Former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres remains optimistic despite disappointing COP process

Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.

Christiana Figueres: I think the problem here is, and the one that I struggle against constantly, is a view of the world that is black and white. Either we’re perfect. I don’t think we’re either of the two. And I would invite anyone to give me an example of where we stand in one of the two extremes of anything in life. It’s just way too simplistic to think like that. And I understand the temptation. To go good and bad, black and light, extremes. I understand the mental temptation because it’s easier for brains to work like that. But it does not reflect reality. Does not reflect reality. That’s not the way..

Mike DiGirolamo (narration): Welcome to the Mongabay newscast. I’m your cohost. Mike DiGirolamo. Bringing you weekly conversations with experts, authors, scientists, and activists. Working on the front lines of conservation, shining a light on some of the most pressing issues facing our planet and holding people in power to account. This podcast is edited. On Gadigal land. Today on the Newscast we feature Christiana Figueres, who you may know is one of the co-hosts of the popular podcast, featuring conversations, news and analysis on the climate crisis. Outrage + Optimism. Figueres is also a former executive secretary of the UN framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). And she spent roughly six years helping to facilitate global negotiations. On climate change policy culminating in the historic 2015 Paris agreement. At the conclusion of last year’s cop 29 and Azerbaijan. Many delegates left the conference in dismay at the $300 billion deal to fund climate initiatives in nations, heavily impacted by the climate crisis. Which was far less than the 1.3 trillion that was initially sought. News outlets pointed out the heavy influence of oil and gas lobbyists at the conference of which there were over 1700 of them in attendance. And Azerbaijan’s own president calling oil and gas, a gift from God. Suffice it to say the response to the conference from many delegates has been that a frustration. Forget us herself along with roughly 20 climate experts wrote to the UN in November telling them that the cop process is no longer fit for purpose and a refocus on implementation and inclusion of global south countries. Is sorely needed. Here in this conversation, Rachel Donald asks Figueres why things are the way they are and what exactly can be done about it. What ensues is a conversation about optimism. And what it means to be optimistic, why it’s an active choice. And why specifically. If you get us thinks we should choose it.

Rachel Donald: Christiana, welcome to Mongabay’s Newscast.

Christiana: Thanks for the invitation.

Rachel: We invited you here to talk about the COP process how it’s changed since you were the executive secretary of the UNFCCC, leading the process that led to the Paris Agreement between 2010 and 2016. And I would like to begin by asking you a hard question. Given average warming last year was above 1.5C. Do you think the Paris agreement has failed?

Christiana: No, the Paris Agreement has not failed. We can get into this later on, but I think it is very important to be able to see the different components of a pretty complex context here. One is the process and the structure that we have at COPS. That’s the formal negotiation of agreements that represents one reality. It’s a complex reality and perhaps internally contradictory. And we can talk about that. But the other thing is the real economy. What is the real economy doing? What are technologies doing? What are all of the other levers of change? So we can get into this. But from my point of view, you cannot judge what Paris prescribed, what governments prescribed for the decarbonization of the global economy simply on the COP process, which is an important and vital part of the reality, but frankly, a small part of the reality. So I think we have to see not the COP process, but rather what has been the Paris effect on the global economy, where are we moving in terms of the global economy? And then we can see that actually, perhaps we have more progress than we thought.

Rachel: Let’s get into that because we are seeing a huge rollout of renewable energy, which is predominantly led by China for, to take a global statistics, but certainly Europe has really stepped up at an attempt to decarbonize. I’m recording this from Scotland which is looking at almost a hundred percent of its electricity produced by renewable energy. However, when we take a global picture, renewable energy is still only about 3 percent of the global energy mix and fossil fuel production and extraction is rising every year.

Mike (narration): An important clarification here. The share of global electricity generation that comes from renewable energy reached 30% for the first time in 2023 according to a report from the think tank, Ember. And it’s projected to reach 35% this year. However, this differs from global energy consumption, which includes things like transportation. And the figure for renewable energy there is 13.4% as of 2021 according to the research think tank Our World In Data. Rachel made a small error here in quoting 3%. That is more akin to the share of global energy consumption from just wind. But later on in this conversation, Christiana and Rachel will tease out the details on this a bit more.

Rachel: So maybe this will relate to what you were saying about internal contradictions with the negotiation process, but why is it that countries are failing to really mandate legally the phasing out entirely of fossil fuels when we know that there’s such a dramatic cause of heating in the world?

Christiana: You are right that governments have yet to mandate a quick phase out of fossil fuels. And at the same time, let’s look at what is happening in the real economy, which is quite different than the political reality. So in the real economy, We know that in the EU, because you’re speaking there wind and solar have already risen to new highs, reaching a share of 30 percent of electricity generation, and actually, Overtaking fossil fuels. And that is for the first time. In the global South, solar and wind generation has been growing 23 percent per year for the last five years. China, because you spoke about that has already announced enough clean tech capacity to supply all of the demand in the global South. So I think we have to understand that. Just, we are starting from ground zero with respect to renewable energy and clean technologies and anything that starts from ground zero that needs to develop its own capacity to produce and supply into the market always has this let’s call it this S curve of penetration, where there is a lot of investment that has to go in in the beginning. And then when it reaches critical point, it actually accelerates. We are at that point because just to take last year’s data, we actually invested. Almost two times as much into renewable energy generation than we did into new fossil fuels. So it is not correct that we are actually investing more into oil and gas. We’re actually investing every year less and less. They are, the industry is very vociferous. For a reason, they’re very vociferous because they know that they’re losing market share, and they know that their technologies basically have an expiration date on the horizon and they are fighting to extend that expiration date as much as possible. However, the other technologies are standing on their own and renewables are not just competitive, but actually even more interesting as investment in most jurisdictions around the world. So the issue here is twofold. Number one, that we’re starting from ground zero with renewables. Against a world in which we had 10, 15, 20 years ago, 100 percent supply of fossil fuels. So we’re starting from ground zero and going up. But secondly, very importantly, we tend to think of technological process in linear form. That is not correct. We have finally understood, for example, in the, Communications and in the AI and in the IT sector, all of that sector, we understand that technology progresses both in its effectiveness and its efficiency and its cost effectiveness and in its penetration to the market. It does not proceed linear. It is exponential and that we have understood, but we have yet to understand that energy generation is also on an exponential path, and we know from the numbers that that is correct, that we are actually increasing two X and then four X and eight X every year. We just have to understand that that is the shape of the S curve and that there is no way that fossil fuels can continue to compete in the medium and long term because there is not that much innovation anymore in fossil fuels, the extraction, and the extraction. That is necessary, needs now to go to fields, oil and gas fields that are much, much more difficult. They have actually already extracted from the easy fields, and so their cost is only going to go up, whereas renewables are going down. And there is frankly less and less social tolerance for for fossil fuel as electricity generation. So all of this put together means we are beginning to see the advance of wind and solar that that will overtake fossil fuels.

Mike (narration): Hey listeners happy 2025. We have a big year ahead of us on the podcast, but last year featured some really in-depth conversations that you don’t want to miss. So I recommend if you’re a new listener or returning one that you catch up on the previous conversations we had in 2024. Thankfully, we’ve put together a list of our top episodes for you 13 in total, which you can find linked in the show notes. Of this episode or by clicking on my byline@mongabay.com and if you don’t want to miss any more conversations, I recommend you subscribe to our show wherever you get your podcasts from. Thanks for tuning in. Let’s get back to the conversation with Christiana.

Rachel: I’m always really interested in having these conversations. Especially with experts like yourself, because I think it really reveals just how complex the picture is and why it’s quite difficult for the public as well to really get a firm grasp on what is going on. Because whether you take a look at the numbers in Europe or whether you look at them on a global scale, it actually cuts a very different picture in Europe that you kindly highlighted because this is where I’m dialing in from. It looks really, really great. But then when you look at that global scale and you see that renewable energy is only 3 percent of the current energy mix and that right now it’s only adding to energy generation rather than substituting that our economies are still growing. There are energy demand is still growing. still growing. It doesn’t really look like it’s substituting fossil fuels. And then when you cut, the pie to look at, how much of the energy that we’re using is actually electricity versus transport fuel. And you still see that fuel is the predominant fuel. God, we don’t have enough words for all of this in the energy mix. Electricity is only about 40%. And then you think about the fact that renewable energy is only, producing some of the electricity that we’re using and we still have to decarbonize everything, including our transport. And then you think about the deadlines that we’re on, these horizons really rushing at us 2030, 2050. It seems like such an incredible feat that we have to pull off.

Christiana: I’m interested in your 3 percent where, where do you, I think you dropped a zero.

Rachel: No.

Christiana: You dropped…the world has already passed 30 percent of electricity–

Rachel: –generation–

Christiana: of electricity generation, 30 percent already. Yeah, yeah. Energy. But let’s understand again, let’s just take a deep breath and understand the components of this. So we’re already at 30 percent of electricity generation and we will go beyond that. Pretty quickly. So we’re already at 30%. We were at 0 percent 10 years ago. Okay.

Mike (narration): Christiana may be exaggerating a bit here for emphasis by saying we were at 0% renewable electricity 10 years ago. But her point is that the progress over the last decade has been very large. In reality, the world has been producing at least 19% of its electricity renewably 20 years ago, a large amount of which is hydro-power. But that really changed over the past 10 years as both wind and solar have grown significantly now accounting for 13.4% of electricity generation. Ember’s report says that this has slowed the growth of fossil fuels by two thirds in the past decade. And solar power remains the fastest growing source of energy going on 19 years.

Christiana: So now we’re at 30%. That’s an incredible achievement. And we will pass that also very quickly of electricity. Now, when you say energy is because you are looking at electricity. Plus transport, correct? So when you look at the transport sector, we have to understand that that is Absolutely. Admittedly a sector that has not advanced as quickly as the as the electricity sector for sure. But we also know that electrification of light vehicles is going up exponentially. We know actually that. Electrification of even of heavy vehicles is going up exponentially. It is a completely different technological path. It is a different cost curve. But there’s no way that you could argue that the automotive industry is investing more and more into fossil fuel cars. It’s just not the reality. The automotive industry has taken almost all models, almost all models and taken them electric. So what that actually means is that that penetration of the market, we are already seeing it, they are producing more and more electric vehicles. The market is demanding more and more electric vehicles, and we will see that penetration. Certainly, in this in in this decade. So you have to see each sector for the path that it is following the path of transformation that it is following. One is the electricity sector. Another one is light transport. A different one is heavy land transport. A different one is maritime. A different one is Air transport, because they all have their different characteristics, but that all of them, all of them are being submitted to decarbonize technologies, innovations, finance, and market driven growth. That is for sure. That is absolutely for sure.

Rachel: How do we ensure that some of these technologies that we’re depending on for decarbonization are actually going to achieve the goal rather than just be. tools of greenwashing, like a sustainable aviation fuel I think is a really, really good example. The people within the aviation industry themselves are pretty open to be like, it’s just a thing that we need to allow us to jump through certain hoops, but it’s not, It’s definitely not going to be the future of whatever sustainability looks like. There might be no way to do this industry sustainably because of the impact essentially of growing these biocrops and turning them into fuel and like the impact ecologically on the land. So if we are turning to the market to lead us through this transition, which also then suggests it’s a predominantly technological problem. How do we ensure that they are meeting standards without incredibly stringent government regulation?

Christiana: If we had mandates of governments that provide strict expiration dates for different types of technologies, expiration of fossil fuels, Then we would be in a different world. And I am. Definitely one of the ones who are very much advocating for clear, strict mandates. From governments for sure, for sure. That would be, but, but, but that sorry, it doesn’t have anything to do with the COP process, right? That is national domestic mandates to have expiration dates and Europe has it. Europe has it in, in vehicles, Europe has it in electricity generation, and we see that Europe has moved forward very quickly because, in part, because of those mandates, so that we need mandates. Absolutely. Are we staying stuck because of the absence of ubiquitous mandates? No, this is an imperfect world about everything in life. If we are, we’re not, we’re not perfect human beings. We don’t have a perfect economy. We don’t have perfect anything. And so what I think the challenge here is to realize that we are in a messy transition. That there at every point in time, there are different levers of change that are pushing and pulling us forward into a cleaner world that yes, in a perfect world, you know, would you A strong price on carbon that is universally applied. Would that help? Absolutely. Would strong mandates at domestic level, would that help? Absolutely. Yes. All of that would help. Are we standing still in the absence of that or while all of that is being developed? No. So I think the problem here is, and the one that I struggle against constantly, is a view of the world that is black and white. Either we’re perfect. I don’t think we’re either of the two. And I would invite anyone to give me an example of where we stand in one of the two extremes of anything in life. It’s just way too simplistic to think like that. And I understand the temptation. To go good and bad, black and light, extremes. I understand the mental temptation because it’s easier for brains to work like that. But it does not reflect reality. Does not reflect reality. That’s not the way. We are, let’s take it personally. Am I a disciplined person on some things, on some things, not at all. So can I say I am a totally undisciplined person? No, that’s not true. Am I a totally disciplined person? That’s also not true. Actually reality. Our experienced reality, our experienced life, our experienced technology, our experienced society, economy, etc, etc. Our reality is much more shades between extremes than it is the extremes. So I really caution. About taking extreme positions and juxtaposing them and asking myself or anybody else choose between those two extremes. Are we here? Are we there? My answer is we’re somewhere in between. And to me, the important thing is understanding that we’re somewhere in between is what path are we following? What direction are we moving in? If the economy is moving in a direction toward more fossil fuels and more intensity of carbon in all aspects of the economy, then we’re in really bad, bad situation. But that’s not the case, the economy is moving toward decarbonization sector by sector, investment by investment, technology improvement by technology improvement. That’s the reality. That is the complexity that we live. So I just caution us against extreme choices, forcing people to choose between extremes, neither of which are actually good. Anything to do with the reality.

Rachel: I understand that. This certainly isn’t a show where we tell anybody. what to think or force that kind of binary. But the reality is also that Antonio Guterres has said that this is a final warning for humanity, that just this week a paper was published showing that the Arctic has become a carbon source rather than a carbon sink, that the Amazon is on its tipping point that the Atlantic meridian ocean current, which 10 years ago was looking at Maybe collapsing in 300 years is now looking at quite likely collapsing within the next 25,

Mike (narration): Small note here and open letter to the Nordic council of ministers signed by 44 climate scientists this past October, including Michael Mann of the university of Pennsylvania States that the last IPC assessment. On the Atlantic Meridian, all overturning circulation, AMAC, greatly underestimates the risk of it collapsing this century and the scientists state that the triggering of a tipping point happening in the next few decades. Is a serious possibility, but it remains highly uncertain.

Rachel: Things ecologically are getting worse, even within the market, they might be getting a bit better. And this is what I meant about the horizon of time that we have to work with the real human economy might be moving towards decarbonization, but ecological breakdown is every day. getting worse because we are still emitting and we are still polluting and we have not made any moves, it seems, towards, putting a pause even while we get our grips of the situation. And I’m curious as to why you think that hasn’t been done because you said that’s–

Christiana: –what has not been done?

Rachel: –let me finish. This idea of like international mandates because we’ve had international treaties when it’s come to nuclear, we had international, an international treaty to stop the use of CFCs because they were causing a hole in the ozone layer, which has since, has Pretty much fix that problem. Why can we not see international mandates on expiration dates for fossil fuels at the COP process?

Christiana: First of all, the ozone is compared to climate change. It’s very easy to fix. Simple. Very simple. Very, very simple. that is, the comparison is the comparison of why aren’t elephant the size of ants or why aren’t ants the size of elephants? they’re not. That’s as simple as that. And the reason why the ozone was. And the reason why it was relatively simple to to fix, and I hate that word is because it only was about one industry, right? The industry that uses refrigeration and so that was pretty easy. But the, the fact is that we live in a society and in an economy that is Absolutely pervaded with fossil fuel, not just with the fuels themselves, but with the logic of fossil fuel finance. For example, how, how do you, it’s, it’s very different to finance a fossil fuel plant than it is a renewable energy plant because the renewable energy plants need upfront capital, but very little maintenance. Fossil fuel plants need or fossil fuel fields and production needs capital up front and a lot of operating capital because the fields lose their capacity 6 percent a year. So you have to continuously be digging more and more and more. That is the, that, that is so much a part of our financial system that that has actually been dug in and burned into our financial architecture. so we’re talking here about, changing the entire way that society and economy works. The entire thing, we cannot under underestimate the magnitude of the transformation that we have already embarked on. And it is one of the most exciting transformations that humankind has ever embarked on, but it is the deepest and most complex transformation that we have ever embarked on. That is not to say that I don’t share your concerns and your alarm bells. Absolutely. So Amazon, huge alarm bell, all of the cryosphere, all, all ice on this earth, absolutely an alarm bell. Yes, absolutely. I totally agree with that. And are we standing still? No, we are not standing still because as we see these tipping points, and it’s really important to understand these tipping points that make us all very nervous. And I appreciate and thank you for being nervous. I wish everyone were as nervous as you are. I think that is really important to be aware of. We also at the same time have to realize. The positive tipping points that we are seeing in technology, in economy. We’re, we’re seeing both of these at the same time. We’re seeing the negative tipping points that we’re seeing in nature for sure. But we’re also seeing the, and, and that I would call the ecological tipping points. Okay. And those do wake me up at night for sure. At the same time. Let us not close our eyes to the fact that we’re seeing. Social tipping points, economic tipping points, technological tipping points that are not proceeding as quickly as you and I want, for sure, but harping on the fact that we are behind schedule is helpful to the extent that it leads us to the conclusion. We have to do more. It is not helpful to the extent that it leads anybody to the conclusion of we are doomed. We cannot do anything about it. The fact is that we are facing probably the most dramatic and deeply consequential choice. That we have ever had, and we can, of course, one choice certainly is to simply sit back and, and let those ecological tipping points take over, that, that, that is a choice, and those who are either taking that position, or those who decide that it’s too late to do that. Or those who are indifferent to the tipping points that you have named and many others that we can name. Indifference is the equivalent of turning your back on that reality. So for me, none of those choices is a choice that I have made in my life.

Rachel: Mm-hmm.

Christiana: I make a choice to be frankly, courageous. And I hope that more and more people are going to make that choice of being courageous and saying, we have the greatest threat that humanity has ever experienced. Are we up to the task? No guarantee. I am not saying that there’s a guarantee of success. I certainly know that there’s no way to fix climate change, because there is already so much baked into the system, that we will Anyway, live in a very changed world, no matter what. Now, can we stave off the worst of the effects? Yes, we can. Are we doing that now? More or less. I don’t want to paint a picture of perfection. Absolutely not. What I want to say is let us recognize where there is progress and let us put our energy in nurturing and cultivating that progress. Because, frankly, that’s the only option we have if we want to bend the curve of what we’re seeing right now and have any chance of living in a better world. Now, that’s the philosophical answer to your question of why can’t they take the mandates, right? Why can’t they? Because we have an industry that has been dominating the, the econ, the global economy for a hundred years! It is a dominant industry, and they know that their life is actually a short or medium term life. They know that they’re not going to continue into long term, and they are fighting with everything they can. They’re fighting with, influencing elections, as we saw in the United States. They’re fighting at the COPs. They’re fighting at, in people’s imagination. They’re fighting in the media. That’s why, because of very deeply entrenched, vested interest. That is a reality.

Rachel: I love that, what you just said, they’re fighting in people’s imaginations, that is such an extraordinary phrase Christiana, I had so many questions for you and I had them split into talking about, the kind of economy climate problem and then the optimism. And I think that you have really beautifully merged them and created a network of thought between them in your last answer. And so I will ask you one final question. You obviously have optimism for the future and you’ve made the really compelling argument as to why it’s an important faculty for our future. mental being, even, and our capacity, therefore, to confront the reality that we face. Where can people find their optimism?

Christiana: So first let’s agree about what we talk about optimism.

Rachel: Please.

Christiana: Because optimism, as you say, it is something that I cultivate as a choice. So first of all, optimism is not naivety. It is not ignoring. The scientific facts. It is not ignoring what is happening in the Amazon. It’s not ignoring what is happening in in, in the oceanic circulation. It is not ignoring what is happening in the cryosphere, both north and south. That, that, that is not what I’m talking about. Okay? It is not ignorance. Optimism for me is also not an irresponsible position of saying, we have this, somebody else is going to take care of it. I can just, go and bake my chocolate cake. That’s also not optimism. Optimism for me is much closer to conviction and determination. And importantly, optimism is. It’s not the result of having achieved something because nobody can say we’ve actually achieved the answer that we were capable of giving to climate change, biodiversity, plastics and desertification, just to name the four COPs that we’ve just had. Nobody can argue that. So it’s not celebrating, the fact that we have succeeded. That, that’s a celebration. And by the way, we don’t celebrate enough. So we should actually celebrate our little wins more, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about the result of an achievement. I’m talking about the input to the possibility of an achievement. That’s what I’m talking about. And let, let me just take it, to a personal level. Do, do you run, are you a runner? What is your sport?

Rachel: Oh no. I’ll hike.

Christiana: Okay. A hike. Okay. Fine. so, let’s say, you see this amazing, gorgeous mountain and you go wow, I would really like to hike to the top, but actually I can’t do that. Do you think you’re ever going to hike to the top with that attitude? No. Now, if you say that is a beautiful mountain, I’m not really terribly fit. I don’t, really have the experience, tra la la, but here’s the thing. I wonder if I dedicate my effort to this, if I really want that. Would I be able to hike that mountain? Perhaps, but perhaps it’s different than no, that’s my point. And so there’s no guarantee. And that is something that wakes me up at night also, because I used to think that it was our collective responsibility to guarantee to future generations that they would have a perfect world. And now that I am a recent grandmother, I really look back at that and I go my God. We cannot guarantee to future generations that they’re gonna have a perfect world. We cannot. So what can we do? We can do our darndest and we can wake up every morning and make a choice and say Where am I gonna put my energy today? Where am I going to dedicate my agency? Where am I going to put my influence? Where am I gonna put my thoughts? Where am I gonna put my actions? Am I going to put him into the doom and gloom pot? That’s a choice. I’m not saying that that’s not a choice. I’m just saying it’s not my choice. It is not my choice. I make a deliberate choice every morning to say I’m going to dedicate my time, my effort, my conviction, my energy, my agency to collectively contribute to all of those efforts that are really sincerely, deeply trying to make the difference, trying to make us bend the curve where we have to. But it’s a choice, and it’s a courageous choice, because frankly, the easiest thing is to say, screw everything, I’m just gonna go and bake the chocolate cake. That’s the easy one.

Rachel: Christiana, can I jump in here? Sorry, I know we’re running out of time, I’ve heard the, I’ve heard this kind of polarization before where it’s either, working on are either Doom and Gloom. I have spent not nearly as many years in this field as you have, but I personally have never met anybody who thinks, wow, things are really bad. I’m not going to do anything. The Doomers as they’re are tend to be qualified or people that go, Oh, I don’t think anything that we can do is systematically going to change anything, but we can, try and protect, protect our communities. I just want there to be more than two options,

Christiana: Ah, nice. We’re getting out of the binary. Congratulations. I love it. Yay. Alright. Now we have movement here. Okay, okay, okay. Good. Yes, yes. And those who choose to make a difference in their locality, Bless you, bless you, bless you, bless you, because honestly, where this really, what this really comes down to is the lived experience of every single human being and other forms of life on this planet. That is what we’re really talking about. Yes, it needs systemic change. Yes, it needs the COPs to do X, Y, Z. Yes, it needs governments to do A, B, C, D. Yes, all of that is true. And, where it really counts is Are we actually moving toward making a difference in the experienced life? Of every form of life on this planet. Are we contributing to life on this planet? Or are we contributing to destruction on this planet? And if your contribution to life is to do it with your family, with your neighbors, with your friends, Community bless you bless you because you’re making a difference in the quality of life of those people. And that is what it’s all about. And those who want to work on the systemic and the global and the transformation bless you also, because that’s also necessary. It is also necessary, but finally it comes down to our lived experience.

Rachel: Thank you so much for your time today. This is really, really fascinating.

Christiana: Thank you. Thank you so much.

Mike: I just really like the journey that you two went on in this conversation, Rachel. I thought it was I thought it…the, the aspect of kind of breaking down the binary when talking about major systemic problems was a really, dare I say, delightful exchange to watch between the two of you. And it mirrors some of my own sentiments on how I feel about the situation as well. And I can get into more of that, but I really enjoyed listening to this a lot.

Rachel: I really enjoyed speaking with her. There were moments where it felt almost difficult to navigate when you, when you are speaking with somebody with whom you share so much of a world view and then perhaps differ on certain details. I have a friend who calls it the vanity of small differences. and so trying to like navigate that, with somebody who has had so much success as well in that way sharing their worldview and building genuine effective policy around their worldview. Had to have that conversation respectfully, but also still be able to push at the edges and I was really grateful to her for being so willing to do that. and yeah, I also thought it was a really cool conversation.

Mike: Yeah it was, from my view, respectful. And I don’t wanna put, thoughts or words in her mouth here, but it sounded like she was validating your worries and was quite grateful for them and, and even expressed a desire that more people share them. But I think her sort of hammering home the point that optimism is a choice and a courageous one was something I think that probably more people need to hear. And I liked how she defined what optimism actually means. That it is not ignorance. It’s not naivety. But rather a courageous decision to keep moving forward. I thought that was pretty important to hear for people to listen to. So I’m glad she shared that. Cause I definitely get wrapped up in my own anxieties about the situation.

Rachel: I think what she was really effectively, holding up was that, that phrase, love is a verb.

Mike: Yeah.

Rachel: Pptimism is a verb. And it’s an action, and it’s a choice, exactly as you’re saying. And I think the kind of optimism that turns people off in the climate movement is the very passive optimism. oh I don’t need to worry, or everything will be fine, or systems change can’t be that hard. Because these kind of provide lots of excuses for not really doing the hard work of systemic change, internal change, all the kind of change. And that was really, for me, what she drove home. That optimism is not a mood that you put on, to get through the day or to deceive yourself about the reality of our situation. But rather it is a mindset which helps you take the next steps forward to doing the hard work.

Mike: Yeah, absolutely. And if I may, say Rachel, I thought that her suggestion that we need to celebrate wins more, was extremely valid, because that also puts the wind In your sails. And in my opinion, you can apply this to a lot of things in your own personal life. In my life, if I don’t celebrate wins, whatever it is, I get exhausted. I get bogged down in the fight as it were, and celebrating milestones, even if they’re small ones, keeps you going. So that was really important to hear.

Rachel: Can I tell you a little anecdote from Colombia, which is where I am right now? Because I’ve decided to quite rashly become a filmmaker, having never made a single film in my life before. And this community that I’m with, making a film about, I’m not going to, reveal their names just, for safety reasons, until, And they talk about the fact that they were protesting essentially for about this fight’s been going on against this massive multinational mining company for 15 to 20 years. 7 to 10, it was just protest, protest, protest, protest. And they all got burned out. And they couldn’t continue anymore. And they regrouped, and they were like, what do we need in order to keep doing this fight effectively? In order to keep protecting this territory that we love? And the answer was, we also need to do things that we love. We need to celebrate the earth. We need to work with the earth. We need to be creating things The new systems and structures and ecology and agriculture, everything that we are fighting for, essentially, we actually need to build it and do it. And it’s been incredible to see how engaging with care and with love and with an optimism that they can have some autonomy and sovereignty in their territory. That was what gave them the strength to keep engaging in that really hard fight. Of a very, very, very small group of Colombians going up against a huge company with a huge amount of resources. And, for the moment, it’s paying off.

Mike:  That is such and excellent anecdote, Rachel, and I would love to ask you more about it, perhaps at a future date, but I think this just all speaks to what Christiana was saying and what, and what you are seeing on the ground and that it is these, it can get a little bit, we can, can get bogged down a bit in the enormity of the problem and the negativity of it. I don’t like to use the word negativity usually, but I’m using it because it’s the only one I can think of. If we get bogged down in the negativity of something, it can really take the spirit out of it. and it’s an active, it’s an active choice to look at the things that are working, and to hold on to them, and fight for them, cultivate them, each and every day.

Rachel: I know, I’ve been thinking about this conversation with Christiana, since recording it. And especially, in the run up, to, Us having this chat because I think it was yesterday when I was, having a conversation with this Colombian group that I realized I might have changed my mind that my mindset is already starting to shift with regards to the kind of, Pushbacks, maybe, that I was given, Christiana, because part of what makes this amazing land that I’m in so incredible and beautiful and strong is its diversity. There are five ecosystems within about a 2, 000 meter range here on these mountains. And there’s also a very diverse ecosystem of these activists working together and collaborating on different things, doing different projects, coming together at different times. And It suddenly hit me that, yes, point blank, I’m against, a massive mining project that’s going to destroy nature and, if that comes, face to face in conflict with the energy transition, then that’s a very difficult conversation that we’re going to have to have. However, the plurality of activism, the plurality of thought with regards to how to tackle this problem is critical. And it’s funny, this is something I’ve thought about and even written about, pretty openly, and yet I realized that I hadn’t applied it to, some of the more, say, mainstream approaches to climate change, which is, focusing on the energy transition. We do need to find a form of energy, and we are going to need minerals for it, and there will be a way to do that. That isn’t destructive and violent and that works directly with the communities and the territories that they’re in. And if we don’t have people like Christiana championing that possibility, then essentially we give all of that room of imagination over to multinationals who will just continue to do it in their way. Christiana, if you’re listening, I get it more now. Thank you. Thank you.

Mike: I don’t even want to comment on that. I think you just, I, I don’t, yeah, I got nothing to add, Rachel. I think that was Fabulous, fabulous, little, little nugget.

Rachel: Haha. Little nugget

Mike: But I thought it was a really beautiful conversation. I really did in a great way to start off 2025. I’m really excited to, to have more conversations like this. And see what else we, we do this year. And, dare I say, I am feeling much more optimistic than I did last year, for sure.

Rachel: I’m really pleased to hear that, Mike. So am I. So am I. Even though things are looking like they’re getting worse, there is a lot of reasons to have joy, optimism, care. Good work, everyone. Everyone listening, good work. And also, sorry, I’m going to keep ranting here, but I would like to congratulate you, Mike, for any listeners that don’t know, you and our producer, Eric, on the award that you won at the end of last year for an episode of this podcast. Congratulations.

Mike: Thank you so much, Rachel. I really appreciate that. and if listeners haven’t heard that episode, it is with a KilII Yuyan. We did release it last year. It was originally aired in 2023. You can go check it out. It’s in our best of list for 2024, which is on mongabay. com. I think that’s a great place to end it, Rachel, and, say good night to the beautiful forest you’re sitting in, it looks amazing, and I wish I could be there, but, I’ll see you on the next conversation.

Rachel: I’ll see you on the next one, Mike. Thank you so much, and Happy New Year.

Mike: Happy new year.