percent of the global economy was signed up in one way or another to net zero. By the time the UK handed the COP Presidency on, it was 90 percent.

145 countries, representing 90 percent of the world’s forests, committed to end deforestation this decade. COP26 secured pledges for indigenous people. At COP26, there was recognition that in order to protect nature, countries needed to look after the people who’d been doing it forever.

And how was the UK, perceived internationally in relation to climate change under Johnson’s successors?

Under Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, the UK may have walked off the pitch. But it wasn’t all for nothing, much of what was agreed is being followed through.

The money is being spent to help countries protect their forests. There’s been no serious movement by the signatory countries away from the COP26 agreement. And you’ve got President Lula and Brazil taking it even further.

Although a lot of people don’t like to admit it, what the UK does has ramifications aboard. There were times where I would be the only minister invited to a meeting of Amazonian leaders, not because it was me, but because of the UK. There is something to be said for the UK leading by example and having a disproportionate impact on the world.

And it goes the other way as well. If the UK starts looking like it’s shirking responsibilities on climate finance – which we did under Rishi Sunak – or on oil and gas – which we saw under Liz Truss – these things have an immediate impact with countries which we lectured about getting their house in order.

Even though I am no longer a minister, during those times I had a lot of countries texting me and calling me. They asked what the hell is going on in the UK. They reminded me about when I had visited their countries and asked them to do X,Y, and Z. It was embarrassing. I had no defence.

Given the impact of Sunak and Truss, is the legacy of COP26 still intact?

It’s not intact. It’s there, it’s but it’s damaged. The advantage is that there was a relatively short period between Johnson and Kier Starmer. All the signs so far suggest the new Labour government is going to build upon the good part of the legacy. I’m as cynical as the next person about politicians, but I think the signals so far are pretty good.

I know that David Lammy really understands this stuff, as does Ed Miliband. It is not too late for the UK to pick up where things were left off, but we do have a bit of damage to repair given the debate around COP27 the UK had about backing off on the £11.6bn of climate finance.

That debate resulted in some really difficult discussions at COP27 with the leaders of small island states. Even the Pacific island states, they were just appalled. And they were quite openly angry. A lot of the diplomatic language was just put to one side. It was a real anger. A real sense of betrayal.  It is absolutely existential for them, the idea that a country would promise them support on the thing that matters most to them and then withdraw that support without any real acknowledgement was beyond the pale.

But it’s not too late; there is an opportunity for this new Government to really stand tall on this issue. They are not going to be blamed for previous errors. They need to embrace the good part of the legacy, not be overly political about it, and then build upon it. It feels to me that they’re going to.

How hard is it for a new Government to build trust with other countries?

They’ll always be cautious because history is littered with political promises that aren’t fulfilled, particularly in relation to climate change. Because it is a new Government, it gets a pass. The trick for Labour is to not repeat past errors. They can build upon what they have. They’re starting from a position of trust that they haven’t messed up.

What should the UK focus on in relation to climate change?

At COP29, and CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) COP16, the UK has an opportunity to really shape the discussions around biodiversity and  nature finance. That’s something that the UK is in a very strong position to do.

This is related to the question of how the UK can build on what was done at COP 26.

If it hadn’t been for UK negotiators, there wouldn’t have been the 30 by 30 agreement at CBD COP15 in Montreal. If it wasn’t for UK negotiators, there would not have been agreements around the High Seas Treaty. There would not have been the agreement in Kenya around the Plastics Treaty.

This is not me being jingoistic or overly patriotic. I saw it. I was astounded by how effective most of our teams are. If we can harness that, it can help decide what the UK’s role is going to be at COP30 in Brazil.

COP 30 is going to be the climate and nature COP. This is what Lula wants, and he’s managed to harness the enthusiasm of a lot of countries around the world around that same agenda. The UK has an opportunity there to really do something very special.

COP29 is about making sure that the countries and corporates and others feel the pressure of delivering on the promises that they’ve made.

What should the UK’s priorities for COP29 be?

There’s a lot of technical stuff that is not going to be very Harry Potter. It’s not going to be tabloid-friendly all around. It is going to focus on land use subsidies and addressing the challenges in financial systems by getting the regulators more involved in some of the discussions that are happening.

The reality is that even if the UK quadrupled its climate finance tomorrow, it’s not going to touch the sides, unless we get the financial system on board. Unless the big money managers somehow recognise the imperative of reconciling ourselves to the natural world, it is going to be pretty much game over.

The UK has the advantage of the City of London. We have more than our share of financially literate, big dogs here in the UK. It feels to me that is something that we can have a really big impact on in Baku, but that’s going to be just as important for Lula’s COP.

Lula is talking about sums of money to reverse deforestation which vastly exceeds anything we’re going to see from the from the public sector. Unless he’s already identified those levers and mechanisms, which I don’t think they have, that’s a place where the UK can play an important role.

Does the UK have any policy innovations or ideas which it should be promoting at COPs?

There is one area where I think the UK could make much more of the hand we’ve been secured for ourselves around subsidies. The UK is one of the only countries in the world who have really seriously sought to change the way it subsidises land use. We are creating a subsidy system where money is paid out in return for the delivery of a public good.

The top 50 food producing countries in the world spent between $500-$700bn every single year, subsidising usually very destructive types of land use. If every country in the world did what the UK is attempting to do, that would fill the nature-finance gap. Reversing this system of subsidies creates better value because instead of having between $500–$700bn paid out to reward, negative activity, it incentivises positive activity.

If that was the only thing the UK was focusing on now, we could do so from a position of real leadership because we have done it, and it would have a hugely disproportionate impact.

Everyone talked about mythical Brexit bonuses; well, here is an actual Brexit bonus, and we need to use it!