The Climate Question

For nearly a century, governments around the world have measured the health of their economies by a single metric: GDP, or Gross Domestic Product. It measures a country’s economic growth, and over the years has become a shorthand for national progress; a rising GDP is generally understood to mean more people in work, more companies in business, living standards on the rise. Yet, as experts have argued for decades, there is a lot that GDP leaves out. While it measures the value of all goods and services produced and consumed in an economy, it doesn’t account for nature, wellbeing, or planetary health. To GDP, a 100-year-old carbon capturing tree is worthless until its chopped down and sold as timber. Cleaning up after disasters, such as extreme weather events, improve GDP due to the increase in spending - even as people and planet suffer the consequences. In an age of climate breakdown, many economists are arguing that our obsession with GDP is damaging the planet. So is it time to ditch GDP as a measure of progress and come up with a new metric that puts sustainability at its core? Presenters Jordan Dunbar and Tanya Beckett are joined by the economists: Professor Kate Raworth, Senior Associate at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute Professor Tim Jackson, Director of Centre for Understanding Sustainable Prosperity Professor Jayati Ghosh, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Dr Celestin Monga, visiting professor of public policy at Harvard University

Ahead of COP 26, a rush of businesses declared their commitment to “net zero” emissions targets. But concerns were raised about how credible these targets were. Critics pointed out that many companies’ plans did not require them to change behaviour any time soon, or be held accountable for realising them - and that some of their promises just weren’t good enough. In this edition of The Climate Question, Kate Lamble and Jordan Dunbar ask how much can we believe in companies’ promises on climate?

At the UN climate summit in Glasgow last year, China and the United States announced they will work together on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.Experts say this is a significant move because China and the United States are the two largest economies and polluters. China emits the most greenhouse gasses, around 27% of global emissions, but it is walking a narrow path between its energy crisis and its commitment to climate work.There are reports of plans to build up to 80 new coal power plants.Without China acting, attempts to keep global temperatures down will not work. How committed is China to climate change? Presenters Kate Lamble and Jordan Dunbar are joined by:Changhua Wu, executive director of the Professional Association for China’s Environment Todd Stern, former climate envoy, United States Bernice Lee, research director, Chatham HouseProducer: Darin Graham Reporter: Sophia Yan Researchers: Tatyana Movshevich and Matilda Welin Series Producer: Alex Lewis Editor: Emma Rippon Sound Engineer: Tom Brignell

Written into many of the promises made by countries about how they intend to achieve their UN climate pledges to reduce emissions is an assumption that technology will help them make this happen. But this technology either does not currently exist or is in its infancy.This includes schemes to take carbon out of the air via carbon capture and storage or direct air capture and to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with green hydrogen. We visit the world’s largest direct air capture plant in Iceland and speak to the person in charge of Namibia’s grand plans to become the green hydrogen production hub of the world - can both really be scaled up in order to meet our current needs?Presenters Kate Lamble and Jordan Dunbar are joined by:Zeke Hausfather, Director of Climate and Energy at the Breakthrough Institute, Victoria Gill, BBC’s Science Correspondent, Christoph Beuttler, Head of Climate Policy at Climeworks, and Jane Olwoch, Executive Director of South African Science Service Centre for Climate Change and Adaptive Land Management (SASSCAL) Producer: Dearbhail Starr Researcher: Tatyana Movshevich and Zoe Gelber Reporter: Magnús Geir Eyjólfsson Series Producer: Alex Lewis Editor: Emma Rippon Sound engineer: Tom Brignell

Everyone who steps outside can appreciate the value that the natural world brings to our lives. To some people, the idea of placing a monetary value on trees and mangrove forests is wrong because nature and its gifts are priceless. But others say the love of nature has not stopped it from being polluted or destroyed. The natural world plays a major role in capturing the carbon from our atmosphere. A marketplace now exists where countries and big business can pay others to protect their forests, swamps and bogs in return for offsetting their emissions. Could giving nature a dollar value make us care about it more and help us fight against climate change?Presenters Kate Lamble and Jordan Dunbar are joined by:Kevin Conrad, founder, Coalition for Rainforests Tina Stege, climate envoy, Marshall Islands Pavan Sukhdev, chief executive officer, GISTProducer: Darin Graham Researcher: Natasha Fernandez Reporter: Gloria Bivigou Series Producer: Alex Lewis Editor: Emma Rippon Sound engineer: Graham Puddifoot

Billions of dollars are being invested in electric vehicles in the name of fighting climate change. World leaders are backing them as the green fix for our burgeoning road transport emissions. But when you factor in the carbon emissions that come from manufacturing EVs, how well do they stack up against their petrol and diesel counterparts? If all the cars on the road switched to EVs, could we meet our climate targets? This week The Climate Question looks under the bonnet of electric vehicles – and whether there is an altogether better solution. Presenters Neal Razzell and Kate Lamble are joined by: Heather Maclean, Professor of Civil and Mineral Engineering, University of Toronto Quentin Willson, Motoring journalist and EV campaigner Clarisse Cunha Linke, Brazil Director of the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy Estelle Honnerat, reporter in Paris Dr Emma Smith, Research Fellow in Antarctic Seismology, University of Leeds Producer: Sophie Eastaugh Researcher: Natasha Fernandes Series Producer: Alex Lewis Editor: Emma Rippon Sound engineer: Tom Brignell

For centuries, we’ve been reading, watching and listening to science fiction. And all too often, it’s pretty pessimistic about our future, especially when it touches on the topic of climate change. This is leading some to ask whether these doom and gloom stories are doing the climate fight more harm than good - causing us to feel so anxious and powerless that we don’t take action. So for this week's climate question, Graihagh Jackson is asking: Is sci-fi holding us back? First broadcast on 5th April 2021. Graihagh Jackson is joined by: Amy Brady, editor-in-chief of the Chicago Review of Books, where she writes a monthly column called Burning Worlds. In it she explores how fiction addresses climate change. Cheryl Slean is a playwright, filmmaker and educator working with the National Resource Defense Council’s Re-write the Future campaign to increase accurate climate stories in film and television. Ken Liu is a futurist and author of speculative fiction. He has won the Nebula, Hugo, and World Fantasy awards. His debut novel, The Grace of Kings, is the first volume in a silkpunk epic fantasy series. Producer: Jordan Dunbar Editor: Emma Rippon Sound Engineer: Andy Garratt and Tom Brignell

Images are a key part of communicating climate change, and shape how we understand the crisis unfolding around us. But while lots of research has been done into the language we use to talk about climate, images are often left out of the conversation. As a result, over time, a limited set of images have come to dominate how we think of climate change – like polar bears and melting glaciers - which haven’t kept up with the changing conversation about the crisis. All too often, these images tend to be abstract, removed from our daily lives and typically don’t feature people - when we know that climate change is happening all around us, all the time, and is very much a story with people and communities at its core. So how can we develop a new, and more effective visual language for climate change? What kind of images ‘work’ to both convey the urgency of the crisis as well as inspire behavioural change? And what are some of the ways in which photographers are seeking to represent the crisis in a way that transforms apathy into action? Guests: Cristina Mittermeier, photographer and conservationist Arati Kumar-Rao, National Geographic Explorer and photographer Toby Smith, Programme Lead at Climate Visuals Saffron O’Neill, University of Exeter Presenter: Neal Razzell Producer: Zoe Gelber Researcher: Lizzie Frisby Series Producer: Alex Lewis

For decades scientists have warned us about the risks of climate change. Yet humans are badly psychologically designed to face up to the challenge of changing our behaviour. Research shows that constant threats of impending doom make us hit the snooze button rather than waking us up. And our evolutionary shortcomings mean we respond to the threat of immediate danger rather than what might happen in the future. So what can actually work to help us change our status quo? Presenters Kate Lamble and Neal Razzell are joined by: George Marshall, Founder of Climate Outreach and author of Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change Elke Weber, Professor of Psychology at Princeton University Per Espen Stoknes, Psychologist, Economist and author of What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming. Producer: Sophie Eastaugh Reporter: Frank Walter Researcher: Natasha Fernandes Series Producer: Alex Lewis Editor: Emma Rippon Sound Engineer: Graham Puddifoot

If there were fewer of us, would the amount of greenhouse gasses we emit reduce? It’s a question that often creeps up in discussions about climate change. Studies show that the global population will decline eventually and populations in many rich nations are already declining. However, 11,000 scientists signed a paper warning of “untold suffering due to the climate crisis” unless society transforms, including the reversal of population growth. But an analysis by the United Nations found that affluence has a greater impact on the climate than population. When we talk about overpopulation, what are we really saying and where does the conversation go from here? Presenters Neal Razzell and Kate Lamble are joined by: Nyovani Madise, head of the Malawi office of the African Institute for Development Policy. Anu Ramaswami, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Princeton. Arvind Ravikumar, professor in energy transition and climate policy at the University of Texas. Producer: Darin Graham Reporter: Rajesh Joshi Series producer: Alex Lewis Editor: Emma Rippon Sound engineer: Tom Brignell

The journey from catwalk, to wardrobe, to landfill is getting shorter and shorter. Our demands for fast fashion mean around 100 billion garments are produced every year. We’re buying more, then wearing them less often. Many will end up in the trash. Not only that, there’s been a big growth in clothes being made out of synthetic materials originating from crude oil. In this edition we ask can fashion cost less to the climate? Speaking to Kate Lamble and Sophie Eastaugh are- • Vanessa Friedman New York Times Fashion Editor • Lily Cole Fashion model, actress and podcast host- ‘Who Cares Wins’ • Phillip Meister - Quantis Sustainability Consulting • Claire Bergkamp – Textile Exchange Producer: Jordan Dunbar Researcher: Natasha Fernandez Series Producer: Alex Lewis Editor: Emma Rippon

In 1985 British scientist Jonathan Shanklin and colleagues published a study that shocked the world. The study revealed a hole in the Earth’s atmosphere right over Antarctica. It had been caused over time by chemicals known as CFCs, used in things like fridges, air conditioning units and aerosol cans. These were destroying the layer of ozone in the stratosphere which protects us from most of the sun's ultraviolet radiation - without it, cases of skin cancer would soar. Less than two years after the discovery, world leaders signed an agreement called the Montreal Protocol, committing to phase out CFCs. It has been described as the most successful international treaty of all time - every UN country has signed up, and ozone is expected to return to its previous levels around the middle of the century. So what can we learn from how we tackled the ozone hole in how we address climate change? Presenters Neal Razzell and Kate Lamble are joined by: Jonathan Shanklin, Meterologist at the British Antarctic Survey, Dr Paul Newman, chief scientist for Earth Science at the Nasa Goddard Space Flight Center, Tina Birmpili, former executive secretary of the Ozone Secretariat, Dr Anita Ganesan, associate professor of Atmospheric Chemistry at the University of Bristol. Producer: Sophie Eastaugh Researcher: Natasha Fernandes

Around the world a growing number of rivers, mountains, nature reserves, even marshes have all been given legal rights. It’s an idea that’s being tested in courtrooms around the world. But to what extent might this help reduce the worst impacts of climate change and help us adapt to a warmer and wetter world? Presenters Kate Lamble and Neal Razzell are joined by: Natalia Greene , Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature John DX Lapid, reporter in the Philippines Liza Osorio, lawyer Jacinta Ruru, Professor of Law at the University of Otago, Aotearoa/New Zealand Jan Darpo, Professor of Environmental Law, Uppsala University, Sweden Producer: Darin Graham Researcher: Natasha Fernandes Series producer: Ros Jones Editor: Emma Rippon Sound engineer: James Beard

The lights have come on in Glasgow, the bar is closed and it's time to head home. Now the 26th Conference of Parties is over we ask what's really been decided and where do we go from here?In discussion with our presenters Neal Razzell and Kate Lamble are; Jeffrey Sachs - Director Earth Institute, Columbia University Dr Rose Mutiso - Research Director, Energy For Growth Hub Kenya Helen Mountford - Vice President, Climate & Economics, World Resources Institute

Climate negotiators from all over the world are gathered in Glasgow for the global summit to discuss how we can curb the worst effects of global warming. The Conference of Parties (or COP26) has now reached its half-way point. Kate Lamble and Neal Razzell take the temperature on what has been discussed so far.

This week will bring around 25,000 world leaders, business people, policy shapers and campaigners together in Glasgow for COP26, a global climate summit that’s seen as a crucial moment in the fight to curb global warming. Among them will be young activists who in the last few years have made global headlines with the School Strike for Climate movement. Beginning with Greta Thunberg in Sweden in 2018, millions of young people have taken to the streets to try to get their voices heard. We hear from three young people devoted to climate activism. In the Philippines, Mitzi Jonelle Tan grew up amid severe typhoons that would flood her bedroom. In India, Disha Ravi saw her grandparents struggle to get enough water for their farm. And in the United States, 19-year-old Jerome Foster has been invited to join President Biden’s Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Do these young activists feel their voices are being heard? What action do they most want to see from world leaders at COP – and how realistic are their demands? Presenters Kate Lamble and Jordan Dunbar talk to Disha Ravi, Mitzi Jonelle Tan, Jerome Foster and the BBC’s Environment Correspondent, Matt McGrath. Producer: Sophie Eastaugh Researcher: Natasha Fernandes Series producer: Alex Lewis Editor: Emma Rippon Sound engineer: Neil Churchill

World leaders are gathering in Glasgow for a global climate summit to agree on how to further limit the threat of global warming. Experts say the conference, known as COP26, could be the last chance for governments to agree on a way to cut global emissions in half by 2030. It’s also an opportunity to assess how well they have been doing with previous targets to prevent average global temperatures from rising beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius, agreed at a big climate meeting in Paris in 2015. According to the Climate Action Tracker, The Gambia is thought to be one of the only countries with plans in line with 1.5 degrees. What further commitments will leaders from the rest of the world arrive with at COP26 and what will it take for countries to keep those climate promises? Presenters Kate Lamble and Katie Prescott are joined by: Sandra Guzman, consultant, Climate Policy Initiative. Jennifer Morgan, executive director, Greenpeace International. Niklas Höhne, founding partner, New Climate InstituteProducer: Darin Graham Researcher: Natasha Fernandes Reporter: Thomas Naadi Series producers: Alex Lewis and Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon Sound engineer: Neil Churchill

Russia is the world’s fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gasses. Any talk of changing that needs to focus on President Vladimir Putin. Under his leadership, Russia has become a fossil fuel powerhouse. Since he took office in 2000, Russian oil production has risen by 70%. Today, the state is dependent on its revenues. Four in every ten dollars Moscow spends comes from fossil fuels. So the idea that Russia needs to shift away from fossil fuels to prevent the worst effects of climate change strikes at the very heart of Mr Putin’s power. But Russia is already suffering more than most from the effects of climate change. Arctic temperatures are rising faster than the global average, forests the size of countries are going up in smoke. Two thirds of the country’s permafrost - permanently frozen ground - has roads, homes, schools, oil and pipelines and even nuclear reactors are built on it. And the permafrost is starting to melt. Putin’s latest national security document for the first time mentions climate change as a risk. But can he do what is necessary to prevent things from getting worse?Contributors - Angelina Davydova - Environmental Journalist Chris Miller - Director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Eurasia Program Vladimir Chuprov - Director of the Energy Program, Greenpeace Russia Presenters: Neal Razzell and Kate Lamble Reporter - Olga Dobrovidova Producer: Jordan Dunbar

There are thought to be over 10,000 gas flares around the world that contribute to global warming by emitting tonnes of carbon dioxide and methane. Flared gas is a by-product of oil extraction and is frequently used as a method of eliminating unwanted gasses in countries such as Albania, Algeria, Libya, Iraq, Russia and Nigeria. Yet, year after year deadlines set to stop the practice are missed. The oil industry says better infrastructure is needed to stop flaring and some of the world’s largest producers of oil have committed to ending flaring by 2030. What will it take for that to happen? Presenters Neal Razzell and Kate Lamble are joined by: Bjørn Otto Sverdrup, chair, Oil and Gas Climate Initiative Mark Davis, CEO of Capterio. Sharon Wilson, senior field advocate, Earthworks Producer: Darin Graham Reporter: Fyneface Dumnamene Series producer: Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon Sound engineer: Tom Brignell

Recent research has shown that oil companies knew about the threat of climate change decades ago. Yet over forty years, it has been revealed that they contributed millions of dollars to think tanks and campaigns to spread doubt and misinformation about climate change – its existence, the extent of the problem, and its cause.Across the US, these revelations have sparked a wave of lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry, demanding accountability for climate change – and now a US congressional committee has started to investigate. Executives from the world’s biggest oil companies and trade groups have been called to testify before US lawmakers in October this year, in an inquiry modelled on the tobacco hearings of the 1990s, which paved the way for far tougher nicotine regulations.This week, The Climate Question looks over the evidence behind these allegations – and asks whether Big Oil might finally be facing a reckoning for its role in the climate crisis.Presenters: Neal Razzell and Phoebe Keane Producer: Zoe Gelber Series Editor: Ros Jones Editor: Emma Rippon

Heatwaves and floods are becoming more frequent around the world. But are the homes being built today taking that into account?The Climate Question considers the impact that living in a building threatened by rising water or constructed so that you bake in the heat has. And it asks why planners and developers in many countries have been so reluctant to adapt. Where are lessons being learnt and will other places follow their lead?

For decades, around the world, climate change coverage has been thin. Guests discuss why the media in petrol states, in particular, have struggled to tell that story. Science illiteracy in newsrooms has led to a mixture of climate silence and false balance in print and on air. But, even when the science has not been contested, the way the crisis has been reported may have caused audiences to turn away. Can climate coverage learn lessons from how that other hugely consequential science story of our time – the pandemic - has been told? Contributors : Mark Herstsgaard, co-founder Covering Climate Now Marianna Poberezhskaya, associate professor Nottingham Trent University Kris De Meyer, neuroscientist Kings College London Wolfgang Blau, The Reuters InstitutePresenter: Graihagh Jackson Producer: Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon

If we are to ensure that there’s no more than a 1.5 degrees centigrade increase in global warming, the International Energy Agency recently stated that oil exploration must stop. A few countries have heeded that warning but the vast majority have not. The Climate Question hears from two nations – one already rich from oil, the other poor and yet to benefit from recent oil finds – about why they are continuing to explore. But, even for those who are following the IEA’s advice, will stopping be straightforward or might hurdles still lie in wait?Contributors: Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency Bård Lahn, Research Fellow at the Center for International Climate Research, Norway Catherine Higham, Climate Change Laws of the World Coordinator, London School of EconomicsPresenters: Jordan Dunbar & Gaia Vince Reporter: Kiana Wilburg Producers: Darin Graham & Soila Apparicio Series producer: Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon

As extreme weather events become more frequent and intense, the developing world says urgent action is needed to avert catastrophe.Some in the developing world say that as richer countries caused the bulk of global emissions, they should compensate them for the losses and damages caused by the climate crisis.But will delegates, negotiators and politicians gathering at the international climate conference, COP26, in Glasgow in November take notice? In previous years rich countries have been reluctant to agree to compensate poorer countries. If that happens again, what will the impact be on reaching a global commitment to reduce emissions? Joining presenters Graihagh Jackson and Gaia Vince:Dr Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development. Rémy Rioux, chief executive of the French Development Agency. S.I Ohumu, Lagos reporter Linnea Nordlander, postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for International Law and Governance, University of Copenhagen.Producer : Darin Graham Series Producer: Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon Sound Engineer: Tom Brignell

Another chance to listen to an episode that asks whether we can change our ways. Drastic change is needed to limit the increase in global temperature caused by climate change. More than two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide result from how we live our lives. But the behaviours that drive these emissions tend to be deeply habitual and hard to shift - the way we heat our homes, what we eat and how we travel to work. And our behavioural good intentions all too often fail to translate into action. So our climate question this week is how we can be nudged, or even shoved, to change?First broadcast on 1st March 2021Guests: Elisabeth Costa, senior director, Behavioural Insights Team Erik Thulin, behavioural science lead at the Centre for Behaviour and the Environment at Rare Professor Martine Visser, behavioural economist at the University of Cape Town Mo Allie, BBC reporter in Cape TownPresented by Graihagh Jackson and Neal Razzell Produced by Alex Lewis Researched by Zoe Gelber Edited by Emma Rippon

A diplomatic deadline looms as new science urges faster action. Can nations respond? So far, the answer has been ‘no.’ Three decades of international talks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has left them higher than ever and set to rise further. We provide a brief history of climate talks, with an eye on what can be learned ahead of the next round, called COP26, in Glasgow.Contributors: Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, University College London and author of How to Save Our Planet. Navin Singh Khadka, Environment Correspondent, BBC World Service Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation Ambassador Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, lead climate negotiator for the Democratic Republic of Congo Presenters: Graihagh Jackson and Neal Razzell Producer: Josephine Casserly Series producer: Ros Jones Editor: Emma Rippon

Hydrogen gas has long been recognised as a potentially valuable tool for tackling climate change. The most abundant element in the universe, it is also a clean-burning gas and – in theory – could be used to power almost anything, from our cars and homes, to planes and ships, to agriculture and heavy industry. We already produce millions of tons of hydrogen each year for use in the chemicals industry, by extracting it from natural gas - a process which emits CO2. But hydrogen can also be made by splitting water molecules with electricity – and when that electricity is powered by renewables it comes without a carbon price tag. It is this so-called ‘green hydrogen’ that is currently generating hype around the world as the ‘fuel of the future’ and the missing piece of the decarbonisation puzzle. Across the world, governments are announcing far-reaching hydrogen strategies. Fossil fuel companies, too, are investing big, hoping to cash in on the ‘hydrogen boom’. But for all the talk of green hydrogen as a miracle fuel, it has a long list of drawbacks too. It is expensive, difficult to store, inefficient and explosive. Previous hype cycles around hydrogen have ended in failure for a combination of these reasons. So while experts agree that hydrogen does have a role to play in decarbonisation, the question is – how big should it be? And are we about to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a white elephant? Contributors: Mike Strizski, founder of the Hydrogen House Project Michael Leibreich, founder of Bloomberg NEF Sonja van Renssen, Managing Editor of Energy Monitor Nawal Al-Hosany, Permanent Representative of the UAE to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)Presenters: Graihagh Jackson and Marnie Chesterton Producer: Zoe Gelber Editor: Ros Jones

Climate change is going to shape young people’s lives, and yet many students feel their schools are not equipping them with the knowledge and skills to face this future. Teachers aren’t always confident broaching climate change in the classroom. And governments have been slow to get comprehensive and compulsory climate change education onto national curriculums. But how do you teach young children about something so big and scary? And how should adults deal with the hopelessness that some young people feel when faced with a crisis they feel powerless to change? This week, we’re going to Ghana, the US, China, the UK and Europe to find answers. Contributors: Christina Kwauk, Kwauk & Associates, Brookings Institution Lily Henderson, Teach the Future Koen Timmers, Climate Action Project Dr Emmanuel Tachie-Obeng, Ghana Environmental Protection Agency Presenters: Neal Razzell and Katie Prescott Reporter: Thomas Naadi Producer: Josephine Casserly Series producer: Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon Sound engineer: Tom Brignell

It's estimated that 9 out of 10 items sold in our shops are shipped halfway around the world on ships. The resulting emissions amount to around 3% of the global total, more than many countries, but we rarely hear about the role shipping plays in the climate crisis. Partly this is because most of shipping's pollution occurs far out at sea, out of the sights and minds of many consumers - and largely out of the reach of regulation. Like aviation, ships travel across borders, so their emissions are not attributable to any one country. There's no simple fix to shipping's climate problem. Currently most ships use one of the dirtiest forms of fossil fuels, known as 'bunker fuel' - because it's plentiful and cheap. And they use a lot of it - 300 million tonnes per year. But there are alternatives out there. Hydrogen, sustainable bio-fuels - even wind power - are all possible, so why aren't they already being used? What will it take to turn the shipping industry around?Contributors: Alan McKinnon, Professor of Logistics at Kuehne Logistics University, Hamburg Camille Bourgeon, International Maritime Organisation Diane Gilpin, CEO of Smart Green Shipping Faig Abbasov, Shipping Programme Director at Transport and EnvironmentPresenters: Neal Razzell and Graihagh Jackson Reporter: Lotte von Gaalen Producer: Zoe Gelber Series producer: Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon

The heatwave that hit parts of the west coast of North America shattered records by several degrees. It affected parts of the United States and Canada that were unused to extreme heat. Hundreds of people died and emergency teams were pushed to their limits. In Lytton, Canada, temperatures reached 49.6 degrees celsius. Days later, the entire village burnt down.Scientists say that climate change had made this heatwave 150 times more likely. They also warn that, if global warming continues, about one-third of the world’s population will become threatened by extreme heat.So does our attitude to extreme heat need to change? Joining presenters Neal Razzell and Manuela Saragosa:Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Dr Lipika Nanda, vice president, multisectoral planning in public health, Public Health Foundation of India Dr Christienne Alexander, president of the Florida Academy of Family Physicians Daniel Stevens, director, Vancouver Emergency Management Agency Dallas Gonsalves, centre manager for Gathering Place Community Centre Martin Paulson, operations chief of the Vancouver Fire Department. Producer: Darin Graham Series producer: Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon Sound engineer: Tom Brignell

You don’t often hear climate change and football mentioned in the same sentence, but rising temperatures are set to disrupt every area of our lives, the ‘beautiful game’ included. Heat and other extreme weather have already been affecting training and matches, which experts say we can expect a lot more of in coming years. But not only is the sport at risk from the climate crisis, it’s also a significant contributor to it. The operation of multi-thousand capacity stadiums, spectator travel and merchandise, not to mention the fossil fuel sponsorship that props up professional tournaments, mean that football is currently part of the climate problem. Yet football also has an audience of billions – all potentially affected by climate change – who could be part of the solution. Featuring footballers and fans, we ask if football can tackle its carbon problem and be a force for good in the fight against climate change. Guests Morten Thorsby, Norwegian midfielder Sofie Junge Pedersen, Danish midfielder David Goldblatt, football historian and writer Manuel Gaber, founder of Unser Fussball campaign Federico Addiechi, Head of Sustainability and Environment at FIFAReporter Uli Knapp Presenters: Neal Razzell and Graihagh Jackson Producer: Zoe Gelber Series producer: Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon

Freshwater sources around the world are becoming more irregular, and disputes between countries are common, with fears that access to water could eventually lead to conflict. There’s a high-profile case going on right now in northeast Africa, where talks about a huge new dam on the Blue Nile in Ethiopia have stalled. Ethiopia says it needs the hydroelectric dam to help solve some of its power supply problems. However, the Blue Nile is the largest source for the river Nile, which runs through Egypt, and there are concerns there that the dam will have huge consequences for people living further downstream. According to the United Nations, around two-thirds of rivers shared by two countries or more lack formal agreements on how to manage the water. So how can we help countries reach agreements over equal access to water, and ensure they stick to them in the future? Graihagh Jackson and Neal Razzell are joined by:Samuel Marunga, editor, BBC Monitoring Lenka Thamae, executive secretary of the Orange-Senqu River Commission Ashok Swain, professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University Susanne Schmeier, associate professor of water law and diplomacy at IHE Delft Producer: Darin Graham Series producers: Richard Fenton-Smith and Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon Sound engineer: Tom Brignell

Australia is one of the world's biggest per-capita greenhouse gas emitters, and a Climate Question listener wants to know why the world isn't demanding her country do more.Jodie lives in tropical Queensland, which she says is 'paradise', but it's also a place affected by bushfires, drought, and cyclones. Prime Minister Scott Morrison says 'Australia can always be relied upon' to deliver action on climate change, but critics at home and abroad point to a record of over-promising and under-delivering.Observers also blame the country's powerful and profitable fossil fuel industries as a reason why the Australian government has been slow to make progress. But is it time, as listener Jodie asks, to give her country a 'a kick up the bum'? Contributors: Dr Niklas Hohne, The New Climate Institute, Cologne Greg Bourne, The Climate Council Australia Presenters - Neal Razzell and Graihagh Jackson Reporter - Issy Phillips, FBi Radio, Sydney Producer – Jordan Dunbar Editor – Emma Rippon

The Brazilian legislature is currently considering a bill that would legalise the private occupation of some public land in the Amazon region - a move that would most likely lead to further deforestation. But could renewed international pressure from foreign governments and corporations demanding protection of the Amazon convince the Brazilian government to rethink its policies, or will they simply go ignored, as it favours short-term economic gain over long-term environmental protection? Presenters Graihagh Jackson and Neal Razzell are joined by: Diane Jeantet, freelance reporter Manuela Andreoni, rainforest investigations fellow at the Pulitzer Centre Marcello Britto, president of the Brazilian Agribusiness Association Oliver Stuenkel, professor of international relations at FGV in São Paulo Virgilio Viana, fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development Producer: Darin Graham Researcher: Zoe Gelber Series producers: Rosamund Jones and Richard Fenton Smith Editor: Emma Rippon Sound engineer: Tom Brignell

It’s likely that there will be no successful green transition without an element of carbon capture, storage and re-use. The oil industry has been burying CO2 underground since the 1970s, so the infrastructure and technology is already available, but removing CO2 from the air at scale is new, and the companies doing it are small. We head to an experimental ‘direct air capture’ plant in Canada to hear how they are making fuel out of air, and explore what changes will be required to ensure that their industry becomes a significant one in the years to come. But if we think that a technology fix is out there, might we limit other efforts? Presenters: Neal Razzell and Manuela Saragosa Contributors: Steve Oldham, CEO, Carbon Engineering Dr Jennifer Wilcox, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management at the US Department of Energy Prof Stuart Haszeldine, professor of carbon storage and capture at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland Dr Simon Evans, policy editor, Carbon Brief Producer: Jordan Dunbar Series producer: Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon

Cities emit around three-quarters of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the United Nations, and over half of the world’s population now live in one. Many have set ambitious targets to slash and offset their emissions, in the hope of neutralising their impact on the environment and slowing climate change. Some are aiming to do this very soon. Copenhagen’s goal is 2025. More than 700 others have committed to targets over the following decades. But how does a city, choked with traffic and packed full of buildings that require huge amounts of energy, actually go about achieving carbon neutral goals? Joining presenters Graihagh Jackson and Neal Razzell: Nick Garnett, BBC reporter Dr Seppo Junnila, professor of real estate business at Aalto University, Finland Yvonne Aki-Sawyerr, mayor of Freetown, Sierra Leone Mark Watts, executive director, C40 Cities Producer: Darin Graham Series producer: Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon Sound engineer: Tom Brignell

Scientists agree that cutting carbon emissions as soon as possible is key to tackling global warming. But as emissions continue to rise, some are now calling for more research into measures that could be used alongside decarbonisation, including – controversially – what’s known as ‘solar geoengineering’ technologies. One idea being considered is spraying light-reflecting particles into the atmosphere to temporarily cool down the earth. It may sound far-fetched, but the idea is based on naturally observed effects following volcanic eruptions. Scientists are now asking whether we could mimic those effects to avoid the worst climate impacts. But research into this technology is not without opposition. A recent solar geoengineering experiment in Sweden got cancelled following a fierce backlash from indigenous and environmental groups. Many say tampering with the climate in this way is too risky to ever try in the real world. So how does solar geoengineering work? What are the risks? And will we ever have to use it? Contributors: Elizabeth Kolbert, staff writer at the New Yorker and author of Under a White Sky Asa Larrson-Blind, Vice-President of the Saami Council Raymond Pierrehumbert, Halley Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics and Public Policy at Harvard UniversityPresenters: Neal Razzell and Graihagh Jackson Producers: Zoe Gelber and Jordan Dunbar Series producer: Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon

More than two thirds of our planet is covered by the oceans, but there’s still much to be uncovered about the role that these watery worlds play in climate change. But recent scientific research claims that bottom trawling, a method of fishing that involves dragging heavy nets across the seafloor, emits about the same amount of carbon annually as aviation. Seabed sediments, which act as huge carbon sinks, are churned up, resulting in carbon dioxide emissions. So should trawling – commonplace around the globe because of its effectiveness – be reduced? And has the climate change impact of bottom trawling been exaggerated? Presenters Neal Razzell and Graihagh Jackson are joined by: Dr Enric Sala, explorer in residence, National Geographic Barrie Deas, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations Minna Epps, director, Global Marine and Polar Programme Domitilla Senni, senior campaigner, MedReAct Producer: Darin Graham Series producer: Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon

South Korea’s economic development has been the envy of many nations: from war, famine and poverty to one of the richest countries on Earth, all within just a couple of generations. In 1955, gross domestic product was just $64 per capita. Last year, it was $31,000. But this growth was turbocharged by fossil fuels, and has come at a high environmental price. Seventy percent of the power generated in the country comes from fossil fuels and, compared to many rich nations, its commitment to renewables is small. Is South Korea a hero of economic growth or a climate villain? And should developing nations still look to the country as a model to follow? Joining Neal Razzell and Graihagh Jackson: Jeffrey Sachs, former UN adviser, and professor at Columbia University Zeeshan Abedin, economist at the International Growth Centre Julie Yoon, World Service Language Reporter, Seoul Producer: Jordan Dunbar Series producer: Rosamund Jones Editor: Emma Rippon

Indigenous people represent only about six percent of the world’s population, but they inhabit around a quarter of the world’s land surface. And they share these regions with a hugely disproportionate array of plant and animal life. According to the UN and the World Bank, about 80 percent of our planet’s biodiversity is on land where indigenous people live. Global climate policy has however been slow to recognise that indigenous knowledge - built up over centuries - is worth listening to. This is despite the fact that sometimes in very remote areas, where scientific and meteorological data is lacking, this knowledge may be all there is. Indigenous knowledge can provide valuable insight into what adaptations have worked in the past, and so provide an important guide to the future. What are the barriers to bringing indigenous knowledge out from the margins of climate research and policy, and can they be overcome? Guests: Nancy Kacungira, journalist, BBC Africa Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, environmental activist and member of Chad’s pastoralist Mbororo people and Earthshot Prize Council Nigel Crawhall, chief of section, local and indigenous knowledge systems, UNESCO Aida Sanchez, assistant professor at Norwegian University of Life SciencesPresenters: Neal Razzell and Graihagh Jackson Producer: Darin Graham Researcher: Zoe Gelber Editor: Emma Rippon

From fruit rotting in fields, to retailers turning down funny shaped vegetables, and consumers scraping leftovers into the bin, food waste is everywhere. It’s estimated that around a third of all our food ends up not being eaten. If we could sort this, total greenhouse gas emissions would reduce by around eight percent. To put that in context, the only countries that are responsible for emissions of that size are China and the US. So, what can be done? Graihagh Jackson and Jordan Dunbar discuss fixes - big and small - and hear from a farmer in Morocco turning apples that would otherwise rot into vinegar. The first thing that needs to happen for change to start is for governments to properly count the climate cost of food waste. And that, it seems, is a long way off. Guests: Dr Tammara Soma - Research director of the Food Systems Lab at Simon Fraser University Dr Liz Goodwin - Senior fellow and director in food loss and waste at the World Resources Institute Mahacine Mokdad – journalist Presenters: Jordan Dunbar & Graihagh Jackson Producer: Olivia Noon Editor: Emma Rippon

More companies are rolling out carbon dioxide emission labels on products to help us make greener choices. Unilever, the global consumer goods giant, recently announced it is committing to put carbon footprint information on 70,000 products, while multi-national companies Oatly and Quorn have already started adding labels like this to their packaging. But this is not the first time companies have tried this. In the 2000s, for example, an international supermarket put carbon labels on hundreds of products, but cancelled the project after a few years. Why are carbon labels coming back now, and what does this information really tell us? How do you measure the carbon footprint of a product? And will this drive behaviour change and help the environment? Presenters: Neal Razzell and Graihagh Jackson Producer: Darin Graham Researchers: Zoe Gelber and Olivia Noon

President Biden has invited the world’s major polluters to a summit on Earth Day (April 22nd). It may be the biggest climate summit ever organised by an American leader. On the campaign trail last year, Mr Biden said climate change was his “number one issue.” Now, the pressure is on for him to make a big announcement.But while the US has rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement, it has no official plan to hit the Paris targets. Frantic work is underway in the US to come up with something that satisfies the President’s lofty campaign rhetoric but can actually get through America’s polarised, gridlocked political system.Ahead of the summit, The Climate Question is reaching out to climate diplomats and experts from China, Bangladesh, the EU and beyond, to hear what the world expects from the US on climate change.Presenters: Neal Razzell & Graihagh Jackson Producer: Jordan Dunbar

Cities, money, roads, beef burgers and telephones, in fact pretty much all of human civilisation as we know it, would probably not exist were it not for one simple invention. The plough. This humble yet revolutionary tool enabled us to cultivate vastly greater amounts of food than our hunter gatherer forefathers giving rise to villages, cities and empires. But it has come at a cost. Nearly 10,000 years of cultivated agriculture have released billions of tonnes of carbon from the soil into the atmosphere. Just within the EU, it’s estimated 5% of current greenhouse gas emissions come from agricultural soils. That’s more than aviation and shipping combined. Around the world an increasing number of farmers are adopting new methods without the plough to restore soil health and lock more carbon into the ground. But some scientists are questioning whether the potential for carbon sequestration into the soil is being over hyped. What’s more, for millennia the plough has been a crucial ally in boosting yields and in the coming decades we are going have to produce lots more food to feed the growing global population So the Climate Question is; Is it time for us to ditch the plough?

For centuries, we’ve been reading, watching and listening to science fiction. And all too often, it’s pretty pessimistic about our future, especially when it touches on the topic of climate change. This is leading some to ask whether these doom and gloom stories are doing the climate fight more harm than good - causing us to feel so anxious and powerless that we don’t take action. So for this week's climate question, we’re asking: Is sci-fi holding us back? Graihagh Jackson is joined by:Amy Brady, editor-in-chief of the Chicago Review of Books, where she writes a monthly column called Burning Worlds. In it she explores how fiction addresses climate change. Cheryl Slean is a playwright, filmmaker and educator working with the National Resource Defense Council’s Re-write the Future campaign to increase accurate climate stories in film and television. Ken Liu is a futurist and author of speculative fiction. He has won the Nebula, Hugo, and World Fantasy awards. His debut novel, The Grace of Kings, is the first volume in a silkpunk epic fantasy series.

Bangladesh is a country that is exceptionally vulnerable to climate change. With a low elevation and high population density, as well as poor infrastructure and an economic reliance on farming, it is naturally susceptible to extreme weather. The intensification of conditions due to climate change means more people are being driven from their homes and land by sea level rises, storms, cyclones, drought, erosion, landslides, flooding and salinisation of the land. It's estimated that by 2050, one in every seven people in Bangladesh will become a climate migrant. But Bangladesh is far from being alone. Across South Asia, it’s estimated that more than 40m people will be displaced; worldwide, the figure runs into the hundreds of millions. Climate migration is coming. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Guests: Akbar Hossain - reporter, BBC Bengali Service Qasa Alom - presenter, BBC Asian Network Dr Tasneem Siddiqui - founding chair of Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit in Bangladesh Dr Kanta Kumari Rigaud - lead environmental specialist at the World Bank Presented by Graihagh Jackson and Neal Razzell Produced by Alex Lewis Researched by Zoe Gelber Edited by Emma Rippon

A Peruvian farmer is suing a German fossil fuel company, the city of Baltimore has filed a lawsuit against 26 oil and gas firms, and a Polish coal mining company was taken to court by its own shareholders. Activists, investors and everyday people are increasingly pursuing climate litigation as a means to exert pressure on companies and shift our societies onto a more sustainable trajectory. But success is far from assured. Our climate question this week is: Can companies be held accountable for climate change?Guests: Saúl Luciano Lliuya - Peruvian farmer Florence Goupil - freelance journalist Rupert Stuart Smith - DPhil candidate at the University of Oxford researching climate change litigation and attributing climate change damages to individual emitters Sophie Marjanac - climate accountability lead at Client EarthPresented by Graihagh Jackson and Neal Razzell Produced by Zak Brophy Researched by Dearbhail Starr and Olivia Noon Mixed by Tom Brignell Edited by Emma Rippon

As the world becomes more populous, experts say we’re likely to use 25 percent more concrete in the next decade. But concrete is also responsible for eight percent of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions. There are concerns that the industry isn’t taking its carbon footprint seriously enough. So our climate question this week is: Must our future be cast in concrete? Guests: Arpad Horvath, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkley Professor Karen Scrivener, head of Laboratory of Construction Materials at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland Anupama Kundoo, professor of architecture at the Potsdam School of Architecture, Berlin, and working architect Sophia Yan, China correspondent for The Telegraph Presented by Graihagh Jackson and Neal Razzell Produced by Alex Lewis Researched by Zoe Gelber Edited by Emma Rippon

The rise of renewables is good news for the climate, but for millions of families who rely on fossil fuels for a paycheque, it means big changes.People have been talking about a “just transition” for decades. The term was first used in the 1990s, when US unions were demanding help for those who'd lost their jobs because of tightening environmental laws. Now it means looking at how we decarbonise our economies around the world, without leaving certain people behind. Neal and Graihagh hear from Craig, Colorado, as it plans for the shut down of its coal mines. They also hear from the Middle East and North Africa, where countries have relied on oil and gas for their economies. The money from fossil fuels has kept an instable region together in the past, so what happens when that money runs out? Reporter: Sam Brasch, Colorado State Radio Experts: Laury Haytayan, Middle East and North Africa director at the Natural Resource Governance Institute; Professor Paul Stevens, Distinguished Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme at Chatham House. Producer: Jordan Dunbar Researchers: Olivia Noon and Dearbhail Starr Editor: Emma Rippon

Drastic change is needed to limit the increase in the global temperature caused by climate change. More than two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions come from how we live our lives. But the behaviours that drive these emissions tend to be deeply habitual and hard to shift - the way we heat our homes, what we eat and how we travel to work. And our behavioural good intentions all too often fail to translate into action. So our climate question this week is how we can be nudged, or even shoved, to change?Guests: Elisabeth Costa, senior director, Behavioural Insights Team Erik Thulin, behavioural science lead at the Centre for Behaviour and the Environment at Rare Professor Martine Visser, behavioural economist at the University of Cape Town Mo Allie, BBC reporter in Cape TownPresented by Graihagh Jackson and Neal Razzell Produced by Alex Lewis Researched by Zoe Gelber Edited by Emma RipponAnd if you’ve got a climate question, then email the team: [email protected]