We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
The world’s largest plastic waste pyramid is revealed in Egypt ahead of COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh.
What to expect from COP27: “It’s pretty grim”
Last year’s COP26 summit in Glasgow, Scotland, where central governments and the private sector worked together in unforeseen ways, gave us reason to hope for climate progress. Nearly 200 countries gathered to agree on details of the Paris Agreement with an eye toward limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C. This year was meant to be all about implementation.
But in the last 12 months, the world’s been rocked by war in Europe, soaring inflation, and deepening political and economic divides between rich and poor countries. As world leaders descend this weekend on the Egyptian resort city of Sharm El-Sheikh for the COP27 climate summit, climate warriors are wondering what can be done at this pivotal moment to save the planet.
We spoke with our very own climate expert, Eurasia Group’s Vice Chairman Gerald Butts, for a reality check on the goals and possibilities for this year’s COP27. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Last year's COP26 produced some highly ambitious goals. What kind of progress has been made thus far on those goals?
Not a lot, unfortunately. I think that most governments have been distracted by the economic fallout from the war, and those directly involved in the war have been distracted by that. So I think it's been a suboptimal year, to say the least, in climate progress, with the one notable bright spot of the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, which is the first serious stab at tackling the US domestic emissions problem that we've seen. So one big bright spot, and a lot of backsliding
What are the broad goals for this year's conference? What would success look like?
The advanced billing was that it was going to be an attempt to knit together north and south. And, unfortunately, I think the fault line between northern wealthier countries that emit a lot and the developing world, which historically has not emitted a lot, is going to be bigger than ever in Egypt and that will probably feature prominently in the daily coverage. There will be a big focus on climate finance and greenwashing — expect a bunfight on this front.
To what extent has the war in Ukraine impacted global climate goals?
I think the war in Ukraine will ultimately expedite the energy transition from fossil-based energy to renewables. But in the short term, there's no doubt that it's leading to an increase in the use of fossil fuels to create energy, particularly in Europe. And the most pernicious aspect of climate change emissions is that they persist for a long time in the atmosphere. So you're seeing a lot of coverage where people are saying, “these are temporary increases in emissions in Europe,” but they're not temporary to the atmosphere. That's the key point. They may ramp back down in a couple of years, but the consequences will be there for a very long time.
Do you expect that to shift at all in the coming year? What is the outlook for Europe’s transition away from fossil-based energy?
I think that the geopolitics of Russia's energy leverage over Europe has brought into sharp relief for European governments how ill-advised that was in the first place. And given that Europe does not have a large domestic store of fossil-based energy, it's underscored how important the energy transition away from fossil is in Europe. And European policymakers have really latched onto it. They're going to spend a lot of money to execute it, and it's going to be an expensive fast transition as governments try to manage large increases in energy prices in the short term. There's no doubt that the energy transition is happening and that people underestimate how disruptive it's going to be. The countries that are trying to push fast forward on an energy transition will endure the price spikes. So in a nutshell, it's going to be a lot bumpier than people expect it to be, and it will eventually happen, but there will be a lot of political fallout and turmoil.
Last year, the US and China signed a joint declaration on Climate Action. Is that cooperation in jeopardy today? And what does that mean?
Oh yeah, big time. I think it's part and parcel to the larger structural change in the US-China relationship, where they both see each other primarily as competitors rather than as strategic partners. In the past, the climate as an issue had been set aside from that change, but it's inevitably been sucked into that maelstrom.
This means you don't have the top two emitters and two largest economies cooperating any longer on climate change. I think it's become, for both countries, a field of competition rather than cooperation, which is again something we've been saying was inevitable at Eurasia Group Asia for a long time, but you're seeing it in full force now.
One of the biggest-picture issues that'll be in the background of every conversation at COP27 is the global competition for the rare earth minerals that go into making up the battery supply chain for everything from electric vehicles to storage for electricity grids. The Chinese are way ahead, and the North Americans — including Canada and Mexico — have lately stepped up their efforts to catch up. But we see this as a resource race where large dominant economies are competing with one another to secure a long-term supply of critical minerals that they think will be of strategic economic and security value over the mid to long term.
What other contentious issues will COP27 participants face?
I think the big issue is — and this was brought into sharp relief with the floods in Nigeria and Pakistan — that the developing world is saying, "We didn't cause this problem, but we're dealing with its most severe consequences, and under the loss and damage provisions that the north has signed onto repeatedly, but failed to deliver on, it's time for you guys to pay up.” And the north is going to show up without a lot of money.
As a veteran of several COPs, that's a dynamic that you see all the time, and I think the patience is wearing thin in the south, especially as they see all of this investment get sucked into the United States because of the IRA.
What do you think of Egypt playing host? How will that go down?
There's going to be a lot of bad publicity for Egypt during the course of the COP, in particular on political freedom issues. There are organizations trying to highlight the prevalence of political prisoners in Egypt. And of course, Sharm El Sheikh itself is known as a playground for wealthy Europeans and Middle Easterners. In some ways, having it in an African country so close to Europe is inviting comments on the global divide between north and south.
And finally, where does the world stand on climate targets, and what is your biggest fear?
Everybody’s way off their targets and a lot of very hard heavy lifting is required to get us anywhere near keeping 1.5 degrees alive. And right now we're somewhere in the mid-2’s depending on which projection you look at. And you only need to look around the world to see the manifestations of 1.2 degrees of warming, which is where we are, to know that the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years are going to be really difficult ones, in particular for people who live near the equator, which is most of humanity.
What worries me most is that we're entering a world where even the wealthy countries that can, to a certain extent, use their wealth to insulate themselves from the most severe impacts of climate change, aren't really doing it. It requires us in democratic societies to do things that we're historically not very good at, which is to think long-term on things like infrastructure and to make investments accordingly.
What keeps me awake at night is the migration crisis. I think that a combination of adverse heat events, flooding, and sea level rise will create numerous migration problems over the next 20 years that we have shown ourselves as a global community singularly inept at dealing with.
Sorry to be a downer, but it's pretty grim out there.
- US midterms have major global implications - GZERO Media ›
- COP27 winners and losers - GZERO Media ›
- COP27: Not good enough ›
- COP15 biodiversity wish list for the private sector - GZERO Media ›
- COP15 biodiversity wish list for the private sector - GZERO Media ›
- "We don't have any right to destroy nature" — Suntory CEO Tak Niinami - GZERO Media ›
- Biodiversity loss: Is nature-positive the new net zero? - GZERO Media ›
- Biodiversity loss: Is nature-positive the new net zero? - GZERO Media ›
COVID's impact on education and its long-term geopolitical consequences: Gerald Butts
It's not just kids spending too much time on their screens because they got so used to doing everything remotely during the pandemic.
The impact of COVID-related educational disruption - and the growing inequality gap - could have big geopolitical fallout in the future. Why?
Because with diminished education comes fewer economic opportunities. That will likely exacerbate already deep divisions, says Eurasia Group Vice Chairman Gerald Butts.
As a result, he adds, watch out for more future disrupted politics around the world, both within countries and between countries.
Butts spoke during a Global Stage livestream on September 15, 2022: "Live from the UN General Assembly: Transforming Education"
- How to get students back on track after the Great Education ... ›
- Education's digital revolution: why UN Secretary-General António ... ›
- Eurasia Group's Gerald Butts: US climate change debate has moved ... ›
- Europe plans for Putin & Trump 2.0 - GZERO Media ›
- Overcoming inefficiency with education - GZERO Media ›
- 2022 has been rough. Will 2023 be any better? - GZERO Media ›
- Eddie Ndopu: "People with disabilities need to be in leadership" - GZERO Media ›
How to get students back on track after the Great Education Disruption
As the 77th UN General Assembly gets underway, much of the attention will go toward how to breathe new life into the Sustainable Development Goals. Why? Because the pandemic wiped out years of progress on meeting the 17 SDGs, especially No. 4: ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all.
COVID disrupted the lives of some 1.6 billion students around the world. Almost 150 million missed about half of in-person classes in 2020, and 24 million will never return to school.
So, how can we get education back on track before it's too late? Several experts weighed in during the Global Stage livestream conversation "Transforming Education" hosted by GZERO Media in partnership with Microsoft.
The data on the pandemic's crippling effect on education are not enough to get a real sense of the "picture of this time," said Leonardo Garnier, special adviser for the UN's Transforming Education Summit. Still, now we have an opportunity to invest in education like we've never done before — including in low-income countries where the government and businesses actually benefit from a cheap, uneducated labor force. Investing in education, Garnier added, is not only a moral imperative but a wise economic decision because it comes with big long-term payoffs like more educated women entering the workforce.
American Federation of Teachers Executive VP Evelyn DeJesus, for her part, explained how during the pandemic kids were walloped by multiple traumas, arguably the least of which was having to learn on Zoom. She believes it would have been a miracle if test scores hadn't dropped. While recognizing the failures of remote learning, DeJesus still thinks we need to spend big — no more belt-tightening — on broadband access for all, and resents how education has become a political football in America.
COVID's wrecking ball to education exacerbated divisions not only between but also within countries, which in the future will disrupt politics when people get angry from losing out on opportunities, said Eurasia Group Vice Chairman Gerald Butts. How can we stop this? With more global cooperation on education, which should be a "continuum" for everyone, everywhere.
Vickie Robinson, general manager of Microsoft's Airband Initiative to expand global broadband access, said that despite the disruptions caused by the abrupt switch to remote learning during the pandemic, we still need to invest in digital infrastructure because it might just happen again and we can't afford for our kids to lose any more school time. Who should do this? Robinson believes the responsibility for digital inclusion should be shared by governments and the private sector.
Finally, one silver lining from COVID on higher education is that for many workers it shifted the focus from going to the right school to having the right skills, noted Jonathan Rochelle, VP of Product Management, Learning Content & Instructor Experience at Linkedin. And it'll continue, since acquiring skills in lifelong learning must be "a moving target."
- Should internet be free for everyone? A Global Stage debate ... ›
- Is the world coming apart? Drama at Davos - GZERO Media ›
- Economic historian Adam Tooze on the post-pandemic global ... ›
- Stanford's president on the “new normal” for higher education after ... ›
- How education has improved women's lives around the world ... ›
- COVID's impact on education and its long-term geopolitical consequences: Gerald Butts - GZERO Media ›
- Who can solve the world's "emergency of global proportions"? - GZERO Media ›
- Overcoming inefficiency with education - GZERO Media ›
Europe plans for Putin & Trump 2.0
Signal spoke with Eurasia Group Vice Chairman Gerry Butts about Europe’s future given the uncertainty created by both Russian aggression and America’s volatile politics. This interview was edited for length and clarity.
Willis Sparks: The G7 and NATO summits this week have focused on threats from Russia and challenges from China. But based on your recent conversations with senior European officials, you’ve said they’re also worried about long-term threats to Europe’s alliances posed by America’s tough-to-predict political future. Say more about that.
Gerry Butts: Europeans are looking beyond the midterms to the 2024 US presidential election. And having experienced around the NATO table the kind of belligerence they experienced from [Donald] Trump the first go-round, they’ve got to be worried that they’re going to end up holding the bag in a fight with the Russians in Europe with no Americans at the table.
Sparks: So, on the security front, what can Europe realistically do to protect itself against big swings in the future US commitment to Europe’s defense?
Butts: In the short term, not a lot. They have to build up their own capacity, and they’re moving pretty quickly to do that – the Germans, in particular. But if I were in Ukraine, I would worry that the Europeans might have to cut a territorial deal with the Russians.
I think the Germans are going to be sorely tested by the energy situation this winter. It’s hard to draw conclusions about the political mood in Germany until the Russians cut off the gas in the dead of winter. The public mood is really unsettled. I can see a broad spectrum of possible outcomes here. I can see one where the Germans say, “Why do we care so much about the Ukrainians when we can’t heat our homes?” But I can also imagine almost an epochal hardening of opinion against Russia. Either is possible.
Sparks: Europeans, particularly the French, have talked for decades about a common European defense beyond NATO. Does the current fear of Russian presence and US absence intensify the debate?
Butts: I think that Americans underestimate the consequences of the Trump presidency and just how seriously it was taken in Europe. If you’re German, French, or even British, and you’re thinking about what continental security looks like in Europe when the US isn’t present, nothing concentrates the mind like the threat of Russian invasion. That will instigate more action than all the talk of the past 25 years.
Sparks: In a way, Putin is proving to the Germans that they can’t be complacent. They have to spend the money on defense, no?
Butts: That’s right. The only reference point in my life is, in 1990, history was going to turn out great, and it felt like nothing could go wrong. Of course, a lot went wrong. Most of what we thought was going to happen didn’t happen. Now, we’re overcome by blanket pessimism. The worst-case scenario very seldom develops, but the unexpected always happens.
Sparks: What about climate change? What can EU leaders do to advance their plans knowing the next US president could be Donald Trump or someone who agrees with Trump on climate deals?
Butts: I think this whole situation is putting steel in the spine of the Europeans to decarbonize as rapidly as possible. They don’t want to trade reliance on Putin’s fossil gas for reliance on Trump’s fossil gas. That’s the geopolitical pickle they’re in. The only way out of that is to accelerate decarbonization. That’s easy to say and really hard to do. They now have two energy transitions. They have to get off Russian gas and then off of [all] fossil fuel.
By the way, I think the energy dimensions of Putin’s calculation to [invade Ukraine] were material if not decisive. He knew his maximum leverage point over Europe was right now. The longer he waited, the less leverage he would have as Europe decarbonizes. Putin recognizes that Europe’s climate policy is a real thing, and the tool he wanted to use would only get duller and duller.
Sparks: How long will each of these energy transitions take?
Butts: Decarbonization will take 15-20 years, but I think Russian gas will be gone from Europe within the next couple of years. The assumptions in European reports and forecasts are all based on absolute best-case scenarios, but they know how difficult this is going to be.
Putin doesn’t believe the world can exist without fossil fuel. Modern economies can’t run on renewables. He wants to prove that. If we’re wrong, Putin will prove that after the sugar rush of Western unity wears off, he can win. But Europe still has to go through both these energy transitions. I think this will be deeply impoverishing for Russia for generations to come.
This comes to you from the Signal newsletter team of GZERO Media. Subscribe for your free daily Signal today.
COP26 vibes so far: "What's it worth to save everything we have?"
What's the state of play so far at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow? Why is it so urgent to speed up climate action before it's too late? What does climate justice for developing nations really mean? And how can companies do their part without greenwashing? Several experts debated these and other questions during a Global Stage livestream conversation hosted by GZERO Media in partnership with Microsoft during the opening week of COP26, moderated by Eurasia Group senior adviser Diana Fox Carney.
Gerald Butts, vice chairman of Eurasia Group, explained the difference between climate justice and just transition to clean energy, and how the political debate on climate has moved to who's responsible to what we're going to do about it.
Atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe, Chief Scientist at The Nature Conservancy and Director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University., offered her thoughts on progress made since Paris 2015, why everything we do matters because climate is loading the dice against us, the need to set goals despite the human tendency to procrastinate, why we need to put value on climate because everything we have is worth saving, and why individuals should use their voices more than their actions to advocate for change on climate.
Naoko Ishii, Director of Center for Global Commons, and Executive Vice President of the University of Tokyo, detailed how we need to persuade the Japanese people to come up with a climate agenda they can own, and how to integrate the value of natural capital into economic decision-making by putting a price on carbon.
Microsoft chief environmental officer Lucas Joppa talked about why it's time for corporations to go from pledges to performance on climate action, why the private sector's role should be building climate solutions for the public sector, the importance of technology to move the needle on corporate sustainability, and why training the workforce in green skills should be a shared responsibility.
DRC member of parliament and former speaker Jeanine Mabunda Lioko discussed the paradox of a global green economy that'll still need a lot of raw materials from Africa, the facts and figures that illuminate the climate justice question, and why some climate goals are reachable for the continent — just not developing with only renewable energy.
Catherine McKenna, former Canadian minister of Infrastructure and Communities, spoke about the huge opportunity to scale up public-private partnerships on climate with blended finance, the need to track progress on top of disclosure to prevent greenwashing, and the right incentives for behavioral change on climate.- Viewpoint: What to watch at COP26 - GZERO Media ›
- Should internet be free for everyone? A Global Stage debate ... ›
- A (global) solution for cybercrime - GZERO Media ›
- COP26 climate deal: Reasons for hope - GZERO Media ›
- A (global) solution for cybercrime - GZERO Media ›
- Want to land a "green job? 3 tips from LinkedIn's Sue Duke - GZERO Media ›
- Ukraine is a diversion from climate crisis, says John Kerry - GZERO Media ›
Is net zero really possible? Watch our live event
As COP26 nears, the need for real climate action has never been more urgent. There are reasons for hope, but many scientists believe the ambitious goal of net zero emissions by 2050 is unattainable without immediate and significant change. Governments, financial institutions, and private sector companies alike have all recognized the need for a multistakeholder approach to solving this crisis of a lifetime.
Watch "Climate Crisis: Is net zero really possible?" a one-hour virtual livestream, hosted by GZERO Media and Microsoft as part of the Global Stage series, to hear scientists, corporate leaders and policymakers debate this question and offer critical perspectives on the way forward. Live on Tuesday, November 2nd at 11am ET, we'll break down what "net zero" means, take stock of where the world is on the path to carbon neutrality, and discuss critical steps needed to make real progress.
Speakers include:
- Diana Fox Carney, Senior Advisor, Eurasia Group
- Gerald Butts, Vice-Chairman, Eurasia Group
- Katharine Hayhoe, Atmospheric Scientist, Professor and Director of the Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University
- Naoko Ishii, Director of Center for Global Commons, and Executive Vice President of the University of Tokyo
- Lucas Joppa, Chief Environmental Officer, Microsoft
- Jeanine Mabunda Lioko, Member of Parliament for Bumba, DRC, Former President of the National Assembly of the DRC
- Catherine McKenna, former Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Canada
Climate Crisis: Is net zero really possible?
Tuesday, November 2, 2021
11 am ET / 8 am PT
To watch live on November 2, go to: https://www.gzeromedia.com/globalstage/
Stay informed on upcoming live discussions from GZERO Media: sign up for updates and reminders about GZERO Media's events.
Episode 10: Can private companies lead the way on climate action?
Listen: With bold commitments coming from both political and business leaders around the globe, 2021 could be a critical year in the fight against climate change. As sustainable investing moves from being a nice idea to a necessary move, what does it mean for your bottom line?
In the latest episode of Living Beyond Borders, moderator Caitlin Dean speaks with experts about what's next for sustainability, protecting the planet, and the impact it will all have on investors and markets. Guests include Harlin Singh, Global Head of Sustainable Investing, Citi Private Bank; Davida Heller, SVP of Sustainability & ESG, Citi; and Gerald Butts, Vice Chairman at Eurasia Group.
Gerald Butts
Vice Chairman, Eurasia Group
Caitlin Dean
Practice Head, Financial & Professional Services, Eurasia Group
Davida Heller
SVP of Sustainability & ESG, Citi Global Public Affairs
Harlin Singh
Head of Sustainable Investing, Citi Private Bank
The Biden-Trudeau meeting & the road ahead for the US-Canada relationship
Today President Joe Biden held his first bilateral with Canada's prime minister, Justin Trudeau. To discuss the road ahead for the US-Canada relationship, and what it might foreshadow for the many bilaterals we're going to see in the coming weeks as Biden rolls out his foreign policy agenda, Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of US political and policy developments, is joined by Eurasia Group Vice Chairman Gerald Butts, who was Trudeau's Principal Secretary until 2019, in a special edition of US Politics In (a little over) 60 Seconds.
Jon Lieber:
Could you give us a little color on the significance of this meeting for both Biden and Trudeau, and maybe take us behind the scenes of kind of how you prep for this, and what the first meeting with the president means?
Gerald Butts:
Well, it's obviously a more significant meeting from the Canadian perspective than it is from the United States perspective, which is not to diminish the value of the Canadian relationship to the United States. I think I'm constitutionally obliged to tell every American I know that it is your largest trading, second largest trading relationship overall, and Canada remains the largest market for US exports. So, having got that constitutional responsibility out of the way, it's a much bigger deal for the Canadians than it is for the Americans, obviously. By far the most important international relationship that any Canadian prime minister has, and one on which he or she is judged politically, is the relationship with the president of the United States, and how they're able to constructively manage that relationship, regardless of their political differences.
Jon Lieber:
It's pretty normal for the first meeting with the Canadian prime minister, right? Like it would kind of be a snub if the US president went in a different direction?
Gerald Butts:Yeah, there'll be a huge sigh of relief in the opinion leading circles here in Canada that the new president has chosen to have his first bilateral with Canada. Obviously, Joe Biden, as a Midwestern Democrat in origin, if a senator from Delaware, is very well skilled in Canada. He's called himself a friend of Canada, had very successful visits here as vice president with Prime Minister Trudeau. So, as we said to many people around the world, Jon, Joe Biden, looks, talks, sounds, feels a lot like more people outside of the United States want their US president to look.
Jon Lieber:
Sure. And I guess in Canada, much like a lot of other places around the globe, it's a bit of a sigh of relief that they're no longer dealing with President Trump, which is probably the most important thing about President Biden, at least for the very short term.
Gerald Butts:
Yeah, not being Donald Trump is a good thing for the United States's bilateral relationship with China. It's impossible to overstate how unpopular Donald Trump was in Canada. It would make him look popular in the bluest of blue states in the United States. All that said, there remain very difficult, nettlesome issues for Canada and the United States. While we've got the big piece, macro piece of the puzzle in place with bipartisan support for the new NAFTA agreement, there are still some significant issues. The new administration's rejection of the Keystone Pipeline on day one was of course a major irritant for the government here. But the bigger picture challenge is how does Canada reorient itself toward the new president's most significant change in policy direction, and that's of course on climate change and energy.
Jon Lieber:
Yeah, I was going to ask about that next. You know, you look at the relationship with the Europeans, for example, and obviously Biden's got a much more multilateral approach. And I think initially there was some thought that that would lead to a lot of reproachment with the Europeans, but it's become pretty clear that there's some deep divisions between the Americans and the Europeans over issues like Russia, China. And that's the case with Canada, as well. You've got Buy America, procurement issues. You've got the existing 232 tariffs. There's the perennial issues of lumber and dairy that I think have yet to be resolved between the US and Canada. So, which one of these things do you think is going to be a big irritant, and what kind of progress can be made that hasn't been made under other presidents?
Gerald Butts:
Well, without question... And it's funny you mentioned the traditional irritants. Those dairy policy and soft wood lumber have the status of an annuity within the bilateral trade relationship between Canada and the United States. No matter who's in the White House or who's in the prime minister's office here, they're always a challenge.
But by far the biggest short-term issue for Canada... And we probably got a little bit of clarity about this today. Both sides will reap positives in it... is the Buy America policy, no question, that every prime minster, going back to the prime minister's father when he was prime minister and President Nixon was president, has managed to come to some sort of mutually agreeable arrangement, where Canada is for all intents and purposes considered part of the United States for procurement and trade purposes. And the Biden team's domestic political objectives are a little sharper than they have been in the past on this front, given all of the big economic trends around reshoring and the context of the campaign, of course. So, they've got to be very careful on this. I'm one who believes that reasonable people usually arrive at mutually agreeable outcomes when there's one to be had, and they probably will in this case, as well.
Jon Lieber:
Yeah, the politics of this have shifted as well, because President Trump kind of shocked the system in terms of making protectionism of the US cool again for both sides, for Democrats and Republicans. And Biden kind of …
Gerald Butts:
I didn't see that on too many hats.
Jon Lieber:
Yeah, exactly. Everyone sees that. Yeah, it's a famous slogan. Yeah. And Biden's going to have to live with that legacy now, and it does affect... I mean, obviously it would affect Canada.
Gerald Butts:
Yeah, without a doubt. And I think relatedly, on the climate front, the big challenge for Canada here of course is that the supply chain... And it's been the big benefit for Canada over time economically, that our supply chains are just so integrated. Right? That the average automobile created by Detroit OEM crosses the border several times before it becomes an auto. It grows from parts into an automobile is the most obvious example. We have a very big, deep energy relationship.
And I think personally, as someone who's kind of been through these wars from the inside out, the biggest challenge that Canada is going to have in the Biden era... Say what you want about Donald Trump. At the end of the day, there was no way for him to renegotiate NAFTA without Canada agreeing to the final outcome. I think that that was a key piece of leverage that Canada maintained, and used pretty skillfully throughout the conversation, throughout the negotiations. But when it comes to climate change, Joe Biden doesn't really need Canada to implement his domestic climate policy.
Personally, as someone who spends a lot of time on the issue, I would argue that his objectives, in particular the 2035 decarbonization objective that was the main headline of the climate platform during the campaign, is a lot easier if you're doing it in concert with Canada, where there already is a lot of low and zero carbon electricity available, some of which of course already powers major American cities like New York. That's another constitutional obligation as the Canadian, Jon. But we're Canadians. We're cooperative. We like to think that we can help the United States achieve its objectives, especially when they're mutually held north of the border.
Jon Lieber:
And before I let you go, Gerry, there are two kind of new issues that have come up between the US and Canada. One is vaccines, where vaccine distribution... You know. The US has procured this large stockpile and isn't sharing it just yet. And Canada I believe is a little bit behind the US in terms of rates of vaccination, and could use some help here, and that's unlikely to be coming. And the second is China, where Canada for a while now has been caught in between the US and China, and kind of has to navigate a really delicate role. I know you work on that issue, so I'd love to hear your thoughts on those two issues.
Gerald Butts:Yeah. Well, the second one is obviously the longer-term issue that, knock on wood, will certainly be with us over the longer term. Look, you and I talk to people around the world about this issue all the time. Canadians, one of our endearing qualities, we tend to think we're unique in the world on a lot of the things. And there are a lot of Canadians who think we're uniquely caught between the US and China as they reexamine their strategic security and economic relationship. I always invite those people to call their closest Japanese friend or South Korean friend, and ask them the same question... Or Australian friend, for that matter, and ask them how they feel about it.
Look. At the end of the day, this is a big structural realignment, both from a security and an economic perspective. Canada's going to have to find its way through that transition, like every other country is in the world. There are probably not too many that I would trade places with.
And on the vaccines, obviously the United States has domestic manufacturing capacity, as does the U.K., and it's given it kind of a head start. There have definitely been some problems with the vaccine rollout here. In particular, like most federal estates, there have been, charitably call them "disputes" between orders of government about how the pandemic overall should be managed, the degree of the lockdown. We have, on the far east coast here where I grew up in Atlantic Canada, it's kind of the New Zealand North America, where the pandemic's been managed very, very well. Very few people have died, and very, very few people have caught the virus. And we have other provinces, like back in Ontario where I live, where the situation has looked a lot more like it has in sort of median of the United States. So, it's a challenge to federalist systems everywhere.
All that said, it's a big couple of months coming up for both the federal government here and the provincial government. The vaccine supplies are starting to flood into the country, and all orders of the government are going to be judged by how efficiently they deliver them and get those, as our British friends would say, jabs in arms.
Jon Lieber:
Great. Well Gerry, thanks for joining us. I hope next time we do this; we can do it in person once they've opened the border again. But good to talk to you.