Podcasts about Global South

Margaret Kimberly, editor and senior columnist at Black Agenda Report and author of "prejudential: Black America and the Presidents," joins us to discuss this week's stories. Margaret has penned an interesting article in which she critiques the cop26 meeting. Also, we discuss Nicaragua and US censorship.Dr. Iyabo Obasanjo, professor, epidemiologist, veterinarian, and the daughter of former Nigerian President Mr. Olusegun Obasanjo, joins us to discuss the US empire in Africa. The US continues to destabilize Africa as the State department makes outrageous demands of the Ethiopian government. Dr. Jack Rasmus, Prof. in Economics and Politics at St. Mary's College in California joins us to discuss the economy. Dr. Jack gives us a week's end update of inflation, the jobs report and Biden's reappointment of the Federal Reserves.Scott Ritter, former UN weapon inspector in Iraq and Mark Sleboda, Moscow-based international relations security analyst, join us to discuss foreign policy. NATO is creating a dangerous situation on the Russian border. Scott and Mark come together to give us perspectives from both sides of the border. Also, Experts are calling for US leaders to step in and stop the push for an extinction-level war over the failed state of Ukraine. Ajamu Baraka, former VP Candidate, Green Party and Netfa Freeman, host of Voices With Vision on WPFW 89.3 FM, Pan-Africanist and internationalist organizer, join us to discuss Africa and the Global South. The US Secretary of State is on a destabilizing trip through Africa, ALso, we discuss Haiti, the Venezuelan elections, and Nicaragua leaving the Organization of American States.

Listen to CODEPINK Congress (11/16/21) with Bernadette Demientieff, Executive Director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee in Alaska, sharing the indigenous nation's victories in convincing banks not to loan money for oil drilling on ancestral lands-also Boston University Professor Neta Crawford on the importance of avoiding the term "national security threat" when talking about the climate crisis because such terminology validates further US military aggression, and CODEPINK Co-founder Jodie Evans, who traveled with CODEPINK peacebuilders Nancy Mancias and Suzie Gilbert to Glasgow to march in the streets with an estimated hundred thousand, if not more, activists demanding climate justice (reparations for the Global South) and inclusion of militarism reporting and accountability in UN climate agreements.

In The Work of Rape (Duke UP, 2021), Rana M. Jaleel argues that the redefinition of sexual violence within international law as a war crime, crime against humanity, and genocide owes a disturbing and unacknowledged debt to power and knowledge achieved from racial, imperial, and settler colonial domination. Prioritizing critiques of racial capitalism from women of color, Indigenous, queer, trans, and Global South perspectives, Jaleel reorients how violence is socially defined and distributed through legal definitions of rape. From Cold War conflicts in Latin America, the 1990s ethnic wars in Rwanda and Yugoslavia, and the War on Terror to ongoing debates about sexual assault on college campuses, Jaleel considers how legal and social iterations of rape and the terms that define it—consent, force, coercion—are unstable indexes and abstractions of social difference that mediate racial and colonial positionalities. Jaleel traces how post-Cold War orders of global security and governance simultaneously transform the meaning of sexualized violence, extend US empire, and disavow legacies of enslavement, Indigenous dispossession, and racialized violence within the United States. Work of Rape is the recipient of Duke University Press Scholars of Color First Book Award. Rana M. Jaleel is Associate Professor in the Department of Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies at the University of California, Davis, where she is also the Faculty Advisor for the Sexuality Studies Minor. Sohini Chatterjee is a PhD Student in Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies at Western University, Canada. Her work has recently appeared in South Asian Popular Culture and Fat Studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In The Work of Rape (Duke UP, 2021), Rana M. Jaleel argues that the redefinition of sexual violence within international law as a war crime, crime against humanity, and genocide owes a disturbing and unacknowledged debt to power and knowledge achieved from racial, imperial, and settler colonial domination. Prioritizing critiques of racial capitalism from women of color, Indigenous, queer, trans, and Global South perspectives, Jaleel reorients how violence is socially defined and distributed through legal definitions of rape. From Cold War conflicts in Latin America, the 1990s ethnic wars in Rwanda and Yugoslavia, and the War on Terror to ongoing debates about sexual assault on college campuses, Jaleel considers how legal and social iterations of rape and the terms that define it—consent, force, coercion—are unstable indexes and abstractions of social difference that mediate racial and colonial positionalities. Jaleel traces how post-Cold War orders of global security and governance simultaneously transform the meaning of sexualized violence, extend US empire, and disavow legacies of enslavement, Indigenous dispossession, and racialized violence within the United States. Work of Rape is the recipient of Duke University Press Scholars of Color First Book Award. Rana M. Jaleel is Associate Professor in the Department of Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies at the University of California, Davis, where she is also the Faculty Advisor for the Sexuality Studies Minor. Sohini Chatterjee is a PhD Student in Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies at Western University, Canada. Her work has recently appeared in South Asian Popular Culture and Fat Studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

In The Work of Rape (Duke UP, 2021), Rana M. Jaleel argues that the redefinition of sexual violence within international law as a war crime, crime against humanity, and genocide owes a disturbing and unacknowledged debt to power and knowledge achieved from racial, imperial, and settler colonial domination. Prioritizing critiques of racial capitalism from women of color, Indigenous, queer, trans, and Global South perspectives, Jaleel reorients how violence is socially defined and distributed through legal definitions of rape. From Cold War conflicts in Latin America, the 1990s ethnic wars in Rwanda and Yugoslavia, and the War on Terror to ongoing debates about sexual assault on college campuses, Jaleel considers how legal and social iterations of rape and the terms that define it—consent, force, coercion—are unstable indexes and abstractions of social difference that mediate racial and colonial positionalities. Jaleel traces how post-Cold War orders of global security and governance simultaneously transform the meaning of sexualized violence, extend US empire, and disavow legacies of enslavement, Indigenous dispossession, and racialized violence within the United States. Work of Rape is the recipient of Duke University Press Scholars of Color First Book Award. Rana M. Jaleel is Associate Professor in the Department of Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies at the University of California, Davis, where she is also the Faculty Advisor for the Sexuality Studies Minor. Sohini Chatterjee is a PhD Student in Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies at Western University, Canada. Her work has recently appeared in South Asian Popular Culture and Fat Studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Alexander Mercouris, editor in chief at theduran.com and host of "The Duran" on YouTube, joins us to discuss the EU. The White House is working to set up a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin as the crisis in their client state, Ukraine, deepens. Also, the US is facing a disastrous winter as their policy of buying energy on the spot market has imploded. We dissect their reasoning for blaming Russia.Dr. Linwood Tauheed, associate professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, joins us to discuss economics. President Biden is slammed by many economic observers for re-nominating Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Also, Supply chain issues are worsening as the holidays approach and the cost of shipping containers skyrockets. K.J. Noh, peace activist, writer, and teacher, joins us to discuss China. President Biden's pledges that he would respect China's red lines regarding Taiwan are betrayed by the US holding "economic prosperity" talks with the Island's leadership. China considers this move to be another example of its assertion that the US is "playing with fire" regarding the red lines that it has set forth.Nick Davies, peace activist and author of "Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion of Iraq," joins us to discuss the NATO-driven crisis on the Ukrainian border. Medea Benjamin and Nicholas Davies have penned an article in which they outline the dangerously high stakes game that the US and NATO are playing on the Russian border. Dan Lazare, author, investigative journalist and author of "America's Undeclared War," joins us to discuss the Middle East. The US has allegedly warned Israel about the danger of their "clandestine" attacks on Iran but the Israelis are ignoring their warnings. Is the Israeli government trying to start a disastrous war? Also, Yemen is getting closer to taking the important Marib region and analysts are arguing that it may usher in an end to the conflict.Gerald Horne, professor of history at the University of Houston, author, historian, and researcher, joins us to discuss Africa. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is touring, and many argue destabilizing, Africa. Blinken is warning African nations not to invest in China even though the Asian giant is America's largest creditor.Leo Flores, Latin America coordinator for Code Pink, joins us to discuss the Global South. We examine the recent elections in Venezuela and why president Maduro's party has again won a decisive victory. Also, Nicaragua, weary of US regime change efforts, has decided to exit the OAS.Niko House, political activist, independent journalist and podcaster, joins us to discuss the New York Times push for neoliberalism. A recent New York Times article pushes for the Democrat party to continue with the same neoliberal policies that are currently collapsing their support among working-class voters.

Mark Sleboda, Moscow-based international relations security analyst, joins us to discuss Eastern Europe. Tensions are mounting as NATO forces increase their provocations on the Russian border. Also, the Pentagon is asking Russia to explain the movements of troops on Russian soil, and fearful experts are calling for dialogue to avoid an accidental war with Russia.Wyatt Reed, Sputnik News analyst, joins us to discuss Venezuela. Opposition parties participated in the latest round of elections in Venezuela as President Maduro's popular ruling party appears headed for another sweeping victory. Also, Nicaragua is leaving the OAS due to countless instances of election interference and US-sponsored regime change attacks in the Global South.Dr. Linwood Tauheed, associate professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, joins us to discuss unemployment. Bruce Bossardy has written an interesting article in which he argues that the metrics used to calculate employment statistics in the United States are flawed and intentionally misleading. He also posits that the issue of job quality is ignored, even though it is critical to understand the problems experienced by the working class.Max Rameau, Haitian-born political theorist, author and organizer with Pan-African Community Action, joins us to discuss Haiti. We discuss the resignation of the US envoy to Haiti, Daniel Foote. On its face, Foote's resignation and subsequent statements about US interference appear to be positive acts that move the impoverished nation closer to independence. However, our guest's deeper dive reveals a more sinister version of this seemingly positive event. Dr. Linwood Tauheed, associate professor of economics at the University of Missouri- Kansas City, joins us to discuss the Middle East. In his latest round of boisterous and aggressive speeches, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin continued with the debunked claim that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and that the US will stop them at all costs. Indicating that military action is possible, Austin stated that “if Iran isn't willing to engage seriously, then we will look at all of the options necessary to keep the United States secure.”Marjorie Cohn, Professor Emerita of Law at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, joins us to discuss the Ahmaud Arbery case. She has a new article in which she discusses the Arbery murder case in detail. Marjorie argues that the defendants are using arguments that hearken back to the legacy of slave patrols in pre-Civil War America.Jim Kavanagh, writer at thepolemicist.net and CounterPunch and author of "Danger in Society: Against Vaccine Passports,” joins us to discuss Julian Assange. The Grayzone has exposed new files that demonstrate the Australian government's knowledge and complicity in the persecution of Julian Assange. The files show that Canberra was aware of the CIA plot to kidnap and kill Assange. Caleb Maupin, journalist and political analyst, joins us to discuss censorship. Rainer Shea has written a brilliant article in which he argues that the US's supposed war against "foreign meddling and misinformation" is really a thinly veiled attempt to quell the inevitable uprisings by the ever-growing groups of marginalized people inside of its borders.

On this week's episode, hosts Peter Ravella and Tyler Buckingham reflect on the coverage of COP26 with Nadiah Rosli, a freelance journalist and conservation communicator based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Nadia was one of 22 journalists from the Global South exclusively selected to cover COP26, the United Nations climate change conference Glasgow, Scotland. Nadiah had direct access to the Malaysian delegation as well as press access to the entire event. Nadiah gives us a COP26 "vibe check" and talks about her impressions of the global response to climate change. Spoiler alert: tears were shed. We also talk about Nadiah's reporting in Malaysia and the importance of environmental reporting in developing parts of the world. Get the inside scoop from COP26, right here, on the American Shoreline Podcast, the flagship of ASPN!

Today on Sojourner Truth, a one-hour in-depth conversation with Dr. Gerald Horne. We speak with him about the latest on the murder of Malcolm X, the trials going on now in the United States that reflect the state of race relations, including Charlottesville, Kyle Rittenhouse, and Ahmaud Arbery. Also, reparatory justice. What does the Global North owe to the Global South? Lastly, U.S.-China relations, and much more.

Today on Sojourner Truth, a one-hour in-depth conversation with Dr. Gerald Horne. We speak with him about the latest on the murder of Malcolm X, the trials going on now in the United States that reflect the state of race relations, including Charlottesville, Kyle Rittenhouse, and Ahmaud Arbery. Also, reparatory justice. What does the Global North owe to the Global South? Lastly, U.S.-China relations, and much more.

When we think about debt, we often think of money owed by countries in the Global South to institutions like the World Bank and IMF. But there is another kind of debt – the climate debt owed by the most polluting nations in the global north to those who have contributed the least to climate […]

Jason Bordoff, cofounding dean, Columbia Climate School, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy, and professor of professional practice in international and public affairs at Columbia University, leads a conversation on energy policy and efforts to combat climate change.   FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the CFR Fall 2021 Academic Webinar Series. I am Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record. And the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have with us today Jason Bordoff to talk about energy policy and efforts to combat climate change. Jason Bordoff is cofounding dean of the Columbia Climate School, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy, and professor of professional practice in international and public affairs at Columbia University. He previously served as special assistant to President Obama and senior director for energy and climate change on the National Security Council, and he has held senior policy positions on the White House's National Economic Council and Council on Environmental Quality. He is a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine and is often on TV and radio. So, we're really happy to have him with us today. So, Jason, thank you very much. We are just coming off the COP26 conference that took place in Glasgow that started on October 31, I believe, and concluded last Friday, November 12. Could you talk about what came out of the conference at a high level, if you think that the agreements that were reached went far enough or didn't go far enough, and what your policy recommendations are to really advance and fight the countdown that we have to the Earth warming? BORDOFF: Yeah. Thanks. Well, first, thanks to you, Irina, and thanks to CFR for the invitation to be with you all today. Really delighted to have the chance to talk about these important issues. I was there for much of the two-week period in Glasgow representing the Energy Center and the Climate School here at Columbia. I think it's kind of a glass half-full/glass half-empty outlook coming out of Glasgow. So I think the Glasgow conference was notable in several respects. We'll look back on it, I think, and some of the things we will remember are—some of the things we'll remember—(dog barking)—sorry—are the role of the private sector and private finance, I think, was much more prominent in Glasgow this year. I think there were commitments around some important things like methane, a very potent greenhouse gas, was much higher on the priority list in this U.N. climate meeting than in prior ones. You had pledges on deforestation and other things that are important. And then the final agreement did have some important elements to it, particularly around Article 6, how you design carbon markets around the world. But the glass half-empty outlook is still we are nowhere close to being on track for the kind of targets that countries and companies are committing to: net zero by 2050 or 1.5 degrees of warming. I think there were—there should be hope and optimism coming out of COP. The role of the youth—at Columbia, we were honored to organize a private roundtable for President Obama with youth climate activists. It's hard to spend time with young people in COP or on campus here at Columbia or anywhere else and not be inspired by how passionately they take these issues. So the activism you saw in the streets, the sense of urgency among everyone—activists, civil society, governments, the private sector—felt different, I think, at this COP than other COPs that I have attended or probably the ones I haven't attended. But there was also for some I saw kind of we're coming out of this and we're on track for below two degrees. Or, you know, Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency, tweeted that when you add up all the pledges we're on track for 1.8 degrees Celsius warming. He's talking about all of the pledges meaning every country who's promised to be net zero by 2050, 2060, 2070, and at least from my standpoint there's a good reason to take those with a grain of salt. They're not often backed up by concrete plans or ideas about how you would get anywhere close to achieving those goals. So it's good that we have elevated ambition, which is kind of one of the core outcomes of the COP in Glasgow. But it is also the case that when you elevate ambition and the reality doesn't change as fast or maybe faster than the ambition is changing, what you have is a growing gap between ambition and reality. And I think that's where we are today. Oil use is rising each and every year. Gas use is rising. Coal use is going up this year. I don't know if it's going to keep going up, but at a minimum it's going to plateau. It's not falling off a cliff. So the reality of the energy world today—which is 75 percent of emissions are energy—is not anything close to net zero by 2050. It is the case that progress is possible. So if you go back to before the Paris agreement, we were on track for something like maybe 3.7 degrees Celsius of warming. If you look at a current outlook, it's maybe 2.7, 2.8 (degrees), so just below three degrees. So progress is possible. That's good. If you look at the nationally determined contribution pledges—so the commitments countries made that are more near term, more accountability for them; the commitments they made to reduce emissions by 2030, their NDCs—we would be on track for about 2.4 degrees Celsius warming, assuming all those pledges are fulfilled. But history would suggest a reason to be a little skeptical about that. The U.S. has a pledge to get to a 50 to 52 percent reduction in emissions by 2030, and look at how things are working or not working in Washington and make your own judgment about how likely it is that we'll put in place the set of policies that would be required to get to that ambitious level of decarbonization by 2030. And I think the same healthy dose of skepticism is warranted when you look elsewhere in the world. But even if we achieve all of those, we're still falling short of below two degrees, nevertheless 1.5 (degrees). And so, again, I think the outcome from COP for me was optimism that progress is possible—we have made a lot of progress in the last ten years—but acute concern that we're nowhere close to being on track to take targets like 1.5 degrees Celsius or net zero by 2050 seriously. And we just need to be honest as a climate and energy community—and I live in both of those worlds; there's a lot of overlap between them, obviously—about how hard it is to achieve the goals we are talking about. Renewables have grown incredibly quickly. Optimistic headlines every day about what is happening in solar and wind. Costs have come down more than 90 percent. Battery costs have come down more than 90 percent in the last decade. But solar and wind create electricity, and electricity is 20 percent of global final energy consumption. The outlook for electric vehicles is much more promising today. Lots of companies like Ford and others are committing to be all-electric by a certain date ten or twenty years from now. Cars are 20 percent of global oil demand. About half of the emission reductions—cumulative emission reductions between now and 2050 will need to come from technologies that are not yet available at commercial scale and sectors of the economy that are really hard to decarbonize like steel and cement and ships and airplanes. We're not—we don't have all the tools we need to do those yet. And then, in Glasgow, the focus of a lot of what we did at Columbia was on—we did a lot of different things, but one of the key areas of focus was the challenge of thinking about decarbonization in emerging and developing economies. I don't think we talk about that enough. The issue of historical responsibility of loss and damage was more on the agenda this year, and I think you'll hear even more about it in the year ahead. The next COP is in Africa. There was growing tension between rich and poor countries at this COP. I think a starting point was what we see in the pandemic alone and how inequitable around the world the impacts of the pandemic are. Many people couldn't even travel to Glasgow from the Global South because they couldn't get vaccinated. We need, between now and 2050, estimates are—a ballpark—$100 trillion of additional investment in clean energy if we're going to get on track for 1.5 (degrees)/net zero by 2050. So the question that should obsess all of us who work in this space: Where will that money come from? Most of it's going to be private sector, not public. Most of it is going to be in developing and emerging economies. That is where the growth in energy is going to come from. Eight hundred million people have no access to energy at all. Nevertheless, if you model what energy access means, it's often defined as, you have enough to turn on lights or charge your cellphone. But when you talk about even a fraction of the standard of living we take for granted—driving a car, having a refrigerator, having an air conditioner—the numbers are massive. They're just huge, and the population of Africa's going to double to 2.2 billion by the year 2050. So these are really big numbers and we need to recognize how hard this is. But we should also recognize that it is possible. We have a lot of the tools we need. We need innovation in technology and we need stronger policy, whether that's a carbon price or standards for different sectors. And then, of course, we need private-sector actors to step up as well, and all of us. And we have these great commitments to achieve these goals with a lot of capital being put to work, and now we need to hold people accountable to make sure that they do that. So, again, I look back on the last two weeks or before, two weeks of COP, the gap between ambition and reality got bigger. Not necessarily a bad thing—ambition is a good thing—but now it's time to turn the ambition into action. We need governments to follow through on their pledges. Good news is we have a wide menu of options for reducing emissions. The bad news is there's not a lot of time at our current rate of emissions. And emissions are still going up each and every year. They're not even falling yet. Remember, what matters is the cumulative total, not the annual flow. At our current rate of emissions, the budget—carbon budget for staying below 1.5 (degrees) is used up in, around a decade or so, so there's not much time to get to work. But I'm really excited about what we're building with the first climate school in the country here at Columbia. When it comes to pushing—turning ambition into action, that requires research, it requires education, and it requires engaging with partners in civil society and the public sector and the private sector to help turn that research into action. And the people we're working with here every day on campus are the ones who are going to be the leaders that are going to hopefully do a better job—(laughs)—than we've done over the last few decades. So whatever you're doing at your educational institution—be it teaching or research or learning—we all have a role to play in the implementation of responsible, forward-thinking energy policy. I'm really excited to have the chance to talk with you all today. Look forward to your questions and to the conversation. Thank you again. FASKIANOS: Jason, that's fantastic. Thank you very much for that informative and sobering view. So let's turn to all of you now for your questions. So I'm going to go first to—I have one raised hand from Stephen Kass. Q: OK. Thank you. Jason, thank you for the very useful and concise summary. What specific kinds of energy programs do you think developing countries should now be pursuing? Should they be giving up coal entirely? Should they be importing natural gas? Should they be investing in renewables or nuclear? What recipe would you advise developing countries to pursue for their own energy needs? BORDOFF: It's going to need to be a lot of different things, so there's no single answer to that, of course. And by the way, I'll just say it would be super helpful if people don't mind just introducing yourself when you ask a question. That would be helpful to me, at least. I appreciate it. I think they need to do a lot of different things. I think I would start with low-hanging fruit, and renewable electricity is not the entire answer. The sun and wind are intermittent. Electricity can't do certain things yet, like power ships and airplanes. But the low cost of solar and wind, I think, does mean it's a good place to start, and then we need to think about those other sectors as well. I think a key thing there comes back to finance, and that's why we're spending so much time on it with our research agenda here. Access to financing and cost of capital are really important. Clean energy tends to be more capital-intensive and then, like solar and wind, more CAPEX, less OPEX over time. But attaining financing in poor countries is really difficult and expensive. Lack of experience with renewable energy, local banks are often reluctant to lend to those kinds of projects. And then foreign investors, where most of that capital is going to come from, view projects often in emerging markets and developing economies particularly as more risky. Local utilities may not be creditworthy. There's currency inflation risk in many developing countries, people worry about recouping their upfront investment if bills are paid in local currency. There's political risk, maybe corruption, inconsistently enforced regulations. And it can be harder to build clean energy infrastructure if you don't have other kinds of infrastructure, like ports, and roads, and bridges and a good electrical grid. So I would start there. And I think there's a role for those countries to scale up their clean energy sectors, but also for policymakers and multilateral development banks and governments elsewhere—there was a lot of focus in Glasgow on whether the developed countries would make good on their promise made in Copenhagen to send $100 billion a year in climate finance to developing countries. And they fell short of that. But even that is kind of a rounding error, compared to the one to two trillion (dollars) a year that the International Energy Agency estimates is needed. So there are many other things besides just writing a check that government, like in the U.S. or elsewhere, can do. The Development Finance Corporation, for example, can lend to banks in local and affordable rates, finance projects in local currency, expand the availability of loan guarantees. I've written before about how I think even what often gets called industrial policy, let's think about some sectors—in the same way China did with solar or batteries fifteen years ago. Are there sectors where governments might help to grow domestic industries and, by doing that, scale—bring down the cost of technologies that are expensive now, the premium for low-carbon or zero-carbon cement or steel. It's just—it's not reasonable to ask a developing country to build new cities, and new highways, and all the new construction they're going to do with zero-carbon steel and cement because it's just way too expensive. So how do you bring those costs down? If we think about investments, we can make through U.S. infrastructure or other spending to do that, that not only may help to grow some domestic industries and jobs here, that can be its own form of global leadership if we're driving those costs of those technologies down to make it cheaper for others to pick up. So I think that's one of the places I'd start. But there are a lot of other things we need to do too. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question—and let me just go back. Stephen Kass is an adjunct professor at NYU. So the next question is a written question from Wei Liang, who is an assistant professor of international policy studies at Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. And the question is: I wonder if you could briefly address the Green Climate Fund and individual countries' pledge on that. BORDOFF: Yeah, I mean, it touches a little bit on what I said a moment ago about the need for developed countries to provide climate finance to developing countries. And so I think that's—it's important that we take those obligations seriously, and that we, in advanced economies, step up and make those funds available. And but, again, we're talking—the amount we're still talking about is so small compared to the amounts that are needed to deal both with the impacts of climate change, and then also to curb climate change, to mitigate climate change. Because we know that developing countries are in the parts of the world that will often be most adversely impacted by climate impacts—droughts, and heat waves, and storms, and food security issues—from a standpoint of equity are the parts of the world that have done the least to cause this problem, responsible for very few emissions. If you look cumulatively at emissions since the start of the industrial age, about half—nearly half have come from the U.S. and EU combined. Two percent from the entire continent of Africa. So they are using very little energy today, haven't therefore contributed to the problems, and have the fewest resources, of course, to cope with the impacts, and also to develop in a cleaner way. Sometimes it's cheaper to develop in a cleaner way. Renewables are often today competitive with coal, even without subsidy. But there are many areas where that's not the case, and there is a cost. And we need to help make sure that, you know, we're thinking about what a just transition looks like. And that means many different things for different communities, whether you're a coal worker or an agricultural worker in California that may, you know, be working outside in worse and worse heat. But it also means thinking about the parts of the world that need assistance to make this transition. So I think we need to be taking that much more seriously. FASKIANOS: Next question is a raised hand from Tara Weil, who is an undergraduate student at Pomona College. Q: Hi. So, given that developed nations are the largest contributors to carbon emissions, as you've said, how can larger powers be convinced as to the importance of addressing global inequality with regards to climate change? And thank you so much, also, for giving this talk. BORDOFF: Yeah. Thank you for being here. I don't have a great answer to your question. I mean, the politics of foreign aid in general are not great, as we often hear in events at CFR. So I do think one—we need to continue to encourage, through political advocacy, civil society, and other ways, governments in advanced economies to think about all the tools they have at their disposal. I think the ones that are going to be—I'm reluctant to try to speak as a political commenter rather than a climate and energy commenter on what's going to work politically. But part of that is demonstrating what—it's not just generosity. It is also in one's self-interest to do these things. And just look at the pandemic, right? What would it look like for the U.S. to show greater leadership, or any country to show even greater leadership and help cope with the pandemic all around the world in parts of the world that are struggling to vaccinate their people? That is not only an act of generosity, but it is clearly one of self-interest too, because it's a pretty globalized economy and you're not going to be able to get a pandemic under control at home if it's not under control abroad. Of course, the same is true of the impacts of climate change. It doesn't matter where a ton of CO2 comes from. And we can decarbonize our own economy, but the U.S. is only 15 percent of annual emissions globally. So it's not going to make a huge difference unless everyone else does that as well. There is also the potential, I think, to—and we see this increasingly when you look at the discussion of the Biden infrastructure bill, how they talk about the U.S.-China relationship, which of course are the two most important countries from the standpoint of climate change. It is one of cooperation. That was one of the success stories in Glasgow, was a commitment to cooperate more. We'll see if we can actually do it, because it's a pretty difficult and tense U.S.-China relationship right now. So the question is, can you separate climate from all those other problems on human rights, and intellectual property, and everything else and then cooperate on climate? It's been hard, but there's a renewed commitment to try to do that. But also, a recognition that action in the clean energy space is not only about cooperation but it's also about economic competition. And you have seen more and more focus on both the Republican and Democratic sides of the aisle on thinking about the security of supply chains, and critical minerals, and the inputs in lithium and rare earth elements that go into many aspects of clean energy. To my point before about aspects of industrial policy that might help grow your own domestic economy, I think there are ways in which countries can take measures that help—that help their own economies and help workers and help create jobs, and that in the process are helping to drive forward more quickly the clean energy technologies we need, and bring down the cost of those technologies to make them more accessible and available in some of the less-developed countries. So I think trying to frame it less as do we keep funds at home, do we write a check abroad? But there are actually many steps you could do to create economic opportunities and are win-win. Without being pollyannish about it, I think there is some truth to some of those. And I think we can focus on those politically as well. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take an international question from Luciana Alexandra Ghica, who is an associate professor for international cooperation at the University of Bucharest. What type of topics do you think we should address immediately in university programs that provide training in climate, development, global policies, or international public affairs, so that a new generation of leaders really pushes forward the agenda on climate change? BORDOFF: Yeah. Well, I'll say a quick word about what we're doing at Columbia, and maybe it's relevant to that question, because Columbia has made this historic commitment to build a climate school. There are many initiatives, and centers, and institutes. There was not only a handful of schools—law school, business school, medical school, engineering school. And it is the largest commitment a university can make to any particular topic, is something on the scale of a school with degree-granting authority and tenure-granting authority, and all the things that come with a school. And it's just the scale at a place like Columbia, and many other places, is just enormous. That's what we're doing on climate. We have created a climate school. And I'm honored President Bollinger asked me to help lead it. And we're going to build a faculty. We have our first inaugural class of masters' students, about ninety students that are going through the program right now, and we have a building in Manhattan for the climate school, and on and on. The idea—but the question is, what is climate, right? Because academia has been historically organized into traditional academic disciplines. So you have people who you hire through a tenured search, and they go to the engineering faculty and build their lab there. And there's law professors, and their business school professors, and on and on and on, social work. But for climate, you need all of those, right? They all kind of need to come together. And, like, interdisciplinary doesn't even sort of do justice to what it means to think about approaching this systemic—it's a systemic challenge. The system has to change. And so whatever solution you're talking about—if you want to get hydrogen to scale in the world, let's—you know, for certain sectors of the economy that may be hard to do with renewable energy, or in terms of renewable energy and, say, green hydrogen. You need engineering breakthroughs to bring down the cost of electrolyzers, or you need new business models, or you need financial institution frameworks that figure out how you're going to put the capital into these things. You need the policy incentives. How are you going to—you need permitting and regulation. How do we permit hydrogen infrastructure? It's barely been done before. There are concerns in the environmental justice community about some aspects of technologies like that or carbon capture that need to be taken seriously and addressed. There are geopolitical implications, potentially, to starting to build a global trade in ammonia or hydrogen, and what security concerns—energy security concerns might accompany those, the way we thought about oil or gas from Russia into Europe. I have an article coming out in the next issue of Foreign Affairs about the geopolitics of the energy transition. So we need disciplines that come together and look at a problem like that in all of those multifaceted dimensions, so we can figure out how to get from a lab to scale out in the world. And so when we think about the areas of concentration here, climate finance, climate justice, climate in society, climate in international security—I mean, a range of things that I think are really important to help people understand. And that's going to be a major focus of what we do at the climate school here. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Let's go next to Sean Grossnickle, who has raised his hand. A graduate student at Fordham University. Q: Speak now? Hi, this is not Sean but Henry Schwalbenberg, also at Fordham, where I teach in our international political economy and development program. I went to a conference about a month ago in Rome. And there was a physicist from CERN. And he was a big advocate of something I'd never heard of, and this is this thorium for nuclear reactors. And he was going through all the pros, but I wanted a more balanced perspective on it. And I'm hoping that you might give me a little pros and cons of this thorium nuclear reactor technique. BORDOFF: Yeah. I will be honest and say that nuclear is not my area of focus. We have a pretty strong team here that works in nuclear, and I think is optimistic about the breakthroughs we're going to see in several potential areas of nuclear—advanced nuclear technology, that being one of them, or small modular reactors, and others. At a high level, I will say I do think if you're serious about the math of decarbonization and getting to net zero by 2050, it's hard to do without zero-carbon nuclear power. It's firm, baseload power. It runs all the time. Obviously, there are challenges with intermittency of solar and wind, although they can be addressed to some extent with energy story. Most of the analyses that are done show not necessarily in the U.S. but in other parts of the world significant growth in nuclear power. The International Energy Agency just modeled what it looks like to get to net zero by 2050, and this pathway that got a lot of attention for saying things like we would not be investing in new oil and gas supply. The world has to change a lot pretty quickly. And they have about a hundred new nuclear plants being built by 2030, so that's a pretty big number. So we're going to need all tools—(laughs)—that we have at our disposal. And unfortunately, I worry we may still fall short. So I think at a high level we need to think really hard about how to improve nuclear technology. The people who know that really well I think are optimistic about our ability to do that. And I will follow up on thorium in particular with my colleagues at Columbia, and happy to follow up with you offline about it. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to take a written question from Stephen Bird, who's an associate professor of political science at Clarkson University. He thanks you, and he wanted you to talk a little bit more about political will. The overall dollar amounts are clear. Much cheaper to address climate change than to ignore it. That said, countries are, clearly, lagging. Is it a case of countries just don't want to take action now because of issues of fairness or because of lack of domestic political support, i.e., citizens aren't convinced that they should pay costs now with payoffs that come later, and what might we do to improve that issue in terms of persuading or arguing for more political will? BORDOFF: Yeah. It's a question for, you know, a political scientist as much as an energy or climate expert, and I wish I had a better answer to it. I think it is—climate is one of the trickiest problems for so many reasons but one of those is there is no acute event now that you sort of respond to, hopefully, and pull everyone together. It's a set of things that, you know, of course, there would have been storms and droughts before but we know they're intensified and made worse. It's hard to rally public support. We often respond to a crisis kind of proverbial, you know, frog in the boiling water kind of thing. So that makes it hard. There are huge issues—we talked about a just transition a few minutes ago—there are huge issues with intergenerational equity when we talk about climate. There are, clearly, climate impacts and damages today but some of the worst will be in the future, including for people who may not be born yet, and we don't do a great job in our political environment about thinking about those and valuing them today and how you do that, and from an economic standpoint, of course, there are questions about discount rates you apply and everything else. I think, politically, one of the things that has mobilized stronger climate—support for climate action, so it is encouraging that if you look at polling on climate change, the level of urgency that the public in many countries, including the U.S., broadly, ascribe to acting on climate has gone up a lot. It's higher today than it was, you know, a decade or so ago. That's a result of people seeing the impacts and also advocacy campaigns and political campaigns. It is often tied to—it's like a win-win. Like, President Biden says when he thinks of climate he thinks of jobs, and so we're going to deal with climate and we're going to grow the economy faster and we're going to create jobs, and there is truth to that. It is also the case that there are costs. The cost of inaction are higher, but there are costs associated with the transition itself. So if you survey the American public, I think, climate, according to the latest YouGov/Economist poll I saw, you know, it was number two on the list of things they cared the most about. That's much higher than in the past. And then if you ask the American public are they willing to pay $0.25 a gallon more at the pump to act on climate, 75 percent say no. And you look at the challenges the Biden administration is having right now sort of thinking about a really strong set of measures to put in place to move the ball forward on climate, but acute concern today about where oil prices are and inflation and natural gas prices as we head into the winter. If the weather is cold then it's going to be really expensive for people to heat their homes in parts—some parts of the country like New England, maybe. So that's a reality, and I think we need to—it was interesting, in the roundtable we did with President Obama with climate activists, that was a message he had for them. You know, be impatient, be angry, keep the pressure on, but also be pragmatic. And by that he means, like, you know, try to see the world through the eyes of others and people who are worried about the cost of filling up at the pump, the cost of paying their heating bills. They're not—some of them may not be where you are yet. They may not have the same sense of urgency with acting on climate that many of us on this Zoom do and need to take those concerns seriously. So I think that's a real challenge, and it can be addressed with good policy, to some extent, right, if you think about the revenue raised from a carbon tax and how it could be redistributed in a way that reduce the regressive impacts. I've written about how, at a high level—I'll say one last point—if we get on track for an energy transition, which we're not on yet, right. (Laughs.) Oil and gas use are going up each and every year. But imagine we started to get on track where those were falling year after year. It's still going to take decades, and that process of transition is going to be really messy. It's going to be really volatile. We're going to have fits and starts in policy from Obama to Trump to Biden. We're going to make estimate—we're going to make bets on technologies and maybe get those technologies wrong or misunderstand the cost curves, the potential to shut down investment in certain forms of energy before the rest are ready to pick up the slack. If it's messy and volatile and bumpy, that's not only harmful economically and geopolitically, it will undermine public support for stronger climate action. So you see, like, in Washington they're selling off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because we're moving to a world beyond oil and also we have all this domestic oil now with shale. We need more, not fewer, tools to mitigate volatility for the next several decades if we're serious about making this transition, and I think the same is true for thinking about sort of buffers you could build into geopolitics, foreign policy, and national security, because there will be—in a post-oil and gas world, you know, you may say, well, we're not going to worry as much about the Middle East or about, you know, Russia's leverage in Europe. But there will be new risks created and we can talk about what some of those might be, and we need new tools of foreign policy to mitigate those potential foreign policy risks. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question. Raised hand from Chloe Demrovsky, adjunct instructor at NYU. Q: Hey, can you hear me? BORDOFF: Yes. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: Hi. Chloe Demrovsky, adjunct at NYU and president and CEO of Disaster Recovery Institute International. Thanks for being with us, Jason. So my question is about the feasibility and your thoughts on artificially altered clouds or solar geoengineering. What are the ethical and geopolitical implications of, perhaps, using this to buy a little time for our energy transition? Thanks. BORDOFF: Yeah. A super interesting question, and I will say, again, I'm sort of—think of myself as an energy expert. So that is where I spend more time than thinking about tools like solar geoengineering. I guess, it seems there's, obviously, huge risks associated with something like that and we need to understand them. We need to do research. We need to figure out what those risks may be. There are global governance concerns. It's actually pretty cheap to do solar geoengineering. So what happens when some country or some billionaire decides they want to start spraying stuff into the atmosphere to cool the planet? And for those who don't know that, you know, solar—I mean, you think of after a volcano the planet cools a little bit because of all the particulates up in the atmosphere. When you model in an energy system model how much phasing out coal will reduce warming, you, obviously, have much less carbon dioxide emissions but that's offset slightly—not completely, of course—it's offset a little bit by the fact that you have less local air pollution, which is a good thing from air pollution. But air pollution has a slightly cooling effect, because you have these little particles floating around that reflect sunlight. So the idea is can we create that artificially and cool the planet, and you can imagine lots of reasons why that could go wrong when you're trying to figure out what—how much to put in there, what unintended consequences could be. You still have other impacts of carbon dioxide like ocean acidification. Maybe you go too far in one direction, that's like you're setting the thermostat. That's why one of the companies doing carbon removal is called Global Thermostat. You're kind of figuring out what temperature it should be. But I will say so it's an area that needs research and I think, given how far we are away from achieving goals like 1.5 and net-zero 2050, I guess what I would say is in the same way that when I worked in the Obama administration it was—I wouldn't say controversial, but there were some people who didn't want to talk about adaptation because it was kind of a more—there was a moral hazard problem there. It was, you know, less pressure to mitigate and reduce emissions if we thought adaptation was a solution. People worry about that from the standpoint of solar geoengineering. But the likelihood—I hope I'm wrong, but the likelihood that we roll the clock forward, you know, later this decade and we realize we've made progress but we're still pretty far short, and the impacts of climate change in the same way the IPCC 1.5 report said, you know what, 1.5 is going to be pretty bad, too, and that's even worse than we thought, the more we learn about climate the more reason there is to be concerned, not less concerned. It seems very plausible to me that we will kind of come to a growing consensus that we have to think about whether this technology can, as you said, buy us time. This is not something you do permanently. You need to get to net zero to stop global warming. But if you want to reduce the impacts of warming on the rate of Arctic sea ice melt and all the rest, can you buy time, extend the runway, by doing this for some number of decades. And I think—I don't have a strong view on the right answer to that. But I think it's something we, certainly, need to be thinking about researching and understanding what the consequences would be because we're going to have to figure out how to take more abrupt actions to close that gap between ambition and reality unless the reality starts to change much more quickly than is the case right now. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I saw a raised hand from Maya but she lowered it. So if you want to raise your hand again, please do so. And in the meantime, I'm going to take a written question from Jennifer Sklarew, who's an assistant professor of energy and sustainability at George Mason University. Was CCS/CCUS, which carbon capture and storage/carbon capture utilization and storage, to write out those acronyms, promoted as a climate change solution in Glasgow and was there a pushback against this technology option as both a climate change solution and a support mechanism for continued fossil fuel use? BORDOFF: There was some pushback but, I think, actually, more in the other direction. So I think there has been a growing recognition from many in the climate world that carbon capture technology, carbon removal technology, need to be part of the solution. I think there's almost no climate model at this point that shows how you would get to 1.5 degrees or net zero—1.5 degrees without huge amounts of negative emissions—carbon removal. Some of that can be nature based, but a lot of it will be—some of it will be technology based as well and focusing on what we care about, which is the emissions, is the most important thing. So and this is not, I don't think, the primary thing you're going to do. You want to do the things that are easiest and cheapest and present the fewest risks. So putting a lot of renewables into the grid, getting electrification into the vehicle fleet—there's a lot of things that you would do before that. But if you think about some of the sectors in the economy we talked about before that are hard to decarbonize like steel and cement, it may well be the case that carbon capture is part of the technology there. There was a big announcement yesterday from the NET Power Allam Cycle gas plant in Texas that they had finally come online with delivering net-zero power to the grid. It was sort of a milestone in that technology. So we need to advance this technology and figure out how we're going to—how we're going to get where we need to be. We need to hold that kind of technology accountable to make sure that it's actually meeting the standards we're talking about so that it actually is very low, if not zero, carbon. But if you look at, you know, most of the scenarios I'm aware of, whether it's—Princeton did the study “Net-Zero America,” how we get to net zero by 2050 in the U.S. The International Energy Agency, as I said, did it for net zero globally. There is a meaningful role for carbon capture, to some extent, in the power sector in these heavy industry sectors like steel and cement, and then making, say, hydrogen some of that will be blue hydrogen. Most of it, eventually, will be green, but there may be some role for blue hydrogen, which is—which is gas with carbon capture. So I think, if anything, there's been a growing understanding that we need all tools on deck right away and, again, I fear even with all the tools we may still fall short. FASKIANOS: Great. There's a written question from Laila Bichara, who's at SUNY Farmingdale, international business. There was a New York Times article, “Business Schools Respond to a Flood of Interest in ESG,” talking about the issue of the scarcity of skills in recent graduates to help with social impact, sustainable investments, climate finance, and social entrepreneurship. And she wanted to know if there are resources that you could point the group to in terms of foundation courses or certification that would provide all students with a basic foundation. BORDOFF: Yeah. That's a really good question and it's a growing area of focus and I think universities should be doing more in. The Tamer Center of Columbia Business School does a lot of work in ESG. We hosted a really interesting roundtable at the Center on Global Energy Policy yesterday on ESG and actually been doing a lot of work thinking about that in the context of state-owned enterprises and national oil companies, which we don't talk about enough. But they're a really, really big part of the problem we're talking about. We tend to focus more on these very well-known private sector companies or financial institutions in places like New York. So there—Bloomberg Philanthropies has done a huge amount in this space. I think there's some really good educational programs with some universities and business schools that have done a lot in the ESG space. But I think it's a need, to be frank. I mean, the fact that you're asking the question and I'm pointing to a few examples, but not a huge number, and it is something that universities need to educate themselves about but then is an opportunity for us to educate others. Maybe a revenue one, too, with executive education or something. But there's a lot of companies and financial institutions that want to understand this better. I worry that while there's a huge growing focus on climate, which is a good thing, in the financial community, the phrase ESG kind of means so many different things right now. It's this alphabet soup of regulations and standards and disclosure requirements, and some may make a difference and some may not and it's hard to figure out which ones matter, and for people who want to do the responsible thing what does that really mean. That's an area where research is needed. I mean, that's a role for what we do every day to think about if the SEC is going to regulate what makes a difference and what doesn't, if you're going to create green bonds. If you're going to call everything green in the finance community, what's real and what's not? What moves the needle? What doesn't? What are the returns for greener portfolios? How is that affecting the cost of capital for clean energy versus dirty energy? You know, on and on. I think those are important research questions for us to take on and then it's our job to help educate others as well. FASKIANOS: Great. So the next question I'm going to take from—oh, OK. Good. Maya Copeland (sp) has written her question. She's a political science major at Delaware State University. Do you believe developed nations like the U.S. have done a lot in reference to climate change or mostly talk? If you believe nations like the U.S. have dropped the ball in this aspect, what do you think it would take to get those powerhouses serious about environmental change? BORDOFF: I think advanced economies have done—many have done a lot. I mean, the European Union has taken climate seriously and has reduced emissions and has pretty strong measures in place with a carbon market, for example, with a pretty high carbon price right now. The politics of this issue are not quite as favorable in the U.S., but the U.S. has seen emissions decline more than most over the last decade and a half, in part because of policy measures that have, you know, advanced renewable energy and brought the cost of that down as well as cheaper natural gas displacing coal for a while. But at a broader level, you know, have we done enough? The answer is no one's done enough—(laughs)—which is why emissions are still going up every single year. So that—so the answer is no, we haven't done enough. Almost no country has done enough at home to be on a trajectory for net zero 2050. You saw the announcements from countries like India saying, we'll get to net zero by 2070, and, you know, people said, oh, well, that's terrible. They're not saying 2050. And implicit in that is sort of saying, well, if you want to get global to net zero by 2050 we're not all going to move at the same speed, right. Some countries have advanced with the benefit of hydrocarbons since the Industrial Age and some haven't. So, presumably, the pathways are going to look different, right. And, you know, that's not always how countries in the advanced—in the developing—in the developed world talk about it. The commitment from the Biden administration is net zero by 2050. So I would say there's been—there are some models to point to of countries that have taken this issue seriously but we're not doing enough and partly because the political will is not there and partly—I come back to what I said before—this problem is harder than people realize. So you say which countries are doing enough, like, point to some models, right, and somebody might point to Norway, which, you know, the share of new vehicles sold that are electric in Norway went from zero to, I think, it's 70 percent now. I mean, that's amazing. Seventy percent of new car sales are electric. And if you go back to the start of that trajectory, about a decade or decade and a half, oil demand is unchanged in Norway. So we can talk about why that is and it's because a lot—as I said earlier, a lot of oil is used for things other than cars, and it's increased for trucks and planes and petrochemicals. It takes time for the vehicle fleet to turn over. So when you start selling a bunch of electric cars, you know, average car is on the road for fifteen years so it takes a while before that—the vehicle stock turns over. So I saw that kind of mapped out on a chart recently, just two lines—one is electric vehicle sales going straight up and then the other is oil demand in a flat line. It's a reminder of how unforgiving the math of decarbonization is. The math of climate is really unforgiving, like, you know, the kind of harmful impacts we're going to see with even 1.5 degrees warming. But the math of energy and decarbonization is really unforgiving, too. It's—and we just need to be honest with ourselves about what it takes to get where we need to go. Because I think it's good to have optimism and ambition, but I worry there should be optimism but not happy talk. We should recognize that there's a lot of work to do and let's get to work doing it. FASKIANOS: Great. So there are several questions in the chat about China. I'm going to start off with Andrew Campbell, who's a student at George Mason University. Is LNG—liquefied natural gas—a bridge toward renewable energy still being considered? If not, how are India and China's expected growth and increase in coal use going to be addressed? And then there are a couple of other comments or questions about China. You know, what's your take on China as the biggest emitter and return somewhat to coal? Can we actually even make stated and adequate new goals? And, you know, given the relationship between U.S. and China, which is contentious, you know, what is the cooperation going to be between U.S. and China on climate? So there's a lot packed in there, but I know you can address it all. (Laughs.) BORDOFF: Yeah. I think the China question is really hard, as I said earlier, this kind of, like, competition and cooperation and we're going to try to do both, and I think there was a hope early on—Secretary Kerry said it—that climate could be segmented from the broader challenges in the U.S.-China relationship, and I think that has proven harder to do than people had hoped, in part, because, you know, you need both parties to want to do that. I think China has signaled it's not necessarily willing to segment cooperation on climate from lots of other issues. And then these things bleed together where, you know, there's measures being taken in Washington to restrict imports of solar panels from China, that there were concerns that were made with—in ways that have human rights abuses associated with them with forced labor or maybe have unfair trade practices in terms of subsidies. China is—you know, the leadership in China takes climate seriously. This is a country that recognizes, I think, climate change is real and that needs to be addressed. They have a set of national interests that matter a lot, obviously, to them in terms of economic growth, and the pathway to get there is challenging. So it's a country that's growing clean energy incredibly quickly, as we're seeing right now, in part because there's a(n) energy crunch throughout Europe and Asia. They are ramping up the use of coal quite a bit again, but also taking some pretty strong measures to advance clean energy and, over time, hopefully, move in a lower carbon direction for reasons both about concerns over climate but also local air pollution, which is much, much worse in many parts of China than it is here and that's a huge source of concern for the public there. So when it comes to things like coal they need to figure out how to address those air pollution problems. And then for reasons of economic competition, like I mentioned a minute ago. I mean, China dominates the global market for refining and processing of critical minerals for solar panels, and there are economic and national competitiveness and strategic reasons to do that. So all of those things motivate them to move in the direction of clean energy, but they need to be moving faster to phase down hydrocarbon energy for sure. And then you ask a really hard question about—not hard, but one of the most contentious questions is about the role of natural gas in the transition, and we can have a whole separate session about that. I think there is a view of many in the climate community and many in developing countries—in developed countries that there's not space left in the carbon budget for natural gas, and you saw the Biden administration recently declare through the Treasury Department that, except in very rare cases of the poorest of the poor like Sierra Leone or something, they would not finance natural gas projects through the multilateral development banks. The vice president of Nigeria, I think, responded—speaking of CFR—in Foreign Affairs by writing that this was not fair and you need to think about a viable pathway for a country like Nigeria to develop and it just—it doesn't work to get there that fast. There has to be a bridge. The role of gas looks very different in different parts of the world. It looks different in the U.S. than it does in an emerging or a developing economy. It looks different in the power sector, where there are a lot more alternatives like renewables than it does in heavy industry or how we heat our homes. It looks different for, say, in the Global South, where you're talking about people who are still using coal and charcoal and dung for cooking to think about solutions like liquefied petroleum gas. So all of those things are true, but we need to think about gas also with the carbon budget in mind. I mean, the math is just the math. (Laughs.) If you're going to build any gas infrastructure and not have it blow through the carbon budget, it's going to have to be retired before the end of its normal economic life and you need to think about how that might look in different parts of the world. So you need to be fair to people, to allow them to grow, but also recognize that the math of carbon, you know, is what it is. FASKIANOS: Great. I just want to credit those last—the China questions came from Lada Kochtcheeva at North Carolina State University and Joan Kaufman, who's director of Schwarzman Scholars based in China. We are really at the end of our time—we started a couple minutes late—and I just wanted to go back to—there are students on the call who are following with a professor on the webinar who wanted you just to comment on blue hydrogen, whether or not it is contributing or helping to reduce greenhouse gases. BORDOFF: I think the answer is it can. You just need to make sure that it actually does. So the question of—and by blue hydrogen we mean, you know, using gas with carbon capture to create hydrogen. It needs to have very low methane leakage rates. It needs to have very high capture rates, and we know that is technically possible. It doesn't mean it will be done that way. So if people are going to pursue blue hydrogen as part of the solution in the—particularly in the near term, you need to make sure that it's meeting those standards. I think in the long run my guess and, I think, most guesses would be that green hydrogen is going to make more sense. It's going to be cheaper. The cost is going to come down. And so if we have a significant part of the energy sector that is hydrogen and ammonia in, say, 2050, more of that's going to be green than blue. But there can be a role for blue if you make sure it's done the right way. You just have to actually make sure it's done the right way. FASKIANOS: Great. And, Jason, we are out of time, but I wanted to give you one last, you know, one-minute or thirty seconds, whatever you want, just to say some parting words on your work at the center or, you know, to leave the group with what they can do, again. So— BORDOFF: Well, I would just say thanks for the chance to be with you all and for the work that you're doing every day. You know, I think Glasgow was a moment when the world came together to elevate ambition and roll up our sleeves and say this is—this is the decisive decade. Like, we'll know ten years from now—(laughs)—if we got anywhere close to making it or not. And so it's time for everyone to kind of roll up their sleeves and say, what can we do? We're doing that, I think, at Columbia with the creation of this new climate school. We do that every day at the Center on Global Energy Policy. And so just in all of your institutions, you know, what does that mean for you? What does it mean for the institution? What does that mean for your own research and time and how you allocate it? How do we step up and say, what can we do in the biggest and boldest way we can? Because we need—we're creating a climate school because I think the view is—you know, a hundred years ago there were no schools of public health and now it's how would you deal with a pandemic without a school of public health? So I think our view is decades from now we'll look back and wonder how we ever thought it was possible to handle a problem as complex and urgent as climate change without universities devoting their greatest kind of resource to them. And the measure of success for universities has to be research and new knowledge creation. It has to be education. It has to be serving our own communities. For us, it's, you know, the community here in New York, Harlem. But also are we focusing the extraordinary resources and capacity and expertise of these great institutions to solve humanity's greatest problems? That has to be a motivating force, too, for much of—maybe not all of but a lot of what universities do. So I'd just ask all of us to go back and think about how we can do that in our own work every day. and we have to do it through partnerships. I think universities don't work together as well as they need to. But this is only going to work if we work together. FASKIANOS: Great way to end. Thank you very much, Jason Bordoff. We really appreciate it. We'll have to look for your article in Foreign Affairs magazine, which is published by CFR. So, we are excited that you continue to contribute to the magazine. You can follow Jason Bordoff on Twitter at @JasonBordoff. Very easy to remember. Our final academic webinar of the semester will be on Wednesday, December 1, at 1:00 p.m. (ET). Michelle Gavin, who is CFR's Ralph Bunche senior fellow for Africa policy studies, will talk about African politics and security issues. So in the meantime, follow us at @CFR_Academic. Come to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues, and we look forward to continuing the conversation with you. Take care. BORDOFF: Thank you. (END)

In this episode, we speak with Cris van Eijk (@crisveijk) on everything from Elon Musk writing a constitution of Mars, to how global south contributions to international space law have been disregarded over time, to discussing challenges of getting into an international law Ph.D., to examining the inclusiveness of the discipline in addition to a host of other issues affecting young and upcoming international lawyers. You can find more about Cris and his work at: https://linktr.ee/crisveijk http://www.jusadastra.org/Our-Team.html Material Referenced in the Episode: Article - Unstealing the Sky: Third World Equity in the Orbital Commons Article - Sorry, Elon: Mars is not a legal vacuum – and it's not yours, either Article - International Lawyers, Look to the Heavens – Before We Lose Them

In this episode of By Any Means Necessary, hosts Sean Blackmon and Jacquie Luqman are joined by Monica Cruz, labor reporter with BreakThrough News to discuss the whittled down infrastructure bill and the issues facing working and poor people that are not addressed in the bill, the corporate giveaways that the ambiguity of much of this bill will provide, why this bill fundamentally cannot and will not lead to real solutions for por and working people, and the need to organize a people's movement that pushes for real solutions.In the second segment, Sean and Jacquie are joined by Tina Landis, organizer and author of the book, ‘Climate Solutions: Beyond Capitalism' to discuss the greenwashing COP26 conference, the nonbinding and empty promises made at the COP26 climate conference, why Global North nations continue to demand emissions reductions from the Global South and how histories of colonialism and imperialism factor into climate, and how capitalism is the enemy of humanity in its driving of the climate crisis.In the third segment, Sean and Jacquie are joined by Nnamdi Lumumba, Ujima People's Progress Party State Organizer to discuss a reparations commission on the ballot in Greenbelt, Maryland, the resurgence of interest in the question of reparations in the United States, the shortcomings that this and other municipal reparations initiatives have had, and what transformative reparations should look like.Later in the show, Sean and Jacquie are joined by James Early, Former Director of Cultural Heritage Policy at the Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage at the Smithsonian Institution and board member of the Institute for Policy Studies to discuss the trials of Kyle Rittenhouse and the killers of Ahmaud Arbery and their context in the American ethos of white supremacist violence, the anti-democratic nature of the criminal-legal system, the planned protests in Cuba that coincide with the reopening with the Cuban economy, and the active participation of the Cuban people in defense of the revolutionary process.

Support the show by becoming a member as a monthly supporter at Patreon.com/theLFShow  We do not accept corporate or government funding.  We rely on you!  Full Episode Notes are posted at Patreon.com/theLFShow for members and non-members.Could a city reduce violent crime by planting more trees? How will the culture of work adapt to the climate crisis? What will increased flooding in the Global South do to U.S. immigration patterns? In this month's edition of Meet the BIPOC Press, guest hosts Sara Lomax Reese and Mitra Kalita from URL Media are back with a panel of journalists whose reporting explores these questions and more. They center Black and Brown people in their reporting on the environment and the climate crisis. From Philadelphia, to Haiti, to Bangladesh, to the American Gulf Coast, their conversation draws connections among a vast array of frontline communities, the crises they face, and the tools they're using to respond. Then, Laura joins Sara and Mitra to reflect on how integrating the environment into policy could give us better solutions to society's biggest challenges. Guests:S. Mitra Kalita (Co-Host), CEO & Co-Founder, URL Media; CEO and Publisher of Epicenter, NYCSara Loma-Reese (Co-Host), Co-Founder, URL Media;  President and CEO of WURD RadioKo Bragg, Race & Place Editor, ScalawagGarry Pierre-Pierre, Founder and Publisher of The Haitian TimesCharles Ellison, Managing Editor of ecoWURD and Executive Producer/Host of “Reality Check” on WURD

The most exclusionary summit ever. That's the cry from critics here at the COP26 climate conference – with accusations that voices from the Global South and climate activists aren't being heard. Today we speak with Namibian activist Ina-Maria Shikongo and UN Youth Climate Delegate Sophia Kianni, on their experience at COP26, and to London Mayor Sadiq Khan on whether politicians are doing enough. 

Young climate activists from nations bearing the brunt of climate change speak out. In this COP26 special, hear the moving and impassioned words of the young voices representing the plight of the Global South, as they demand action and reparations. As the climate summit comes to an end, the team in Glasgow reflect on their experiences of the event, and unpack the pledges and commitments that have been made. Ahead of the release of the official cover decision - the document that will outline the main outcome of the event - the team explains what we know so far. This includes a joint declaration put out by the US and China - an unexpected but welcome message of hope. They also discuss the developed world's attempts to make up for breaking the promise made in Paris - the payment of $100 billion that was meant to help developing countries tackle climate change. The team ends by looking to the positives, and discussing the post-Glasgow path ahead. On the pod are Rowan Hooper, Penny Sarchet, Richard Webb, Adam Vaughan and special guest, climate scientist Emily Shuckburgh of the University of Cambridge. Finally, Paris 2015 legend Christiana Figueres pops up to give a message of optimism. And to read about these stories and much more, subscribe at newscientist.com/podcasts. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today on Sojourner Truth, our weekly roundtable. Our panelists are Laura Carlsen and Dr. Gerald Horne. We focus on COP26, the UN Climate Conference that is wrapping up in Glasgow, Scotland. After thousands there, including most world leaders, there is little left to show in the outcome thus far, except for a watered-down mention of coal and fossil fuels. Even though it's watered-down, the United States has refused to sign on to it. This, as the Biden administration bends to the coal and oil lobby, and is opening up more access to oil and gas drilling. "So much for US leadership," complain other countries. China and the US did announce what is seen as a breakthrough. They announced a non-binding agreement, that some see at least as a step in the right direction. The United States and other countries that are mostly responsible for the climate crisis are refusing to pay the funds needed by small islands and other developing countries of the Global South, who are the first to feel the brunt of climate change. They need these funds to stop and reverse the damage to their nations. Meanwhile, back in the United States, two trials highlighting racial tensions are taking place, and comparisons are being made to the history of vigilantism in the country. This, as attacks on teaching the true history of the United States is increasingly under attack, including voters in Virginia electing a Republican candidate saying they are concerned about what they call the teaching of critical race theory in schools. This, they say, is why they opposed the Democratic candidate. Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison's books have been attacked, with some suggesting that they be burned, including "Beloved" and "The Bluest Eye." What does all of this mean as the nation still refuses to grapple with its history and its present-day legacy. On the international front, we get an update from South of the Border, and we look at what is happening with the migrant crisis in Europe, including what is happening at the Poland-Belarus border. Meanwhile in China, President Xi moves to extend his presidency and to solidify his role in China's history.

Today on Sojourner Truth, our weekly roundtable. Our panelists are Laura Carlsen and Dr. Gerald Horne. We focus on COP26, the UN Climate Conference that is wrapping up in Glasgow, Scotland. After thousands there, including most world leaders, there is little left to show in the outcome thus far, except for a watered-down mention of coal and fossil fuels. Even though it's watered-down, the United States has refused to sign on to it. This, as the Biden administration bends to the coal and oil lobby, and is opening up more access to oil and gas drilling. "So much for US leadership," complain other countries. China and the US did announce what is seen as a breakthrough. They announced a non-binding agreement, that some see at least as a step in the right direction. The United States and other countries that are mostly responsible for the climate crisis are refusing to pay the funds needed by small islands and other developing countries of the Global South, who are the first to feel the brunt of climate change. They need these funds to stop and reverse the damage to their nations. Meanwhile, back in the United States, two trials highlighting racial tensions are taking place, and comparisons are being made to the history of vigilantism in the country. This, as attacks on teaching the true history of the United States is increasingly under attack, including voters in Virginia electing a Republican candidate saying they are concerned about what they call the teaching of critical race theory in schools. This, they say, is why they opposed the Democratic candidate. Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison's books have been attacked, with some suggesting that they be burned, including "Beloved" and "The Bluest Eye." What does all of this mean as the nation still refuses to grapple with its history and its present-day legacy. On the international front, we get an update from South of the Border, and we look at what is happening with the migrant crisis in Europe, including what is happening at the Poland-Belarus border. Meanwhile in China, President Xi moves to extend his presidency and to solidify his role in China's history.

Climate change and economic inequality are pushing people of the Global South to move north. Countries in the North are depopulating, losing their workforce and their tax base. It shouldn't be that hard to put two and two together and create migration policies that benefit all of humanity. So why won't we?

In the suffering of the Global South, the brutality of capitalism lies bare. In a footnote toward the end of Capital, Marx wrote that the colonized subject reveals “what the bourgeois makes of itself and of the labourer, wherever it can, without restraint, model the world after its own image”. The forms of primary accumulation he articulates there were in their most naked form in the colonies. Contrary to liberal and academic misreadings, Marx paid great attention to the relationship between colonialism and capitalism. Marx came to argue that colonialism was the backbone of capitalism, and that anti-colonial movements could even be the key to global capitalism's overthrow. This is why anti-colonial struggles have long been guided to victory by Marxist theory. Read the full article here: https://liberationschool.org/09-what-is-imperialism-html/

It's looking more and more likely that electric vehicles will dominate the roads of the most developed countries within the next few decades. But will the Global South become the world's dumping ground for old, polluting cars? In today's episode of The Lid Is On from COP26, Conor Lennon and Laura Quiñones speak to some leading experts from the road, shipping and aviation sectors about sustainable fuels and electrifying transport, and get some of the reactions to the draft COP26 final text, released by the UK presidency on Wednesday morning.   Music: 'Within the Earth', Ketsa

The world's borders are clamping down for un-vaccinated people, most of whom are poor and/or from the Global South. This echoes events following a 19th century pandemic of cholera which killed millions of people worldwide

DIRECT FROM GLASGOW AND THE COP 26 CLIMATE CONFERENCE, THIRD WORLD NETWORK LEADER MEENA RAMAN IN CONVERSATION WITH ERIC MANN, LEADER IN UNITED NATIONS NGO STRUGGLE SINCE THE 2001 WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM. Spoiler alert: The United States and the European Union and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are lying, cheating, and stealing, as they make false promises about dramatically reducing CO2 emissions and worse, oppose any climate reparations, or payment for climate “loss and damages” or taking responsibility for the West's creation of the climate catastrophe. Meena Ramen of the Third World Network provides the most incisive and thoughtful assessment of COP 26 from the point of view of The Third World and The Global South. Eric's conversation on Voices today is produced by Ernesto Arce, the Strategy Center and Voices from the Frontlines' new producer and news director. He will also be doing his own 5 minute Voices South Central/Third World News on the podcast. Photo from COP26 courtesy of AKGUL/AFP

With the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) underway in Glasgow, Scotland, we take a closer look at how climate change is affecting the Global South, what a fair and just transition to renewable energy would entail, and how concerns from the Global South can be heard and addressed. Joining us from COP26 are Chido Muzondo, policy advisor, International Institute for Sustainable Development; Harjeet Singh, senior advisor, Climate Impacts, at the Climate Action Network International; Maisa Rojas, associate professor, Department of Geophysics at the University of Chile; and Sarah Burch, Canada research chair and executive director of the Interdisciplinary Centre on Climate Change at the University of Waterloo. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Climate change has a disproportionate impact on the Global South. So should the world's industrialized nations make reparations? We hear the case for climate reparations. David Wallace-Wells and Riton Quiah join Meghna Chakrabarti.

What does climate justice mean on a planet where whole nations are disappearing under the waves whilst the top 1 percent continue to emit twice as much carbon as the poorest half of humanity combined?

On this installment of our series, The Road To COP26 Presented By Octopus Energy, we welcome Indian environmental and climate justice activist John Paul Jose to the show to discuss how young leaders are fighting to make their voices heard at COP26 and the strategies activists are using to make real change at this critical event and beyond. We discuss how young leaders are pushing climate action that delivers just and equitable outcomes, how to elevate the voices of more young people in the Global South, and why new climate organizations led by younger people are making a bigger impact. Co-hosts Ty Benefiel and Brock Benefiel also discuss big (but complicated!) announcements on phasing out coal and the major ways in which youth leaders are transforming the climate conversation around the globe. Thank you to our sponsor Octopus Energy, a 100% renewable electricity supplier. Octopus Energy is currently serving millions of homes around the globe in countries like the United Kingdom, United States, New Zealand, and Germany.  Subscribe to our Substack newsletter "The Climate Weekly": https://theclimateweekly.substack.com/ As always, follow us @climatepod on Twitter and email us at theclimatepod@gmail.com. Our music is "Gotta Get Up" by The Passion Hifi, check out his music at thepassionhifi.com. Rate, review and subscribe to this podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, and more! Subscribe to our new YouTube channel! Join our Facebook group. Check out our updated website! Further Reading: ‘A continuation of colonialism': indigenous activists say their voices are missing at Cop26 Over 40 Countries Pledge at U.N. Climate Summit to End Use of Coal Power

[PLEASE NOTE THAT FROM TIME TO TIME THERE IS SOME AUDIO STATIC THAT APPEARS INTERMITTENTLY DURING SOME OF JOANNA'S ANSWERS. IT DOESN'T LAST LONG AND WE TRIED TO MINIMIZE IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. OUR APOLOGIES FOR THE INCONVENIENCE.]Public perceptions of China vary markedly depending on where you live in the world. In wealthy advanced economies in the Global North, negative sentiment towards China is now at all-time highs and getting worse. But it's a very different story in many developing countries in the Global South, particularly in Africa, where public opinion surveys continually report more favorable views towards the Chinese.Of course, this is a complex issue where China provokes a diversity of opinions, making it nearly impossible to get a definitive sense of what people feel about Beijing's growing influence in their countries.Veteran journalist Joanna Chiu set out on a trans-continental odyssey to try and find out more about how people in Western countries perceive China for her new book "China Unbound: A New World Disorder." Joanna joins Eric & Cobus to share some of her findings and to discuss why she feels there's such a huge discrepancy between how people in the Global North view China compared to sentiments in the Global South.SHOW NOTES:Amazon.com: Purchase a copy of China Unbound: A New World DisorderSupChina: China Unbound: The implications of China's expanding influence by Mike CormackNüVoices: The international editorial collective of writers, journalists, translators and artists that showcases the diverse creative work of women, non-binary people, and minorities working on the subject of China.JOIN THE DISCUSSION:CAP on Facebook: www.facebook.com/ChinaAfricaProjectTwitter: @eolander | @stadenesque | @joannachiuJOIN US ON PATREON!Become a CAP Patreon member and get all sorts of cool stuff including our Week in Review report, invitation to join monthly Zoom calls with Eric & Cobus, and even an awesome new CAP Podcast mug!www.patreon.com/chinaafricaprojectSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Free Speech for People's Ron Fein: Troubling Signs of Inaction from the Jan. 6 Insurrection Investigation Code Pink Women for Peace's Jodie Evans: The Role of the Military in the Global Climate Crisis Goes Largely Unaddressed  Justice is Global's Ben Levenson: Activists: ‘Biden Must Take Action to Vaccinate the Global South. No One is Safe Until We Are All Safe.'Bob Nixon's Under-reported News SummaryBiden's $500 million Saudi deal contradicts policy on 'offensive' weaponsWhy insurance companies aren't aggressively fighting climate changeGates Foundation avoids a reckoning on race and power

Free Speech for People's Ron Fein: Troubling Signs of Inaction from the Jan. 6 Insurrection Investigation Code Pink Women for Peace's Jodie Evans: The Role of the Military in the Global Climate Crisis Goes Largely Unaddressed  Justice is Global's Ben Levenson: Activists: ‘Biden Must Take Action to Vaccinate the Global South. No One is Safe Until We Are All Safe.'Bob Nixon's Under-reported News SummaryBiden's $500 million Saudi deal contradicts policy on 'offensive' weaponsWhy insurance companies aren't aggressively fighting climate changeGates Foundation avoids a reckoning on race and power

The World Leaders Summit at COP26 has happened...So what happened, exactly? A LOT. This week, we cover it all in a laid-back-waiting-for-takeaway-to-arrive style conversation with our hosts. We'll cover updated pledges and commitments on: An End to Deforestation by 2030 Methane reductions India's Net Zero 2070 target We also get into inclusion and representation of the Global South, and how we went from 50% of global emissions covered by a Net Zero target at the beginning of this year, to yesterday it being 89%. So sit back, relax, and dig in!   —   Christiana + Tom's book ‘The Future We Choose' is available now! Subscribe to our Climate Action Newsletter: Signals Amidst The Noise   —   Links Mentioned in the Show:   READ: Vanessa Nakate for TIME READ: Beware: Gaia may destroy humans before we destroy the Earth by James Lovelock READ: The Case for Climate Reparations by David Wallace-Wells WATCH + READ: COP26 Must Keep 1.5 Degrees Celsius Goal Alive by UN Secretary-General António Guterres WATCH: Pope Francis says Costa Rican coffee “is the best in the world.”   —   Race to Zero Twitter | LinkedIn   COP26 - UN Climate Change Conference Twitter | Instagram | LinkedIn   —   Keep up with Christiana Figueres here: Instagram | Twitter   Tom Rivett-Carnac: Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn   Paul Dickinson is on LinkedIn! LinkedIn   —   Follow @GlobalOptimism on social media and send us a message! Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | LinkedIn   Don't forget to hit SUBSCRIBE so you don't miss another episode of Outrage + Optimism!

SPECIAL #COP26TinyExplainer - We talk to Anya Knechtel of Oxfam Canada about the $100 billion promised, but not yet delivered from the Global North to the Global South to help develop countries reduce emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. This part 1 in a series specially co-produced by TheEnergyMix.com and GreenEnergyFutures.ca.

Vanessa Nakate is a climate activist from Uganda . She was the First Fridays For Future climate activist in her country and founder of the Rise up Climate Movement, which aims to amplify the voices of activists from Africa. Her brand new book “A Bigger Picture” is part of her fight to bring front line voices to the front page.When it comes to speaking or writing about climate change, voices and stories of people of colour and from the Global South are often omitted, even though these communities often contribute the least to the problem and suffer its consequences the most. Vanessa shows that without addressing this important gap, without highlighting the real and immediate danger communities like hers and so many others face, we have no hope of making progress in the race to save our planet.In A Bigger Picture she traces the links between climate crisis and anti-racism, feminism, education, economics and even extremist radicalization, as well as telling the inspiring personal story of how she found her voice and shows readers that no matter your age, location or skin colour, you can be an effective activist.Find Vanessa: @vanessanakate1Buy her book: bookshop.org/lists/all-the-small-thingsLearn about the Vash green schools projectFind me: @venetialamannaFind the show: @ATSTpodcast #allthesmallthings See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Chris Hedges, investigative journalist, joins us to discuss Julian Assange. World-renowned speaker and philosopher Chris Hedges has penned an article in which he argues that the Julian Assange trial is the most important battle for press freedom in our time. He says that the US empire's quest to convict and sentence the publisher would effectively put an end to national security reporting.National Director for Code Pink Ariel Gold joins us to discuss the G20 summit. International analysts and observers for covid measures and climate change are unhappy with the outcome of the meeting. The leaders of the nations that produce the most vaccines and greenhouse gases ended with a few hollow comuniques that acknowledge the problems, but show little promise of concrete action.Mark Sleboda, Moscow-based international relations security analyst, joins us to discuss Europe's fuel crisis. The European fuel crisis worsens as the misadventures of simultaneously blaming Russia and begging them for salvation slams head-on into a cold and unforgiving winter. Russia has signed a gas deal with Moldova, demonstrating a willingness to deal with individual European nations that are willing to commit to a long-term contractual agreement.Laith Marouf, broadcaster and journalist based in Beirut, joins us to discuss the Middle East. Tensions between Lebanon and Saudi Arabia have increased. Also, the US continues its duplicitous actions during negotiations with Iran as it plans for more sanctions, but blames Iran for the failure of progress.John Kiriakou, journalist, author, and host of The Back Story, joins us to discuss torture. Several military officials wrote a letter calling the torture of a Guantanamo detainee a stain on America's moral fiber. The defendant had spent several hours detailing brutal torture that he received at the hands of his US captors. The prisoner told onlookers that the more he cooperated, the more torture and abuse he received.KJ Noh, peace activist, writer and teacher, joins us to discuss China. KJ Noh joins us to review the absurdity of the US charge of genocide in the Xinjiang region of China. He discusses the origin of the charge from a single anti-China zealot and how the US accepted the absurd claims despite the total lack of evidence. Also, the Taiwanese military leadership has some significant fissures in its ranks regarding animosity toward the mainland.Steve Ellner, an American scholar, retired professor at the Universidad de Oriente, Venezuela, and author of 12 books including his latest, entitled "Latin American Extractivism," joins us to discuss the Global South. In a change of direction, the US empire is now pushing its puppet opposition to participate in the elections. However, few analysts believe that the empire has abandoned its hegemonic desires to overthrow the Bolivarian Republic and steal its natural resources. Also, Cuba's leadership is well aware of the US regime-change operations planned for mid-November.

This debate, recorded on Thursday 28th October 2021, was part of Energised, a debate series from Intelligence Squared in partnership with Iberdrola, a leading company in the field of renewable energy.It's make or break time for the planet. That's the warning issued by the UN ahead of COP26 in Glasgow this November, when leaders and heads of state from all over the world will meet to agree on global action to fight climate change. The main goal will be for them to commit to reaching net-zero carbon emissions by the middle of the century with interim targets by 2030. If they don't achieve this, many scientists warn, the effects of rising global temperatures – extreme weather, rising sea levels and warming oceans – may become irreversible. But what are the chances of success? Very little, if previous summits are anything to go by. Despite a COP having taken place every year since 1995 (with the exception of last year due to the pandemic), and all the buzz around the Kyoto Protocol of 2011 and the Paris Agreement of 2015, concentrations of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere have continued to rise steadily, even during the lockdowns of 2020. But this year there is an unprecedented urgency in the run up to the conference. Can the biggest emitters – China, the US, India, Russia and Japan – be persuaded to sign up to legally binding agreements on emissions? Will the voices of people from the Global South, where the effects of the climate crisis are already being felt, be heard? And is the UN's top-down approach really the best way to tackle the most pressing existential threat facing the world today?We were joined by ScottishPower CEO Keith Anderson and Professor of Energy Policy and Official Fellow in Economics Dieter Helm to debate whether COP26 will make any serious contribution in the fight against climate change. The debate was chaired by Kamal Ahmed. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

John Kiriakou, journalist, author, and host of The Back Story, joins us to discuss Julian Assange. Julian Assange's defense put forth a thunderous rebuttal to the prosecutor's case at the end of the first day's hearing procedures. A crowd chanting "free Julian Assange" gathered outside of the courthouse, many yelling that the US is attempting to exercise extra-territorial legal authority.KJ Noh, peace activist, writer and teacher, joins us to discuss China. Taiwan leader Tsia Ing-wen confirmed the presence of US military personnel on the island in a statement that many consider crossing China's red line. International security analysts are concerned that the US neocons are edging the world closer to a disastrous military conflict.Jack Rasmus, professor in economics and politics at St. Mary's College in California, joins us to discuss Biden's spending bills. The Biden administration seems poised to scrap almost all of the social spending programs that attracted support from the left flank of his party. Some observers are arguing that this ostensible change of plans is a part of a neoliberal plan and that these programs were set up as sacrificial lambs in a fake fight.Niko House, political activist, independent journalist and podcaster, joins us to discuss the media. George Soros and billionaire Russia-gate proponent Reid Hoffman have joined to fund a media group known as "Good Information Inc." The group is also pushing for more censorship, as their website states “We believe there is an urgent need for regulation of social media platforms.”Laith Marouf, broadcaster and journalist based in Beirut, joins us to discuss the Middle East. President Biden is maintaining occupation of the Syrian oil fields even as US troops are becoming frequent targets of retaliatory attacks. Also, US war profiteers are lamenting the end of their money-laundering operation in Afghanistan.Mark Sleboda, Moscow-based international relations security analyst, joins us to discuss NATO. NATO is stepping up its military presence in the Baltic States and Ukraine, creating instability on Russia's borders. While NATO leaders claim that the moves are defensive, there are no signs of aggressive moves by Russia that would precipitate such provocative acts.Dr. Jemima Pierre is an associate professor of Black studies and anthropology at the University of California. She joins us to discuss Haiti. A new article in the online media outlet Haiti Liberte argues that "The current Haitian crisis powerfully demonstrates the essential role played by the Americans in Haitian politics." The author argues that inconsistent and contradictory policy statements are further destabilizing the beleaguered nation.Dan Kovalik, writer, author, and lawyer, joins us to discuss the Global South. The increased US economic repression both at home and abroad makes it clear that defending Nicaragua's sovereignty is critical to world stability. Also, we review 10 things that people need to know about Latin America.

"Feed the world." "We are the world." "Be a light to the world." Every few years, it seems, a new celebrity benefit appears. Chock full of A-listers and inspirational tag lines, it promises to tackle any number of the world's large-scale problems, whether poverty, climate change, or disease prevention and eradication. From Live Aid in the 1980s to Bono's ONE Campaign of the early 2000s to the latest Global Citizen concerts, televised celebrity charity events, and their many associated NGOs, have enjoyed glowing media attention and a reputation as generally benign, even beloved, pieces of pop culture history. But behind the claims to end the world's ills lies a cynical network of funding and influence from predatory financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, multinationals like Coca-Cola and Cargill, soft-power organs like USAID, and private “philanthropic” arms like the Gates Foundation. This arrangement reached its high point at the turn of the 21st century and continues today, largely in response to outrage from anti-Pharma and anti-poverty activists from the global south and anti-globalization protesters in the 1990s. This Bono-Bill Gates-World Bank model has gained virtually unchallenged media coverage as the new face of slick, NGO "activism," in opposition to the unwieldy, anarchist-y and genuinely grassroots nature of the opposition it faced on America's television screens each time there was a G7 or WTO meeting. While this celebrity-NGO complex purports to reduce suffering in the Global South - almost always a monolithic and mysterious place called "Africa," to be more specific - suffering on a grand scale never meaningfully decreases. Rather, it adheres to a vague “We Must Do Something” form of liberal politics, identifying no perpetrators of or reasons for the world's ills other than an abstract sense of corruption or "inaction." Meanwhile, powerful Western interests, intellectual property regimes and corporate money - the primary drivers of global poverty - are not only ignored, but held up as the solution to the very problems they perpetuate. On this episode, we study the advent of the celebrity benefit and the attendant Bono-Bill Gates-Global Citizen model of "activism," examining the dangers inherent in this approach and asking why the media aren't more skeptical of these high-profile PR events that loudly announce, with bleeding hearts the existence of billions of victims but are, mysteriously, unable to name a single victimizer. Our guests are economic anthropologist Jason Hickel and Health Action International's Jaume Vidal.

Infertility Comics and Graphic Medicine (Routledge, 2021) examines women's graphic memoirs on infertility, foregrounding the complex interrelationship between women's life writing, infertility studies, and graphic medicine. Through a scholarly examination of the artists' use of visual-verbal codes of the comics medium in narrating their physical ordeals and affective challenges occasioned by infertility, the book seeks to foreground the intricacies of gender identity, embodiment, subjectivity, and illness experience. Providing long-overdue scholarly attention on the perspectives of autobiographical and comics studies, the authors examine the gendered nature of the infertility experience and the notion of motherhood as an ideological force which interpolates socio-cultural discourses, accentuating the potential of graphic medicine as a creative space for the infertile women to voice their hitherto silenced perspectives on childlessness with force and urgency. This interdisciplinary volume will be of interest to scholars and students in comics studies, the health humanities, literature, and women's and gender studies, and will also be suitable for readers in visual studies and narrative medicine. Victoria Oana Lupașcu is an Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature and Asian Studies at University of Montréal. Her areas of interest include medical humanities, visual art, 20th and 21st Chinese, Brazilian and Romanian literature and Global South studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

Infertility Comics and Graphic Medicine (Routledge, 2021) examines women's graphic memoirs on infertility, foregrounding the complex interrelationship between women's life writing, infertility studies, and graphic medicine. Through a scholarly examination of the artists' use of visual-verbal codes of the comics medium in narrating their physical ordeals and affective challenges occasioned by infertility, the book seeks to foreground the intricacies of gender identity, embodiment, subjectivity, and illness experience. Providing long-overdue scholarly attention on the perspectives of autobiographical and comics studies, the authors examine the gendered nature of the infertility experience and the notion of motherhood as an ideological force which interpolates socio-cultural discourses, accentuating the potential of graphic medicine as a creative space for the infertile women to voice their hitherto silenced perspectives on childlessness with force and urgency. This interdisciplinary volume will be of interest to scholars and students in comics studies, the health humanities, literature, and women's and gender studies, and will also be suitable for readers in visual studies and narrative medicine. Victoria Oana Lupașcu is an Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature and Asian Studies at University of Montréal. Her areas of interest include medical humanities, visual art, 20th and 21st Chinese, Brazilian and Romanian literature and Global South studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Infertility Comics and Graphic Medicine (Routledge, 2021) examines women's graphic memoirs on infertility, foregrounding the complex interrelationship between women's life writing, infertility studies, and graphic medicine. Through a scholarly examination of the artists' use of visual-verbal codes of the comics medium in narrating their physical ordeals and affective challenges occasioned by infertility, the book seeks to foreground the intricacies of gender identity, embodiment, subjectivity, and illness experience. Providing long-overdue scholarly attention on the perspectives of autobiographical and comics studies, the authors examine the gendered nature of the infertility experience and the notion of motherhood as an ideological force which interpolates socio-cultural discourses, accentuating the potential of graphic medicine as a creative space for the infertile women to voice their hitherto silenced perspectives on childlessness with force and urgency. This interdisciplinary volume will be of interest to scholars and students in comics studies, the health humanities, literature, and women's and gender studies, and will also be suitable for readers in visual studies and narrative medicine. Victoria Oana Lupașcu is an Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature and Asian Studies at University of Montréal. Her areas of interest include medical humanities, visual art, 20th and 21st Chinese, Brazilian and Romanian literature and Global South studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

In La Guera Rodriguez: The Life and Legends of a Mexican Independence Heroine (U California Press, 2021), Silvia Marina Arrom traces the legends of María Ignacia Rodríguez de Velasco y Osorio Barba (1778–1850), known by the nickname "La Güera Rodríguez." Seeking to disentangle the woman from the myth, Arrom uses a wide array of primary sources from the period to piece together an intimate portrait of this remarkable woman, followed by a review of her evolving representation in Mexican arts and letters that shows how the legends became ever more fanciful after her death. How much of the story is rooted in fact, and how much is fiction sculpted to fit the cultural sensibilities of a given moment in time? This is an indispensable resource for those searching to understand late-colonial Mexico, the role of women in the independence movement, and the use of historic figures in crafting national narratives. Rachel Grace Newman is Lecturer in the History of the Global South at Smith College. She has a Ph.D. in History from Columbia University, and she writes about elite migration, education, transnationalism, and youth in twentieth-century Mexico. She is on Twitter (@rachelgnew). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

In La Guera Rodriguez: The Life and Legends of a Mexican Independence Heroine (U California Press, 2021), Silvia Marina Arrom traces the legends of María Ignacia Rodríguez de Velasco y Osorio Barba (1778–1850), known by the nickname "La Güera Rodríguez." Seeking to disentangle the woman from the myth, Arrom uses a wide array of primary sources from the period to piece together an intimate portrait of this remarkable woman, followed by a review of her evolving representation in Mexican arts and letters that shows how the legends became ever more fanciful after her death. How much of the story is rooted in fact, and how much is fiction sculpted to fit the cultural sensibilities of a given moment in time? This is an indispensable resource for those searching to understand late-colonial Mexico, the role of women in the independence movement, and the use of historic figures in crafting national narratives. Rachel Grace Newman is Lecturer in the History of the Global South at Smith College. She has a Ph.D. in History from Columbia University, and she writes about elite migration, education, transnationalism, and youth in twentieth-century Mexico. She is on Twitter (@rachelgnew). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

European Decadence, a controversial artistic movement that flourished mainly in late-nineteenth-century France and Britain, has inspired several generations of Chinese writers and literary scholars since it was introduced to China in the early 1920s. Translated into Chinese as tuifei, which has strong hedonistic and pessimistic connotations, the concept of Decadence has proven instrumental in multiple waves of cultural rebellion, but has also become susceptible to moralistic criticism. Many contemporary scholars have sought to rehabilitate Chinese Decadence but have found it difficult to dissociate it from the negative connotations of tuifei. More importantly, few have reconnected Decadence with its steadfast pursuit of intellectual pleasure and unique paradoxes or explored the specific socio-historical conditions and cultural dynamics that gave rise to Decadence. Decadence in Modern Chinese Literature and Culture: A Comparative and Literary-Historical Reevaluation (Cambria Press, 2020) is the first comprehensive study of Decadence in Chinese literature since the early twentieth century. Standing at the intersection of comparative literature and cultural history, it transcends the framework of tuifei by locating European Decadence in its sociocultural context and uses it as a critical lens to examine Chinese Decadent literature and Chinese society. Its in-depth analysis reveals that some Chinese writers and literary scholars creatively appropriated the concept of Decadence for enlightenment purposes or to bid farewell to revolution. Meanwhile, the socialist system, by first fostering strong senses of elitism among certain privileged groups and then rescinding its ideological endorsement and material support, played a crucial role in the emergence of Chinese Decadent literature in the European sense. Decadence in Modern Chinese Literature and Culture is an important book for scholars and students interested in Decadence, modern Chinese literature and cultural history, Asian studies, and comparative literature. This book is in the Cambria Sinophone World Series headed by Victor H. Mair (University of Pennsylvania). Victoria Oana Lupașcu is an Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature and Asian Studies at University of Montréal. Her areas of interest include medical humanities, visual art, 20th and 21st Chinese, Brazilian and Romanian literature and Global South studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

European Decadence, a controversial artistic movement that flourished mainly in late-nineteenth-century France and Britain, has inspired several generations of Chinese writers and literary scholars since it was introduced to China in the early 1920s. Translated into Chinese as tuifei, which has strong hedonistic and pessimistic connotations, the concept of Decadence has proven instrumental in multiple waves of cultural rebellion, but has also become susceptible to moralistic criticism. Many contemporary scholars have sought to rehabilitate Chinese Decadence but have found it difficult to dissociate it from the negative connotations of tuifei. More importantly, few have reconnected Decadence with its steadfast pursuit of intellectual pleasure and unique paradoxes or explored the specific socio-historical conditions and cultural dynamics that gave rise to Decadence. Decadence in Modern Chinese Literature and Culture: A Comparative and Literary-Historical Reevaluation (Cambria Press, 2020) is the first comprehensive study of Decadence in Chinese literature since the early twentieth century. Standing at the intersection of comparative literature and cultural history, it transcends the framework of tuifei by locating European Decadence in its sociocultural context and uses it as a critical lens to examine Chinese Decadent literature and Chinese society. Its in-depth analysis reveals that some Chinese writers and literary scholars creatively appropriated the concept of Decadence for enlightenment purposes or to bid farewell to revolution. Meanwhile, the socialist system, by first fostering strong senses of elitism among certain privileged groups and then rescinding its ideological endorsement and material support, played a crucial role in the emergence of Chinese Decadent literature in the European sense. Decadence in Modern Chinese Literature and Culture is an important book for scholars and students interested in Decadence, modern Chinese literature and cultural history, Asian studies, and comparative literature. This book is in the Cambria Sinophone World Series headed by Victor H. Mair (University of Pennsylvania). Victoria Oana Lupașcu is an Assistant Professor of Comparative Literature and Asian Studies at University of Montréal. Her areas of interest include medical humanities, visual art, 20th and 21st Chinese, Brazilian and Romanian literature and Global South studies. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

As Christianity expands in the global South, the Western church must continue to support the developing church by sending and going.

Emma hosts Rupa Marya, Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, to discuss her recent book Inflamed: Deep Medicine and the Anatomy of Injustice that she co-authored with Raj Patel, on the socioeconomic roots of poor health, and the colonial seeds that brought about this issue. Professor Marya begins by defining inflammation for us, looking at it as a response to damage or threat of damage, from response to impact, virus, student debt, or intergenerational trauma, before they dive into the connections between the ideologies of modern medicine and colonization, particularly in the uses of separation and atomization – including the mind-body dichotomy, people versus nature, and white folks versus indigenous peoples – and in how they were set up in union, with medics, missionaries, and militaries leading the charge. Next, they jump into the capitalist nature of our medical system, looking at how the influence of lobbyists, the drive for efficiency, and the leverage of debt are all central to the modern medicine experience. Professor Marya and Emma then move back to the more physical repercussions of the atomization of colonial capitalism, discussing the impossibility of treating COVID at home while letting it run rampant in the Global South, before moving on to the book's blueprint of walking through the inherent interplay between all elements of our anatomy, from our cardiovascular system to brain functioning to the microbiome in our gut. They wrap up the discussion by looking at the exploitation of the environment and workforce as a representation of the clear need for societal restructuring as the diseases of capitalism become worse and worse, and the need for new infrastructures of care become direr and direr. Emma also touches on Tim Kaine's status as majority leader of empathy as he connects with Rahm Emanuel on the pain of governing a police force that murders your constituents, and not doing anything to stop them. And in the Fun Half: Emma, Brandon, and Matt(s) cover a teacher's audition for Bari Weiss's Substack, Chuck from Indiana calls in to ask our celebs about para-social relationships, and Andrew from Greensboro talks about the hypocrisy of elite wellness critique. Kowalski gets his well-deserved celebration as he enters his 28th year of life, Seb Gorka doesn't understand the concept of paternity, Dave Rubin defends comedians as the martyrs of truth and also the reason why Netflix should fire their trans employees, and Katt Williams talks about the importance of boundaries and the failures of comics who can't deal with them, plus, your calls and IMs! Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here. Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ (Merch issues and concerns can be addressed here: majorityreportstore@mirrorimage.com) You can now watch the livestream on Twitch Support the St. Vincent Nurses today as they continue to strike for a fair contract! https://action.massnurses.org/we-stand-with-st-vincents-nurses/ Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Subscribe to AM Quickie writer Corey Pein's podcast News from Nowhere, at https://www.patreon.com/newsfromnowhere Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! Subscribe to Matt's other show Literary Hangover on Patreon! Check out The Letterhack's upcoming Kickstarter project for his new graphic novel! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/milagrocomic/milagro-heroe-de-las-calles Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel! Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! Check out The Nomiki Show live at 3 pm ET on YouTube at patreon.com/thenomikishow Check out Jamie's podcast, The Antifada, at patreon.com/theantifada, on iTunes, or at twitch.tv/theantifada (streaming every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday at 7pm ET!) Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop

Outro: Eva B - Mukhtasir Baatein https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T--NV__iJA We're joined by two excellent scholars — Noopur Raval, research fellow in the AI Now Institute at NYU, and Rida Qadri, PhD candidate in Urban Information Systems at MIT — to talk about their important research on platform workers and economies in the Global South. We discuss practices of agency and social support amongst workers in places like Jakarta and Bangalore; the North-South divide in how these platforms are understood; contextualizing these systems as an antidote against universalizing them; the trope of “finding” invisible tech workers in exotic lands; the need for a “decolonial cosmopolitan ethic,” and much more. Find Noopur here: noopur.xyz /// twitter.com/tetisheri Find Rida here: ridaqadri.net /// twitter.com/qadrida Their work we discuss: • Mutual Aid Stations | Rida Qadri, Noopur Raval: https://logicmag.io/distribution/mutual-aid-stations/ • Delivery Drivers Are Using Grey Market Apps to Make Their Jobs Suck Less | Rida Qadri: https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kvpng/delivery-drivers-are-using-grey-market-apps-to-make-their-jobs-suck-less • Platform Workers as Infrastructures of Global Technologies | Rida Qadri: https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/july-august-2021/platform-workers-as-infrastructures-of-global-technologies • Interrupting Invisibility in a Global World | Noopur Raval: https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/july-august-2021/interrupting-invisibility-in-a-global-world • An Agenda for Decolonizing Data Science | Noopur Raval: https://mediarep.org/bitstream/handle/doc/14422/spheres_5_0202_Raval_Agenda-for-Decolonizing-Data-Science.pdf?sequence=1 Subscribe to hear more analysis and commentary in our premium episodes every week! patreon.com/thismachinekills Grab your TMK gear: bonfire.com/store/this-machine-kills-podcast/ Hosted by Jathan Sadowski (twitter.com/jathansadowski) and Edward Ongweso Jr. (twitter.com/bigblackjacobin). Production / Music by Jereme Brown (twitter.com/braunestahl)

America's first medical patents date back to the 1790s—and patents still inform our every prescription, vaccine, and pharmacy run. This week on Getting Curious, Priti Krishtel joins Jonathan to break down the basics on medical patents. Why do they exist? Who do they serve? And how equitable are they?  Priti Krishtel is a health justice lawyer and co-founder of I-MAK, a non-profit building a more just and equitable medicines system. She has spent nearly two decades exposing structural inequities affecting access to medicines and vaccines across the Global South and in the United States. You can follow Priti on Twitter @pritikrishtel. I-MAK is on Twitter @IMAKglobal and at i-mak.org. Find out what today's guest and former guests are up to by following us on Instagram and Twitter @CuriousWithJVN.Transcripts for each episode are available at JonathanVanNess.com.Check out Getting Curious merch at PodSwag.com.Listen to more music from Quiñ by heading over to TheQuinCat.com.Jonathan is on Instagram and Twitter @JVN and @Jonathan.Vanness on Facebook.

America's first medical patents date back to the 1790s—and patents still inform our every prescription, vaccine, and pharmacy run. This week on Getting Curious, Priti Krishtel joins Jonathan to break down the basics on medical patents. Why do they exist? Who do they serve? And how equitable are they?   Priti Krishtel is a health justice lawyer and co-founder of I-MAK, a non-profit building a more just and equitable medicines system. She has spent nearly two decades exposing structural inequities affecting access to medicines and vaccines across the Global South and in the United States.   You can follow Priti on Twitter @pritikrishtel. I-MAK is on Twitter @IMAKglobal and at i-mak.org.   Find out what today's guest and former guests are up to by following us on Instagram and Twitter @CuriousWithJVN. Transcripts for each episode are available at JonathanVanNess.com. Check out Getting Curious merch at PodSwag.com. Listen to more music from Quiñ by heading over to TheQuinCat.com. Jonathan is on Instagram and Twitter @JVN and @Jonathan.Vanness on Facebook.