Hello and welcome to 100 Climate Conversations. I’d like to acknowledge that we’re meeting on the traditional lands of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation and pay my respects to their Elders past, present and future. Today is number 87 of 100 conversations happening here every Friday. The series presents 100 visionary Australians who are taking positive action to respond to the most critical issue of our time: climate change.

We’re recording live today in the Boiler Hall of the Powerhouse museum. Before it was home to the museum, it was the Ultimo power station. Built in 1899 it supplied coal powered electricity to Sydney’s tram system right up until the 1960s. So, it’s fitting that in this Powerhouse museum, we shift our focus forward to the solutions to the climate crisis.

My name is Marian Wilkinson, and over the years I’ve written and broadcast many stories about climate change. But when I was researching my book, The Carbon Club, I learnt for the first time about the big role that small island states played in bringing about the ambitious global climate treaty in Paris. George Carter is a director of the Australian National University’s Pacific Institute and a research fellow with its Department of Pacific Affairs, where he teaches international diplomacy. For over a decade, George has been talking to and working with Pacific Island climate leaders about the ways that small, vulnerable countries can influence the big powers at climate negotiations. George’s work and his teachings are informed by his Pacific Island background. He holds the chiefly title of Salā in Samoa, and he’s proud of his Samoan, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Chinese and British ancestry. So welcome, Dr George Carter. I just wanted to ask you first, do you think being raised in the Pacific sharpened your anxiety about climate change?

E muamua ona ou faatulou ma faatalofa atu i le Paia ma le Mamalu ua aofia mai. Malo le soifua maua, ma le lagi e mama. I would like to recognise and also pay respect to Indigenous First Nations owners of this land.

There are few memories that you have as a child. For me, one of those memories that stuck out when I was five years or six years old, was huddling under a tarpaulin during a middle of a cyclone. And this was known as Cyclone Ofa in 1990. Now, what I remember was huddled under tarpaulin with a roof ripped off. And there were about 20 mothers and children of us huddled under this space. And then there was a time there was just no wind, no rain. And we quickly re-evacuated and put a hole in the middle of a cement tank. It was a cement tank sort of sheltered like this. And we huddled in there. But that was the time of the eye of the cyclone. We huddled in there and then the cyclone came back and we survived for those two or three days. That was in 1990.

Again in 1991, another cyclone, Cyclone Val came through our islands. And our family had to face the reality that we’ve lost everything. We’ve lost our plantations, we lost our trading depot, which we had, and that we had to move to Apia, the capital city, and we grew up there. I’ve come to realise that was trauma for someone at five or six years old to remember that that was a traumatic experience of having to face two cyclones. I’ve also come to realise that these are impacts of climate change. This extreme and frequent weather events never before we’ve had in Samoa two cyclones, one after the other. You’ll recall Vanuatu recently had a cyclone, two cyclones in one day, plus the earthquake.

This is the reality of what’s happening in the Pacific and that has played into what I’ve come to take on board as my research focus. I value, I respect, but also really acknowledge the agency of Pacific States and international politics and how they advocate for the challenges, but also the opportunities and resilience that they have in their development in the international space. So, whether this is through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, how they articulate their needs, but also the challenges, but also their resilience in climate change and that upbringing of that trauma of interest in these extreme events, the interest in international politics really has informed the way that I work and research.

Well, you arrived in Canberra in 2012. You arrived as a postgrad student at the Australian National University with one suitcase, I think. You were put in a college called Toad Hall. It sounds awful, but you loved it. What was so good about Toad Hall and coming to the ANU?

I continue to study Masters in International Relations and a master diplomacy. And I’ve come out with this idea of we’re doing something great in the world, and the world has a lot to learn from the Pacific. I came with that idea and I wanted to come to Australia because it had the top university that had a diplomacy, but also a Pacific classes course. I got there. There was nothing. There was – at that time we didn’t have a professor teaching since we only had one week that focus on the Pacific. It was a time when there was much more attention on China and Indonesia. Okay.

But I was very privileged to stay in Toad Hall. It’s an international hall, an international postgraduate hall with over 52 nationalities. The majority of the students are over the age of 25, but some of them are former presidents, former CEOs of the Asia Pacific coming here on Australian awards scholarships. So, I looked at it in terms of learning from all these leaders. This was like a mini United Nations. That’s what Toad Hall is and continues on today and next year will celebrate 50 years.

There were also opportunities to lead the community. And what we learn from there is this compassionate learning about global leadership, learning from each other. And that on top of sort of, you know, not being able to have Pacific in my studies, we were able to infuse that in our living, you know, learning about values. And there are many values that Australia shares with the Pacific and global community and that is something [that] is very important to me. And I’ve learnt that that also informed my research because if I was stuck in New York, I would call one of my friends from Toad Hall. Do you have someone here that can help me because I can’t navigate? It was the same when we went to Paris. A couple of our old students from France were there, but even students from Ghana who were also Toad Hall were there.

When I was in the middle of – because I at that time I was looking after the Prime Minister from Samoa. I was in the same room where only four people from every country in the world, Barack Obama and his three top attendees, it’s a holding room for leaders, and I was there to look after Samoa PM because as a PhD student at time, the ambassador said to me, look after the PM, this is your – you know, there’s only a few Samoans that go to these meetings. So, that was an honour. But in that same room there was another Toad Hall student, and she was the interpreter for the president of Indonesia. It’s amazing, you know, and we were like, how did you get here when you come from? Oh, it’s like I’m looking after the PM because, you know, short staff, they ask us to come through. But those are sort of unique connections or so of this place Toad Hall, but into the work that we do.

That is fantastic. Well, at ANU you started on a very deep dive into the role of small island states in the UN negotiations. And you’ve written some fascinating papers about this. I wanted to ask you about the origins of those states influence, and you talk about a critical meeting way back in the late 1980s in the Maldives. Tell us about that beginning.

So as I said, in ANU there was a lack of content on the Pacific. But engaging in the research I’ve come to found out this little history here of international negotiations that not many people knew about. And that turned me on this. What happened in 1988 in Maldives is the birth of the Alliance of Small Island States. At that time was the first ever meeting of our leaders on the – focusing attention on the impact of sea level rise and global warming.

Australia supported the Pacific countries such as Kiribati, Tuvalu, Samoa, Fiji to attend this meeting. This meeting in 1980 in the Maldives led to not only the creation of AOSIS, how small states can work together as a coalition, but the idea that climate change was very real and was impacting. And from there a global campaign started. These countries took this up with the Commonwealth of Nations, who then took it up at the United Nations, which then led to an international negotiating committee to look at a treaty on climate change. And then by 1990-1992, the convention had established. But leading the way was this group of small island states who had in 1988 come to Maldives and said this sea level rise rapping on our doorstep, which is eroding our coastal, this is something that we need to take to the world.

So, a lot of countries would say, oh, we are the ones who initiated the campaign on climate change. But in fact, it was the small island states at this meeting on Maldives. And now this regime has come to almost 40 years later, is the only main global mechanism or platform that brings in – is inclusive of all states, not just the G20 and its top economies, but also the countries who are at the frontline of these impacts to come together within, you know, to discuss, but also find solutions on climate impacts.

And I’m interested that you use that word the front line. You talk about that quite a bit in your work. What does it actually mean for states like Samoa, Kiribati to be on the front line?

Yeah. So, at one end within international politics, it’s a strategy in terms of framing a narrative that states are vulnerable to these climate impacts, and that is a way of which they are able to set the agenda because they are giving special recognition of states with these vulnerabilities. But the reality is very real. As I said in Samoa, that traumatic experience of cyclones year after year and then every time I go home for Christmas, it’s flooding. It’s flooded. We are built on river deltas. A lot of these main big cities. And there’s flooding every time there’s monsoon or rains. You see it in coastal erosion. Last week we were in Tonga and we came out and we were shown by one of our friends the building to the Chiefs for fishing was out in the water. That’s no longer. Gone. That’s what we say that’s the loss of not only land, that’s the loss of not only productivity in terms of fishing for the village, but that’s also the loss of culture. They can’t – they will not be able to practice that culture. That’s now lost.

These are very real impacts. It’s the same as in Tuvalu; coastal erosion with sea level rise, especially impacts on their water with sea water intrusion into their water tables. Droughts, not being able to receive rainfall. In one year, Marshall Islands had to fly in water because of droughts. Every time a plane comes in to bring in guests or tourists, they bring in water as well. That’s a reality that – it’s not just a narrative for in globally international negotiations, but also very real on the ground.

Well, I wanted to take you to those Paris negotiations you talked about before. You were still a PhD student then, but you did get yourself embedded in one of the negotiating teams. How did you pull that off and why at the time was it so important for you to go to Paris?

When I started on the project, I was very adventurous and it was an opportunity that I did not know that would be something that becomes so big. I wanted to study AOSIS. I wanted to study climate negotiations. And it just so happens the year of my field research was the Paris. So, that was an opportunity that I think [was] right place, right time. But I used my relationships, my identity as a Samoan, Kiribati, Tuvalu. So, I was able to attend many of these meetings leading up to the event as a Tuvalu advisor with the government. I reached out to the government to say, here I am, I’d like to be of service to – but at the same time for my research, for the research as part of Kiribati.

And then for Paris, I attended as part of the Samoan delegation. And of course, they said, well, we are short staff, and this is what happens with small delegations. They reach out to everyone, NGOs, but Samoan heritage to come and assist in delegation. And so, my opportunity was – or the task I had was to look after the Prime Minister at the meetings. And so, that access, he took me into every meeting with leaders as well as with regional leaders, but also within the parts of negotiations, able to sort of take another look at Barack Obama face to face. So, these are opportunities that this research took me in. But what it also was working with leaders and negotiators from the Pacific to understand their perspectives and what they were pushing for. And some of these was working with Tony deBrum from Marshall Islands.

I observed in that time how this country of Marshall Islands, went over the divide of the Global North and Global South, exactly two separate negotiation firewalls. But he went over the line and reached out to the European Union, reached out to the United States, reached out to – for a whole year leading up to Paris had secret negotiations to try and form a partnership. And so, by the time they came to Paris, there was the high ambition coalition that included African nations, Pacific nations and the Global North to try and find a compromise on the global target of 1.5. The Pacific were pushing for 1.5, other countries were saying three or four because of the economic outlook. But they managed to find wording that will acknowledge and try to reach 1.5.

That was an extraordinary achievement. I think everyone thinks now that that moment in Paris was probably one of the turning points of the whole history of climate negotiations. When you come down to it, what do you think it was about those Pacific Island delegations – particularly Tony deBrum, the foreign minister of that very small state – what do you think was so special that they brought to those negotiations that had such a big impact?

Leading up to negotiations, the research not only explored and observed what happened during the course, but before the lead up. What had happened throughout the Pacific was a certain urgency. There were more calls for countries to work together, to push together, to have a united, a coherent global message. Before people just –countries would just arrive at the climate negotiations and at the spot try and come with a negotiating position. But throughout that year, leaders from the Pacific, like Enele Sopoaga, Tony deBrum, as well as partners for a series of meetings in the Pacific, created their own position. The global collective Diplomacy. A voice of the Pacific, that’s what we sort of now know it.

They were political champions in pulling for what that actually means. And two main key issues were of importance the global temperature goal of 1.5 and the push to acknowledge loss and damage. Those were key two things as well as mitigation, adaptation, climate finance. But these were two new goals which the Pacific had pushed for by the time they came to Paris you had Tony deBrum working with other leaders and they created High Ambition Coalition. On the other flip side, Enele Sopoaga of Tuvalu was pushing the United States on the loss and damage. What Tuvalu had achieved by October of that year leading up to December, they had gone to G-77, 138 countries, to support loss and damage.

And can you explain to people what loss and damage is? I think a lot of them aren’t really aware of that concept, even today.

So in adaptation, we say that when there is a climate impact, societies, communities and nations can build back. We will give them resources of finance, capacity and they’re able to respond back. A cyclone hits – through a grant or a loan or assistance they will able to rebuild their homes and build back. And that’s called adaptation. Being resilient to the change to the impact. Loss and damage is when you cannot build back, you’ve lost it. Sea level rise will take over that part of land that you live on. You cannot live on that land.

You’ve lost not only your opportunities to live in it, to gain sustenance in terms of growing food, that’s economic and non-economic. You’ve lost your cultural heritage, your ancestry, your burial grounds, the way that you used to live in practice. So, that’s the non-economic and that’s what loss and damage is, is acknowledging that there’s going to be a time in our societies where we cannot build back because of the impacts. It’s not only in the Pacific, it’s here in Sydney, it’s in Addis Ababa, it’s in Florida. There will be a time that sea level rises or some form of climate impact will destroy some part of your land or society, and you will not be able to practice that. And for countries like Tuvalu and Kiribati, where land is so limited and sea level rise is taking over this land, this is a very big part of that loss and damage.

The other amazing achievement of the Paris Agreement was to commission, probably one of the most important scientific reports ever done for the United Nations, and that was the IPCC report on the impact of warming of 1.5 degrees compared to, say, two degrees or three degrees. How important was that report, that 1.5-degree report for the small island states who were trying to raise the issues that you’ve just talked about, this loss and damage issue?

Great rebuttal that a country can do in terms of climate change negotiations is to say 1.5. You need a scientific report. What’s your evidence? We can’t just give a temperature, a long-term temperature goal and not have scientific evidence. And that’s very much pushed by the Arup group. What’s the evidence that 1.5 is the threshold? And so, part of the negotiations with countries from the Pacific pushing for them okay, let’s have a global report that pushes for this. And they wanted even more so an urgent report, because countries can go, oh, let’s have this report in the next five, ten years. That’s just kicking the can down the line, delaying tactics. That’s what happens in this negotiation.

But Pacific always pushes for urgent and we need to – if you need the report, we need the report now. And you see that this is one of the first ever first fast IPCC reports. In terms of it came out in 2018 that solidified the evidence that, yes, 1.5 is a threshold where you’ll start to see – if we reach 1.5, there will be some societies in the world that will not be able to build back through adaptation. And this was sort of evidence in terms of local affirmations in the Pacific and Indian Ocean that these communities will not be able – will have areas or parts of the society lost.

By the time of the Glasgow UN climate negotiations in 2021, you were no longer just an observer but an active participant in the talks as part of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. You supported the case of the small island states in the Pacific who are seeking compensation for loss and damage. Were the big powers more willing to listen to those arguments in Glasgow?

Glasgow was a very important year. Remember, this is in the middle of Covid. And at the same time they were supposed to have the meeting the year before, but now sort of a two year. And this is the UK’s leadership in terms of loss and damage. Now, what had happened was, the Pacific countries had pushed loss and damage as a key area. And one of those was to have addressing in terms of loss and damage fund.

However, this was not achieved in that year because the attention at that time was on the Paris rulebook. More on carbon markets and carbon. What the sort of transition would look like that became the main focus. However, states were pushing from the Pacific were saying no, we need to address loss and damage. Yes, we now see that it’s acknowledged in the Paris Agreement. The science says that it is, but we now need to put up some form of mechanism in Glasgow. However, this was not achieved in terms of countries saying, please, let’s push that off to next year and we focus on carbon markets. Then we came last year and that’s where the Pacific now in line with the African group, the other G-77. This is the year to push all states to have this full attention.

And you are on your way to the next climate talks in a very short time. And the Samoan Prime Minister is actually in the chair at the moment of the Alliance of Small Island States. I know you’ve been working very hard, George, in the Pacific in recent times on this issue. How do you think it’s going? Do you think that this year, 2023, will be the time when the Pacific push on this issue of loss and damage will really be heard?

So, last year at the time COP27 had come through, talks to have a loss and damage were achieved. So, that’s what was achieved last year. This year it uses under the leadership of Samoa and Samoa’s PM are pushing that this fund gets activated next year, right? Not like what happened with the Global Climate Fund. It had almost 10 years from when it was decided to have a fund to when it operationalised, 10 years of negotiations. So, the big push that Samoa with AOSIS are going for this year, we don’t want the 10 years. They want one year talks and now and then elevate. So, that will be the big push from Pacific.

But it’s very important this year with what’s known as the global stocktake. It’s been three years since the world have pledged and also put action on climate change, activating the Paris Agreement. This year we will look and see what we have achieved in the last few years. And it’s going to be a lot of rubbish because we haven’t achieved much. That’s what we already know. We don’t have to wait for the final report to come out it’s a given. We have not achieved $100 billion in terms that been pledged. We haven’t activated the pledges. We still see the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The big push for this year global stocktake is the new political will. And that will come through more urgency. And that’s where countries like the Pacific, in fact Australia, that’s part of [what] the message will be. For the global community to do more in our work, not only in activating the loss and damage fund but also in climate finance. In terms of adaptation, what’s also coming from the Pacific is it really needs to trickle down to the local community for those who are really being impacted because at the moment a lot of it is stuck within international organisations, a lot of the assistance is stuck with the national systems and those who are at the forefront or the frontline are not seeing where these finances are to support them, but also they are not being able to participate in these global forums.

I sense your sense of frustration and I’m sure this is often seen in the Pacific from the people in the Pacific about what’s happening. And when the recent IPCC report came down, the major scientific report this year on climate change, you said in an interview I thought some words that were very confronting, and those words were ‘the more we know, the worse it looks.’ From your perspective, what do you think the science is telling us now for the Pacific region?

Yeah, it’s not only the science. The words of the science report, it’s catastrophic. In the trends and the way that we live at the moment, it’s going to be catastrophic for countries like the Pacific. The impacts will be much more severe, there will be hotter days. There will be much more frequent disasters, natural disasters in terms of flooding, impacts on water and food insecurity. It’s going to be worse. We’re not going to be living in the world where the climate it’s going to get better and better. No, it’s not. It’s going to get worse and worse.

It means that societies and countries in the Pacific have to face realities. They’re going to have to import food, more food that’s not grown within, even water. In terms of fish, which is become a big livelihood, but also the economic base for a lot of countries. It’s going to move out into the west, into international waters. That means we’ll be seeing fish wars, fishing vessels out there just fighting over these fishing resources. It also means displacement, migration. Already communities in the Pacific are constantly being displaced. Every time there’s a cyclone or some form of disaster, they move temporarily to their families or other parts of the country, only to come back and rebuild. But we will be seeing a permanent displacement in the coming years. Where do they go? Do they go to other islands in the Pacific, or do they come to Australia, New Zealand?

These are the questions that our current leaders and policymakers and even academia is now trying to take on in terms of having that dialogue. What do we do when it comes to those cases of permanent displacement and permanent migration?

And yes, I wanted to ask you about that because you raised a very interesting concept here. You say that what you want when this happens is migration with dignity, not to look at people just as climate refugees. What do you actually mean by that? What will migration with dignity mean in this circumstance?

When we speak about climate migration with dignity is that people, not necessarily mass population, but when people are migrating because of climate impacts, that defined their community in their new homes. And so, research, like some of our colleagues are working on, is that if they are migrating to Australia when they migrate to Australia, there’s a community here waiting where they have their churches, where they have their cultural communities here waiting for them. That their language will be accepted as part of communities here. They are able to practice some of their cultural celebrations here in Australia, where they are not seen as unskilled labourers, but they’re seen as every other citizen, but acknowledging that they also are people from countries or communities that are now lost, some of these. That’s part of what climate migration [with] dignity [is]. Not just come here, here [are] the social services. Please tick a box. Choose a language. Learn English. You know, migration with dignity is when people who will be traumatised, the fact that they cannot go back to their ancestral lands. But when they do move to countries like New Zealand or move to Samoa for that reason, that they are welcome and that they have their cultural, their social, but also spiritual needs are also acknowledged in these spaces.

Well, of course the Pacific leaders will have seen firsthand in the past, Australia can metre out very harsh treatment to refugees, the incarcerations in PNG and in Nauru. Are you confident that an Australian government will be sympathetic to Pacific Islanders who are forced to leave their lands and perhaps come to Australia?

I’m very optimistic with that. I think society does not try to repeat wrongdoings or atrocities. I think it does try in a way to find healing in the way it moves forward. And I think the past lessons of the way political refugees or refugees have been treated has been learnt. And I do hope that provides a new way of healing in terms of how it moves forward for future migration, especially climate migration, because it’s not a political migration, it’s a climate migration. And at the same time, it’s not going to be a mass migration, it’s going to be a gradual migration of communities based on relationships. It’s families moving with families. It’s a slow migration.

But we are also incorporating in that journey together those who [are] leaving their home islands and also us accepting if it is in here in Australia that we work together slowly at that we also not just look at it as an economic transaction or just a movement, but it’s also of people, culture, spirit and trying to find new homes. That’s where I see myself an optimist; that I think our society here in Australia have learnt that lesson in the past and we will try not to do that in terms when it comes to climate migration.

You point out, of course, and you mentioned here just before that the Pacific Islanders are already having to adapt to climate change. There’s been some recent reports that the Fijian government has already announced the planned relocation of some villages and a potential list of perhaps scores of villages that might have to be relocated because of seawater inundation. Do you think these sorts of relocations are going to happen around the Pacific and how important will it be, especially for women in those families, in those villages, to be equally involved in dealing with that upheaval and trauma?

Yeah. So, yes, relocation has already started. In Fiji, I think, they’ve identified just over 80, in Solomon Islands, a few, [a] number I can’t recall now. In Tonga they’ve lost four islands. So, displacement relocation is already, and government led support has happened. But it’s very hard. Fiji, they’ve identified over 80 plus, but they have only done four in the last five years.

It takes a lot of learning, but also a lot of relationships for that to happen because you’re requesting a community, you’re trying to say the science is saying this, it will no longer be adaptable. But populations say, no, we will not move. We will be here until that comes. But at the same time, the finance needed to build the infrastructure for these communities to move. And then this navigating the politics of land within communities. And then you have to work with access because you’re moving a community that’s coastal, it’s fisheries into a land where they have to pick up new skills, become agriculturalists. Two very separate, different sort of worlds or upbringings for communities to change.

What I can say from the existing work and also research and reports from it, it’s hard. It’s a very complex issue. It’s something that takes time for that to occur. And even same culture, same language, one government. It’s not easy, especially when you have to deal with culture and ancestral land. And this is the reality. And women are very much an important part of this. Women and children. Because in some communities women have the role of providing the food. They are the ones who fish. And now you’re asking women to create a new skill of growing yams and to supply the household with this new extra skill. It’s a whole different dimension as well. And so, it’s a very complicated space, even as countries are dealing this internally with internal relocation. But it’s even harder when it comes to international or moving up to other islands or moving to other countries.

It’s a process that countries are now realising. It’s something that there must be not only national attention but global attention. And you’re seeing it in the current work where they’re trying to lead, create frameworks around climate migration to take away, not use the word refugee, but migration, migration with dignity. They’re trying to put a definition, a concept to frame the discussion so that when it becomes a global discussion, which is now starting to happen, the Pacific has led the way in terms of this is the way we want it to be dealt. These are the ways we want people to look at this rather than just like, here are the homes, here are the services that you could take on board. But rather, they can also inform as the world will seriously look and see the space that there’s a solution or a voice from the Pacific in these discussions.

That shows that it’s a two-way street.

Absolutely.

And this must be very interesting for you because of your position in Samoa. You have the title of Salā there, so you are in a position of responsibility in your home life, in your Samoan life, yet you juggle this with these big negotiations. Does that sometimes feel like you’ve got a big world over there but a reality that you’re grounded in?

In Samoa we have this proverb, o le ala i le pule o le tautua, the way through leadership is service. But it also means, your role as leaders is to serve. And I’ve always taken that to heart because it’s the way I ground my research, the research contributions in terms of policy, working with policymakers and leaders. And the way that I incorporate my teaching is to serve. But it’s also very much grounded in the reality of in Samoa that I take on board. The way that I serve my community in ways of not only cultural obligations, but also financial obligations, that it’s our duties as matai to find ways to make our communities better. It’s the same way that we look at our research informing governments, universities, but also policymakers, to make our situations better.

But I also take on the challenge of what the world can learn from my village in Samoa, and I use that in terms of the relationships, how we build our relationships, how we look at [the] world in a multifaceted approach that’s not just one way, but you incorporate your culture. It’s not just being: working in a political space is just about power, no, it’s about responsibilities. It’s how you use culture, spirits, networks. You bring it all together and you try to inform and encourage, but also provide empowerment. That’s through the work that we do in our communities. But it’s the way that we also work with leaders. I just look at them as like every other people in my village. How do we empower their work? The work we, you know, sort of when we speak with museums, how can we empower your work? It’s about that not only awareness on the impacts of climate, but also bringing up the resilience and the good work that the people are doing.

So, I see that as that role. And someone was saying to me, you’re kind of like a research broker. And how the research informs and makes better our communities in Samoa, but also globally, it’s not daunting. They’re human beings, yes, they’re seen as state leaders or states, but they’re also just normal, everyday human beings and [being] able to try and articulate the vulnerability, but also empower them into bringing out the resilience of what countries or communities to do is something that I think is a great honour and very grateful to be in those opportunities and spaces to serve both international, but also the local spaces.

Well, I guess that’s an idea you’ve really got to hang on to at the moment because of course in recent years the Pacific has become a space of big power rivalry. So, while people like you are trying to emphasise the local issues that are important and issues like climate change, overfishing that are really important, the big powers are also coming to play the chessboard. How do you juggle that and are you worried that things like climate change are going to be sort of pushed to the side?

No, I’m not. And the reason why? Because part of that space when working with convening meetings for Chiefs of Defence or convening 1.5 security talks between United States, New Zealand and Australia, is I have the opportunity to talk about climate security. And that’s not what I’m doing it’s what everyone is doing is that we’re bringing climate change into the security space and it’s not about climate wars or how you can fight war in a changing climate. No, it’s absolutely not.

The way that we’re bringing it in is that if we are going to talk about security and especially national security, it needs to be comprehensive. It can’t be just about power. You also need to take into account the future insecurity that climate impacts have on society. Military have a responsibility in that space as well. But we also look at bringing climate change dialogue in talks as a means of peace, preventing. We must look at the climate impacts rather than looking at these geopolitics. And we’re seeing this in the way how Pacific countries are articulating this. They see it in their bold declaration where they say climate change is the greatest existential threat to the Pacific. The response from New Zealand, Australia, the United States, China and Japan is that, we will incorporate climate change in our security dialogue. We will look at the way that we improve the work on our humanitarian assistance and by disaster awareness, how defence can be involved in this.

Okay, so yes, we do have – we spent billions of dollars on nuclear submarines. I wish we could spend a little bit more from that budget on our climate challenges. But it’s also in the way where we can come through in terms of creating a new narrative and changing the dialogue by saying, climate change is also a security impact. Climate security. Not the way you fight wars and climate, but also how climate provides insecurity, tension to communities on the local ground, but also has a direct impact on how states operate. So, that’s another way. Again, some may think it’s optimistic, but I think it’s a way how we can change the conversation as well.

Australia, of course, in the last year or so has put climate back into the forefront of its diplomacy in the Pacific, but it is still expanding some of its big fossil fuel industries. It’s approving major new gas projects. Do you think this will be a source of strain in the Pacific that Australia cutting its emissions is still a very contentious problem?

Yeah. I mean, the relationship that Australia and the countries in the Pacific have on climate change is a continuing relationship. Ups, ebbs and flows. And when announcement that there is going to be more attention for coal or fossil fuel industry or more subsidies there, it gives a lot of concern for countries in the Pacific.

But what I also argue, it’s not the end, because I see that the voices from within the Pacific echo some of the concerns of Australian society here as well that say our government should do much more here in Australia. And it’s the same message that these countries are also pushing, Pacific country, pushing that Australia needs to do more. It does cause a lot of strain. But it doesn’t mean it disconnects or ends the relationship with Australia.

So, I’ve written on how this relationship, the Pacific should not give up on Australia because through its messaging, encouragement to governments that it can do better in terms of its policies here. But of course, domestic policy is domestic policy. And of course, in the past it has been a source of tension diplomatically where countries in the Pacific do not see eye to eye with Australia. It’s a source of concern and they actively speak out on this. But at the same time, there’s a lot of great work which Australia conducts with the Pacific, and it’s engaged. It’s the country that provides the most in adaptation funding for countries in the Pacific in terms of its climate change work. Although it does not see eye to eye in climate change negotiations, especially in the area of energy, mitigation, carbon. But it does see eye to eye in terms of its support on climate empowerments, in gender, adaptation, in climate finance. It’s a relationship that there’s parts countries don’t agree on and there’s parts that countries agree on.

I wanted to ask you briefly about the very interesting move that happened this year, pushed by Vanuatu, another small Pacific state, and that was a move by the General Assembly, the UN General Assembly, to ask the International Court of Justice to get involved in the climate issue. It’s a complicated move, but I’m wondering why did Vanuatu push it? And in simple terms, what does it potentially mean for the Pacific states?

And this is why another aspect of Vanuatu, or the Pacific countries have a very idiosyncratic approach to international politics on climate change. This was an initiative pushed by students of editorial class at the University of South Pacific. These were students who were learning about environmental law, and one of the subjects was the role of ICJ. And they said, oh, our governments can do this. And so, this group of students wrote to all their countries to find support. But Vanuatu came back, we’ll support this cause. We’ll take this initiative to the global stage. And so, that’s how the campaign to have an opinion on climate change at the ICJ was put forth.

At the International Court of Justice.

Yes. And so, it was Vanuatu with these students, and they got this all the way. So, in the last two or three years with this campaign, it came to a success when it didn’t need to have a vote. It was approved by unanimous consensus that there will be ICJ. Now, next year, in January, ICJ will hear applications on this. So, currently what’s happening around the Pacific and here in Australia and around the world is these same students with the government of Vanuatu calling for people to speak up to make submissions so that when it comes to next year in January this could happen.

But it’s a perfect example of where countries, small countries from the Pacific, are not only taking their vulnerabilities but also taking the voices of local communities groups to the international spaces. We tend to see that our leaders or people working in foreign affairs will translate what we say and represent for Australia. But the Pacific has this unique way of not just having taken the position of government, but also taking positions of people. These people’s voices. And one of these great stories is the story on ICJ.

And in theory it could very much if the International Court of Justice finds that the big states do have responsibilities to smaller states for their actions in encouraging polluting industries, it could help the case of the smaller states for loss and damage.

Absolutely. Because what the ICJ would say is not necessarily for small states, but there is a direct impact of climate change on justice. Countries will then use this as evidence of support for more global action for loss and damage.

Now, you’ve probably seen, George, that in recent times, especially young climate activists, have been becoming very frustrated with climate negotiations, saying, as you say too, they’re not moving fast enough. And they’re saying they are giving up negotiating for direct action. You’re a teacher of diplomacy. You’re a teacher who puts their faith in negotiations. What do you say to these young activists who are so frustrated, who are turning to direct action rather than stay along the path of dialogue and negotiation?

I would say do both. You cannot give up on the current diplomacy, current negotiations. Absolutely right. It’s slow. It’s monotonous. It’s not going – it’s not taking us to spaces. However, it’s the only currently, as of today, the only mechanism that is inclusive of all voices and can create a global action. Because if we say it’s going to be individuals, Australia will do something, but we’ll look sideways to see whether the United States want to do something. And then it’s this, oh I’m not going to do anything about it. You know, countries will have a choice. But in this current system of it’s by no means a perfect platform. It’s the only platform where we can sort of go for global action.

And of course, what will come through from these negotiations is the lowest common denominator, the least that we can do. But actually, I would say the reason why I say hold on to it is because we have seen some action over the years. It’s not a great leap of action, but action. And it’s also up to the next generation to create a next generation of leaders, because the leadership at the moment also come from a reality which is not the reality of today. They grew up in a society where they had all the resources. We have a good climate, but as we see now, it’s not a great climate.

So, I’m also very hopeful on the next generation in the type of new international system that can be better than the current UNSCCC system that has these discussions, but also in a way that it’s not just states, but we look at companies and pushing companies to create those actions. Because it’s not the states who are the polluters. It’s the companies in the states that are the polluters. And so, we need a mechanism that focuses on responsibility of companies who are the polluters. And I think that’s where the next generation can come through and push for that, because, yes, it’s very hard for states, but it’s their companies that are the main polluters.

Now in support of the negotiations. You are going to back Australia for hosting the big climate talks in 2026. What do you think our chances are? Our listeners in many years to come will know the answer to that. But do you think that Australia and the Pacific, with the help of the Pacific, will be successful in this? And why do you think it’s important?

I really do hope it is successful. It’s like the Olympic Games of the Pacific. To host gives the country the opportunity to showcase the work that it has done, but also push very strong policies in between. Because to be a global leader on climate change, you need to have policies. Not just have policies, but also have initiatives that are in place. I think our speakers throughout the 100 conversations we’ve had have talked about the need for greater transition, a faster transition. We are very slow here in Australia in all those regards in terms of our economy, but also our society moving into a place where we are much more conscious of the way that we eat, the way that we use energy and the way that we consume, but also how much damage we are causing the environment and the climate.

It’s also very important for Pacific because Australia sits at home in one form of knowledge system and the way that it moves into that transition. The situation here in Australia will inform the transition in the Pacific because Australia is one of the hubs or the greatest hubs for many of these countries. Renewable energy practices here will inform their renewable practices in the Pacific. Cuts in fossil fuels here will inform the cuts in fossil fuels there. There is a symbiotic relationship of this, but also in terms of our knowledge, the way that we can showcase how traditional knowledge in the Pacific informs policy in climate, informs the way policy [and] government operates, and that is also part of climate knowledge. It will also be a great way to showcase how we can do that here in Australia, bringing in our First Nations knowledge on the climates into not just our thinking about policy but in our everyday thinking. What are these practices of thinking about our relationship with nature, our relationships with what we consume, or our relationship with the climate? It’s a value system. It may not look like it’s going to give you 5 billion or advantage the economy, but it’s a value system. That’s what happens in the Pacific. And I encourage that’s something that we are looking at in here in Australia.

That we can show the world in terms of our climate advocacy through a joint COP, but also at the same way how the world can learn from what’s happening here in Australia. So, I’m hopeful that it will be a great opportunity where we show this leadership the initiatives that we have here in Australia and the Pacific, but also showcase where we have gone wrong and that our decisions and you know, it’s not about what we can do but what we’ve also done. Because other countries are wanting to know what are some of those practices or lessons which they are currently doing at the moment can also lead into that transition. So, I’m very hopeful in that space. So, it’s not just about presenting diplomatic leadership, but it’s also how we transition as a society in those spaces.

I wanted to ask you a final question about your own optimism, George. There was a rather bleak interview that Sir David King, the former UK chief scientist, recently gave where he talked about the fact that for generations, humans have looked back and learnt from their history and the history of their civilisations over thousands of years. But now, as an old man, as he looks forward just 100 years, he sees a completely unpredictable future because of climate change. Coming from the Pacific how do you feel about that? Are you optimistic about people’s ability to adapt and survive and thrive?

I am. The Pacific settlement as well as Australia was settled 60,000 years ago with the first wave of migration. We have with the Indigenous people of Australia, but as well as Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu. A second wave of migration 3000 years ago and 1000 years ago. These people have lived in the harshest environments through navigating large oceans. And over years they’ve adapted and they continue to adapt and survive in these harsh environment. In the last 200 years, climate change, I mean, the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions has, I think, 200 fold the impact of what is happening in terms of the climate. But we will still adapt.

I think it’s what’s important and why I have faith in diplomacy is that it will try and rectify and slow down this impact that’s happening at the moment, but also find solutions so that humans can survive. I mean, it’s the same way how in the Pacific they’ve survived through that knowledge, which is that traditional knowledge. And we’re starting to see more and more of that coming into how we take on board our decisions in the Pacific, but also how we create action and bringing back that traditional knowledge, those values system. I’m hopeful that Australia will take that on board as well in terms of learning from First Nations, those values system. And that’s where I see that optimism as it moves forward because human beings have survived. But that diplomacy will be just one of many ways to slow down these impacts and find ways to make it better.

Well, thank you, George, and thank you for giving us a lot of faith in the diplomatic talks and the value of keeping on talking. Please join me in a round of applause for Dr George Carter. Now to follow the program online you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And visit the 100 Climate Conversations exhibition or join us for a live recording, go to 100climateconversations.com.

This is a significant new project for the museum and the records of these conversations will form a new climate change archive preserved for future generations in the Powerhouse collection of over 500,000 objects that tell the stories of our time. It is particularly important to First Nations peoples to preserve conversations like this, building on the oral histories and traditions of passing down our knowledges, sciences and innovations which we know allowed our Countries to thrive for tens of thousands of years.