Welcome to zero.

I am Akshatrati.

Today were leaders at the gateway to the mighty Amazon River.

It's November eleventh, and the United Nations Climate Summit COP thirty has officially begun here in Brazil.

It's happening in Berlen, a port city of about two million people at the mouth of the Amazon River.

The negotiations started with a fight about what to put on the agenda, and that's not unexpected.

It often happens at the start of a COP meeting, but it is certainly a rockier start than the Brazilian hosts of COP thirty would have wanted.

Later on in today's episode, I'm speaking with an experienced climate diplomat, Rachel Kite, about the outcomes she's looking for here in Brazil and who will fill the void left behind by the US.

But first, I want to give you a sense of what it's like to be at a climate summit near the Amazon Forest and our reactions to the world leader's speeches that took place last week opening the proceedings here in Brazil.

To do that, I'm joined by my colleague Sarah Wells, who leads Bloomberg's coverage of climate and energy.

Sarah, Welcome to the show.

Thanks Egsha.

So we got a chance to see a little bit of the Amazon forest.

What was it like we did?

It was great.

I mean after a couple of days in the blue Zone at the World Leader's Summit, you could be literally any country in the world.

You were in a windowless tent, and so to be outside in the forest learning new things about fruits and plants and how they grow, getting some time on a boat, getting to have a beer and look at our surroundings was fantastic.

And did I guess speak to the controversial reason for putting the summit in Belem in the first place, which was to try to give the attendees some exposure to what's happening here.

We saw a three hundred year old tree called the Sumahoma.

We saw a boat filled with military police trying to take care of all the delegates who are coming here.

And the reason for all that security is that we've had many world leaders show up here at copp and give speeches.

It's typical at the start when they want to inspire the delegates to go and do something bold, But there weren't that many world leaders this time around.

That's right.

I mean, I had the King and Queen of Sweden on my plane coming here.

But unfortunately, within the Blue Zone itself, the journalists were very segregated from the world leaders.

It's literally a barricade going down the middle of the corridor, and so seeing a physical world leader in the flesh was not what we experienced.

We sat an ow media room and watched them on TV.

Regardless, I know that was not ideal.

We would have wanted to really be in the room with the world leaders.

But were there highlights from the speeches?

Yeah, I think I enjoyed.

Me and Motley, the Prime Minister of Barbados obviously you know she has has some credentials as a as a climate campaigner, but she came with a specific idea around methane, which was something new.

I have come here however, this afternoon to speak on one s and that is methane.

The scientists advise that this is the main way that we can not stall the increase in temperatures, but reverse the temperature increase that we have seen across the planet.

For Bloomberg clients and listeners, Petro Sanchez floated the idea of a levy on business class flights and private jets class premium.

Yet obviously that's of a concern to a relatively small proportion of the world, but certainly for some.

And then we did have some quite remarks from some of the Latin American leaders about Trump.

In particular, Columbia's Petro was the most direct.

Elke Senor Donald Trump Novenga el dubta l personal dena Jevas Sosia that a laismo econeia allow maney that.

You know he he said that Trump is against humanity and a bunch of other things.

And so there were definitely some strong feelings expressed about the American position on climate at this point.

And it's just the start of the negotiations.

It's your first COP meeting.

What has your experience been like.

I think everyone said before I came that you know, the sort of the rest of the world recedes and suddenly you're in this bubble where you know, some some things make sense, some things really don't, And I think that's that's the case.

You know, you suddenly find yourself sort of pouring over very technical discussion which can have real world consequences.

So definitely, you know, being being in a media center with hundreds of other journalists, expensive food, very popular, occasional arrivals of coffee deliveries that you know, that stuff has been has been fun.

But I think what we you know, what we are all here to write about, is significant pieces of news that will hopefully come out of this.

And that's that's on all the attendees, but it's obviously most of all on our on our host country, Brazil.

And what do you expect we might be writing about in two weeks time.

Well As of now, the discussion is all around what ends up on the agenda.

That's a very you know, temporary discussion.

As I said earlier, I do think methane seems to have some momentum behind it, so let's see, let's see if we get anywhere on that.

And then I think this discussion around whether there should be a potential roadmap to move away from fossil fuels.

Obviously, the declaration to even attempt to move away from fossil fuels was highly contentious at previous cops and so I think the fact that Brazil is even looking to put that back on the agenda does suggest that they're prepared to, you know, to go into a region that will come with a fight, so we will be watching that really closely.

And then lastly, I would say I think the influence probably not on the ground, but let's see the influence or otherwise of the US on proceedings is obviously a huge thing for us to watch.

Thank you, Sarah, thank you for having me join me after the break where I speak with Rachel Kite, the UK's Special Representative for Climate, about negotiations in an increasingly polarized world.

To find all of Bloomberg's coverage of COP thirty, head to our website bloomberg dot com Forward Slash Green.

You can also sign up to Bloomberg Green's newsletter that comes out daily during the COP meeting.

Find it at Bloomberg dot com Forward Slash Newsletters.

There are a few people as well placed to understand how climate negotiations play out as Rachel Kite.

She is the UK's Special Representative for Climate and she has held a number of significant positions across the climate space.

She was the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General and the CEO of Sustainable Energy for All.

She also served as World Bank Groups Vice President and Special Envy for Climate Change.

In her current role.

She has spent the last year up to COP thirty meeting diplomats and leaders from around the world trying to show up the support for action here in Berlin.

Rachel, welcome to the show.

It's lovely to see you.

Actually, So you.

Were appointed a UK Special Representative for Climate just over a year ago and your goal is wide ranging.

You're supposed to support ministers that will help increase UK's diplomatic engagement on climate globally.

What have you done so far.

I've been out there in the world really pushing out the intention of this government when it came into office, which was that even though we're only one percent of global emissions, that's not a reason to disengage, which I think had sometimes been the case beforehand, but precisely because we're only one percent of global emissions, we need the other ninety nine percent to be going through the transition that we've started to go through ourselves, and at the same time this growing realization about how much we need to be dealing with adaptation and resilience.

Now we've just seen the Climate Change Committee come out with a domestic report on how vulnerable we are as our own country.

But what's been really interesting.

So I've been in every continent.

I've been talking to middle income countries about missions reduction and their energy transitions, and then talking to lower income countries about growth and prosperity and investment and trade that is green, and then to countries that are really vulnerable about how much more we can do to mainstream adaptation and resilience into their economic.

Growth and planning.

But when I'm out there, what countries want is the how to, especially on the energy transition.

So countless numbers of countries that want technical assistance, support on power sector reform, on how to build an offshore wind industry, how to decommission call, how to make the transition that we've made over the last twenty odd years, and then how to partner with us, and how to get more UK investment into their green transitions, how to talk about the difficulties of hard to debate sectors, and how to get more of their investment into the UK economy.

So yeah, special representative for Climate, but a big piece of this is about the trade and investment that makes those transitions really happen.

And you get to do this because the UK has for the last seventeen years since the UK Climate Change Actor was passed a leader on climate issues, whether it was the Conservative Party which led the government for most of that time, or whether it's the Labor Party now, And in the process the UK has shown not just how to do a law, but also how to deploy large amounts of renewables, how to build the grid, and you get to take UK's learnings out to the world but also reflect back on the UK at a time when the politics are shifting.

The Conservative Party that led on climate now wants to get rid of the Climate Change Act.

Reform Party, which is gaining in polls at least and is ahead of Labor and Conservatives in many cases, is saying they want to get rid of net zero goal.

Even though this Labor government, the one that you represent, isn't turning back on climate How hard does that make your life when you go abroad to take the message of what needs to be done on climate change.

Well.

I think that across the world many countries are experiencing a pushback from populace on the right mainly but also in the past on the left around the drive nets.

If people can't feel or imagine what a clean energy future looks like to them, and feels like in their pocket.

Then they are vulnerable to the sort of miscommunication, disinformation or whatever you often see now.

So actually it's a point of conversation, right.

So people see that we had a bipartisan support, right as Americans would say, around our goals, and you know, and of course a lot of the indications are that the public still wants clean air, wants clean water, wants safe communities, wants protection from extreme heat, wants floods planning.

But what they don't like is energy bills that are expensive, and there's very real reasons for that.

And also with all humility, I mean, you know, nobody's got this all the way right, right, So, as a country that is going through a moment of political tension around the speed with which this transition is happening, the government came in and started fixing pieces of the regulatory system, putting in place bits and pieces that would allow us to go faster to meet the goal of twenty thirty that was set by the government when it was running for office.

All of that is happening, but you don't necessarily see the result immediately.

So then what's the challenge of communication internationally?

People see us in a leadership position.

See that this is a difficult issue domestically, but for many other countries it's a difficult issue domestically, and so that's a point of commonality.

Really.

So you're saying, so far the UK's leadership on climate, whether that was through making laws or through energy, is one that other countries wanted to copy.

But now they're also looking at the UK and the crumbling political consensus and they are seeing whether there are lessons they can learn from it.

Because these things are not isolated.

They're not just happening in the UK.

They're happening in other places.

No.

I mean, look across the EU, look across Socania, look across Latin America.

You know, these are issues that are present in any democracy, right.

And what's interesting is a number of countries now have got governments, you know, with commitments to you know, phasing out of coal by twenty forty or really ambitious goals around the energy transition.

And you know, it's not just the political narrative which has become more pungent, right, it is also that global growth has slowed or is not rampant.

Right, So, for fear of a populist uprising, right, a number of countries are like, Okay, how do I transition away from coal on the timeline that I've set, Where is the investment going to come from?

How do I navigate tensions around tariff's what is that doing to the level of growth?

How do I secure a just transition for the people employed in the sector.

So these are universally difficult and universally important themes that countries want to work on together.

And so when I'm traveling that's what I'm talking about.

Are there specific country examples where over the past year you have seen that play out and work in favor of climate action.

Yeah.

So the Philippines has got extremely ambitious goals around phase seeing out coal and bringing in offshore wind and diversifying and bringing more investment into solar, not just in the sort of metromillar area, but across the country.

So Korea new government in place inherits it and was very bullish on the campaign trail around their ambitions how do they do it?

They're about to invest in an offshore wind industry as well.

Vietnam, which is a country that we've worked through the Just Energy Transition Partnership for a number of years, but that's starting to move along the AZI and power grid.

How do you build a power grid that allows each of the Asian countries to grow their economies by accessing the clean energy that each of them possess.

Right Eastern Caribbean, how do each of those countries build out their geothermal You know, it's probably cheaper and easier to do it as an integrated grid, but that's really complicated.

How do they think about that?

Australia India huge move to develop offshore wind off the good coast goods you're out off Tamil Nadu.

You know how to do that.

We have a really built out technical cooperation with them anyway, and now we're investing in each other.

And then China.

I've just come back from China where we have a technical cooperation on power sector reform and also now on battery storage and hydrogen.

So in your time covering climate, you've covered it from many different angles.

You've worked in the private sector, You've tried to push carbon markets, You've worked at the cop level, looking at diplomacy and how negotiations work.

We are in the tenth year of the Paris Agreement.

Could have been this year when we celebrate what Paris has achieved.

But with the US the largest emitter, leaving the Paris Agreement, how would you class the progress that the world has made so far.

It's definitely made progress.

I mean, over the next few days, you know, the narrative will be, oh, we're not on track.

Yeah, we're not on track.

We're more on track than we would have been without the Paris Agreement, and the plan that countries are now submitting are fully politically contested at home, you know, hard fought economic plans, which is what we really wanted ten years ago.

But we're now just beginning to see in the third generation that this is what they are.

And we wouldn't be there without the Paris Agreement.

I don't think countries would be lining up to go through the pain of developing these reports if we hadn't.

But the point is that we're not going fast enough and we're not going far enough, and so the Paris Agreement is vulnerable to attack from popular so or from the polls on the right and on the left, because it isn't meeting needs sufficiently well.

And so when we gather in Brazil, the leaders that gather and those who aren't there but by proxy need to sort of say, okay, we're not yet on track, but we commit to doing more.

Transitions don't go smoothly, they don't go in a straight line.

They can go very fast and then slow down and very fast, and it's a series of s curves.

It's a series of leaps forward, and there's no reason why we can't commit to doing that.

But the fact that we're multilaterally all sort of working together to make this go faster, that's the conversation.

It's not a conversation about going slower.

Is important.

Are we working together though, because recently we saw a very clear sign of how things don't work together at multilateral forums.

The International Maritime Organization had a vote to put in a global carbon tax for shipping, a sector that produces one billion tons of emissions, and until about the day of the vote, there was good feeling among countries that they'd argued over politically contested plan and had come to something that they could agree on.

And then one country, the US, with its ability to call diplomats and make threats, which we've reported on, caused them to delay the vote, and now some say that it may never come to pass.

So are we working together.

This majority of countries are working together.

For sure.

I think what happened at the IMO was extraordinarily disappointing, right, I mean, that's a decade's effort at best delayed, at worst put on the shelf.

And so we'll have to come back at it another way and find a way to do this, because that the polluter has to pay is a kind of fundamental principle of all of this.

And yeah, the United States made clear its position over the summer and then intensified its diplomacy in the days up to the vote.

But it also creates space for plausible deniability for other countries that, for whatever reasons, didn't like this or didn't like that.

So in any multilateral negotiation, there may be one protagonist which attracts most of the attention, but it normally creates new spaces which can be exploited one way or the other.

But when it comes to blame, I think obviously the United States has said that it filed its intention to withdraw.

That comes due after cop right but at the end of the year beginning of twenty twenty six.

So for the moment, the United States is in, but it has made clear its intention to leave, which puts it in a minority, even if it is a large economy and nobody else is leaving it.

And so I think it is clear that everybody's working together, and I think it's clear that when we gather on the port city in the middle of the Amazon, that what leaders will be saying is that this is a multilateral process which is a value and will be defended, and we will defend the multilateral processes that help us work together on these problems which go beyond all boundaries.

If you take this ten years on Paris, A lot of it at COP meetings, and I've been to five of them, so not as many as you, but I can say it's so technical and so in depth necessary, but one that doesn't break through for a politician to go back home and make a case for why we are doing climate action.

How do you take what has been achieved and make that case in a political away to people so that the next ten years leaders can continue to support this multilateral forum.

Yeah, it's a great question.

So for the last ten years.

So first of all, we agreed Paris, then everybody sort of went home, and then the negotiators sort of negotiated a rule book on how we would implement what we'd agreed, and that took way too long, But that's done now and you could actually say that we've negotiated everything that needs to be negotiated, and so what this cop represents is a significant pivot to accelerating implementation.

So it's all about implementing all of the things that we've agreed.

That's what the Brazilians are trying to organize, like outside of the negotiations, and I think that that's actually much easier for politicians to sell at home.

So why would we go to Brazil and discuss investing in the Amazon and other tropical forests right?

Well, first, because if we lose them, we lose control over the thermostatu of the planet.

Right we will pass a tipping point which will bring much more climate impact to everybody.

But you know, to look at it from a British perspective, if we lose the tropical forests and their integrity, our own food security is going to be massively disrupted.

So the idea that our domestic security is secure if we haven't got you know, a climate regime which is starting to see real progress, is you know, at the very heart of why I existed, my rule and my twin Ruth Davis, who's the special representative of nature, why she exists.

You know, we're there because our foreign policy has to have climate and nature at the heart of it, because we need those relationships in order to be secure ourselves.

So that's the reason to go, right, We're not going to be safe and we're not going to be secure.

We're not going to prosper if we lose the tropical rainforests.

It's as simple as that.

So I think that as we get into implementation and accelerating implementation, it's actually easier to explain to the world's public why we're there.

You've got many examples that you could use to say, sure, this should land right.

The price of coffee has gone up because there's been persistent drought in Brazil, which produces forty percent of the world's coffee.

The price of electricity is high because we've had very high gas prices because of the Russian attack on Ukraine, which have been brought down because of renewables.

There are real world clear examples, but they're not cutting through to people.

What's missing.

Well.

I think that we haven't in many cases taken the time and the effort to convey those stories in ways that people can hear.

I mean, I think, you know, there's a danger in seeding the marketplace, the public marketplace, to the scare mongering and the misinformation from the far right and the far left.

So I think that we have a responsibility to tell these stories in the way that people can understand.

And I think in particular around the issues around nature, I think people are inclined to understand that without nature, it's going to be very difficult to produce food, to have stable watersheds, to be able to balance the planet's own needs with hours, and that we're not going to be resilient without nature.

I mean, I think there's a sensibility in people in countries around the world that that makes sense to them.

And so if the next ten years of COP are about implementing all the goals and the rules that have been put in place, this cop and what it produces will be a test case for what next cops are going to look like.

What do you expect this coup will achieve?

Well, so I think we'll go back to the theory of change, right, theory of changes that we have an energy transition that moves us towards clean energy, that that clean energy allows us to electrify services to people and to the economy, which means that they can engage with them benefit from all of the installed renewable energy.

I think of electrification transforms people's lives, right.

And then at the same time, we stop deforesting in particular tropical forests, and then we have to protect land usee et cetera.

And then there's bits about the oceans or whatever.

But at the very center of that, then I think what I would expect from this COP is that first of all, we have a COP where the rest of the world says we're going to continue working on this.

You know, if you want to leave, leave, but we're going to keep going.

Then I would expect to see announcements around funding tropical forests.

I'd expect to see investing in them rather not funding them.

I would expect to see statements around the growth of carbon markets, both what I would call compliance markets, so trading systems and taxes, but also I would expect to see, you know, statements around governments leaning in to stimulate demand from the corporate sector for voluntary markets as well.

I think you'll see some agreements between countries as well using Article six, So a big thing about revenue into nature.

I think you'll see the also, then statements around methane.

Methane or methane is the handbrake that we can apply to global warming, because if we can deliver on all the pledges and the statements that have been made, that's half a degree of warming in a very short period of time.

I think you'll see then a big discussion, a big discussion, and hopefully a positive resolution around adaptation finance.

This has always played the step sister to funding mitigation, but every country in the world is experiencing really quite extreme impacts, and so how we pay for that, And that means that we have to take the adaptation finance discussion away from just the cops and the sort of highly sort of stylized debate that we have there.

Not to say that we walk away from our commitments, We're good for that, but we have to start having a conversation about how we help people be resilient, which is about safety nets and social security, and how do you fund your health service and education service, how do you help nature are resilience, which means funding nature, And then how we help infrastructure be resilient.

So you know, what is the cost of infrastructure which is resilient to the kinds of impacts that we see already, and who's paying for that?

And could we reward companies for investing in making sure that that infrastructure is resilient rather than sort of charging it as a cost.

So there's all kinds of issues which we never get to talk about in the negotiation because it's sort of you know, rich world versus poor world, you know, North versus South.

But I hope that we would actually come out with a way forward on adaptation finance.

The dynamics in previous cops have been, as you point out, rich versus poor because there is a historical reason for it.

The rich countries absolutely emit more and are responsible for most of climate change as it's occurred, and poor countries still have room to emit carbon but also have a deep need for economic growth.

In this COP, where the US is not yet left but is leaving, the dynamics will be much harder because it's not just about rich versus poor.

It's also about a rich country abandoning its goal to act and other rich countries not yet standing up and saying we can fill that gap.

Well, I don't think anybody can fill the US's gap, but I think that we and other countries within the EU and other developed countries, if that's a word that still we can use.

We'll be leaning in and saying this is how we can use the international architecture, this is how we can use our own resources.

And then you've got a set of voluntary contributors right under the Convention and under the Paris Agreement who are now really leaning in and doing an extraordinary amount.

So that's the China's and the Saudi Arabias and the Indias of this world.

And then you've got sort of all of the multilateral processes.

And then you've got this leadership call from Mia Motley in the Bridgetown Initiative, but you know, joined by most other countries, which is to flip a switch or to redesign the international architecture around the lack of fairness in the way that the architecture works at the moment.

So you know, when you've got more cash leaving the Caribbean than arriving into the Caribbean, then how on earth do you build the fiscal space and the resilience for them to be able to withstand I mean, I mean, I'm talking to you today with Hurricane Melissa bearing down on Jamaica.

So you know, the US can absent itself from the Paris Agreement.

But look at the leadership from Singapore, look at the leadership from China, from Saudi Arabia, from US, from Germany.

This is where it's growing.

And I was just at the Africa Climate Summit just a few weeks ago in Alice Aberba, and you know, there weren't a lot of Western journalists then there weren't a lot of Western business leaders there either.

But the message from African leaders was like, this is our moment.

Help us meet our moment.

This is good investment.

You will be rewarded.

Well, don't misperceive the risk of investing in our infrastructure.

Oh and by the way, adaptation is job rich.

And you know we've got lots of young people.

So I'm not Pollyanna, and I don't want to underestimate the impact of the US's withdrawal.

US finance, US business, Global finance, Global business is dealing with the reality of what climate is doing to our economy and that changes the opportunities as well as produces more risks, right, So climate change has changed our economic geography.

That is reflected then in opportunity seeking and risk management by the financial sector.

If the COP meeting plays out like the IMO did, and we have seen failures at COP before the two and nine Copenhagen Summit led to a lot of reflection and took a good time before multilateralism could work and have a Paris Agreement agreed on twenty fifteen, six years later.

If we see a failure like that at COP thirty, how should the world react?

So I think that our Brazilian hosts and countries that are prepared to lead and have led by the quality of their NDCs, are very alive to the risk of a collapsed CARP or a COP that struggles to come to an agreement.

But that was then and this is now in that this is about implementing what we've already agreed, and so in some respects it is a different COP And I think the real issue is how to communicate that to the global public.

You know, how to communicate that.

Yeah, there was a point in gathering and we didn't all need to get together because we do need to go further than what we promised to do.

And by the way, there's all of this amazing stuff already happening.

So you know, in a moment of transition, whether you follow Gramchy or others, right, that's good going on.

There's lots of bad going on.

There's incoherence, but those two truths are living simultaneously, and we've got to make sure that we actually deliver.

But I don't believe that one country can collapse this process.

First of all, I think that the IMO was a salutary lesson to everybody.

And secondly, I think the vested interests of the majority of the world's population are in finding a way to move through this transition in an affordable, reliable way.

There is no doubt that the science is clear and that at some point people expect their leaders to protect them.

So you've just come back from China.

Now, as much as we talk about the rich poor divide at COPS, there's also the US versus China dynamics that play out at COP.

In this case, the US is leaving and China is stepping up.

They are going to put out an NDC.

We understand they have a goal to reach that zero by twenty sixty.

They have become an exported giant on clean tech.

How significant do you think China's leadership will be for this.

Cop Yeah, so as the largest elector state, they play an outsized role in terms of their influence on the global economy and of the opportunity of clean energy and electrification.

And then politically they are emerging.

So by that I mean that they are bilaterally very strong when they want to be, but they are emerging as a master of multinaturalism.

They are completely committed to the multnatural process.

They have been very vocal all the way through twenty twenty five about their commitment to the Paris Agreement.

They spoke out strongly at the recent annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, so that commitment is clear.

But they are just emerging as into a space where the world expects them to sort of lead on the multilateral stage.

I mean, obviously they've been members of the G twenty for a number of years since the beginning.

But it's one thing to lead by lad it's another to lead multinaturally.

And I think that they're feeling their way a little bit.

So yes, they are clearly a very important and you know, significant power how they play their cards, I think is something that remains to be seen, but they will come, you know, fully committed and that I think they're bringing a large delegation of business leaders and other leaders as well as the negotiators that we all know so well.

So yeah, committed multilateralists emerging as multilateral leaders.

So Brazil, as home to the Amazon, is working towards getting this Tropical Forest Forever Facility funded, and that would be a way to get countries with these forests a revenue stream to protect those forests.

But a lot of the deforestation, not just in the Amazon, but around the world happens because people have needs for food and for fuel.

They'll either cut it to cook the food, or they'll cut it so that they can grow food on those lands.

What is the way to actually start to reduce emissions from this land news sector that is so varied and so important to people.

One of the reasons why I think Brazil's got credibility in trying to build this fund, and of course it's only one part of the Amazon stewardship, is that it has shown that you can change the rate of deforestation very quickly.

Right if you look at Lula's first term, and also look at what he's done in his second term.

He has reversed accelerating rates of deforestation very quickly.

And so for both the sort of Indonesia and the broader Southeast Asian basin, for the Congo basin and for the Amazon, the politics are different, the array of countries that steward the forests are different.

But if you can get at scale payments, I mean fundamentally, it's payments for ecosystem services.

You get payments into countries and then to the people most directly affected.

So they're in this TFFF Future Forest Fund or facility.

If it goes forward, twenty percent of the revenues will go directly to indigenous peoples and to local communities in countries that qualify i e.

They committed to integrity in the way in which they manage their forests.

Then that helps.

But I think what the Brazilians are trying to do is actually build a scaled fund, right, so not you know, handouts of aid money or whatever in small amounts to small communities, but actually you know a significant revenue stream of hundreds of millions of dollars and growing every year for the payment of those services from the forest that are standing.

So in some ways it's not new, but the structure and the scale of ambition and who would participate is new.

Thank you, Rachel, thank you, thank you for listening to Zero.

If you like this episode, please take a moment to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

This episode was produced by Oscar Boyd with additional help from Anna Mazarakis.

Our theme music is composed by Wonderly Special Thanks to Samarsadi Moses Andam Laura Milan and Sharan chan i'm Akshadrati Baksu