The COP31 climate conference begins in Turkey next week. Can countries make headway in the current geopolitical landscape?

This week on , Akshat Rathi is joined by Chris Bowen, Australia’s minister for climate change and energy and the president of negotiations at COP31, to ask what breakthroughs he hopes to see at the climate conference, why electrification is so high on the agenda and whether progress can be made in the face of a climate-hostile US.

Akshat Rathi Next week, Australia and Turkey will be co-hosting the COP31 climate conference in the town of Antalya, Turkey. Once again, tens of thousands of diplomats, negotiators, business people and activists will attempt to chart a path toward a low-carbon future. But how exactly can countries make progress in this current geopolitical quagmire? This is Zero, I’m Akshat Rathi and this week: What to look out for at COP31.

For those of you listening to the audio version of this podcast, this episode is part of a new video series we are making on electrification. If you'd like to Welcome to the show, Chris.

Chris Bowen Great to be with you, Akshat. I'm a very big fan of your podcast. I'm a regular listener.

Great to join you. Thank you. We're going to start with COP because each COP is quite different, and each one must try and bring the world closer to the goals of the Paris Agreement. Now, what are three things that, if they get signed off at this COP in the final decision text, would allow you to call it a success?

Thanks, Akshat. Well, I mean, obviously, firstly, this is a little bit of a different COP also, because we have an innovative and unique arrangement between Australia and Turkey. Maybe we'll get to that later. But in terms of what we have to do, you're 100% right. We have to take the ball forward. We have to make progress on multilateralism. Multilateralism is being questioned. It's under attack, and we need to show that it's continuing to work. And obviously, though, as chair of the negotiations, we have a role to do to steer the negotiations. We don't dictate. We have to steer toward a successful and ambitious outcome.

But to answer your question, look, I'd be very happy if we leave Antalya with a clear indication of our determination to continue to work to 1.5C, despite the overshoot. As the UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme] report makes clear, it's more urgent than ever. We're also looking to see progress on electrification. We have the action agenda and the negotiations, which are quite separate. Turkey is doing a great job on the action agenda and promoting 35 by 35 [35% electrification by 2035].

The negotiations are quite separate, but nevertheless, there's lots of momentum around the world on electrification. So I'd like to try and capture that in the negotiations and in the presidency-led decision.

And then a couple of issues that are very important to us, because they're important to small island developing states, and from our point of view, the Pacific particularly. The importance of oceans in climate change as the world's largest climate regulator, and also where we need to focus more on adaptation and linked to that, access to finance for those countries that need it the most.

The countries that need the finance the most are getting it the least — 0.2% of the world's climate finance is going to small island developing states for adaptation. And at pre-COP, for example, we took people to Tuvalu, which is really at the frontline, where Australia and New Zealand are co-funding a 30% expansion of the landmass of Tuvalu to help them survive. But we need to focus more on access to finance for small island developing states. Obviously, there are other issues that parties can and will raise, and we'll incorporate those. But for me, they are key areas I'd like to make strong progress on.

So I'm going to try and touch on each one of those in turn. But let me start with the report that you highlighted, which is the United Nations Environment Programme's report, essentially confirming that scientists have come to a consensus now that the world is going to shoot past 1.5C. And yes, it can come back down, but at great expense.

And you said, to keep that goal alive, and to ensure that great expense is as small as possible, there needs to be action that governments around the world take. And the Paris Agreement and the COPs that happened, allow countries to give the signal that these actions will happen. And those signals then really do turn into real world action. There is a word that you eliminated from your opening remarks, which is a word that has shown up at every COP in the last five years, I think, which is implementation.

Because much of what the Paris Agreement was in 2015, has been agreed upon. And it is now about trying to implement those actions so that you can actually keep warming from rising too quickly. Are there examples that you think where over the past five years, successful implementation has happened as a result of what talking happens at COP?

Yes. And firstly, if our listeners can hear bells ringing in the background, I'm in the Australian Parliament at the moment, and there's a vote just being called. I don't need to go, but there's bells ringing to call members of Parliament, in case you hear that background noise. And yes, I mean, I see it as implementation and acceleration, we need to do both. Implementation is crucial. We can't use it as an excuse not to try and do more, though, as well. So it's acceleration and implementation.

Ultimately, Akshat, I think that if you look at, since Paris, the world has changed remarkably. In Paris, if you said renewable energy investment would be double fossil fuel investment, you'd say, ‘well, that's a very good outcome.’And we know this is why COPs are important, we saw renewable investment continue to surge post-Paris. We saw it crater post-Copenhagen. So the message that COPs send is very, very important. And I think we're not quite on track for doubling and tripling from Dubai, but we are doing well, as the world, in that regard.

And I think that the Dubai decision was so important. So there's an example of all very well in Dubai to agree to double energy efficiency and triple renewable energy, but in a nationally determined way, we're all getting on with it. We've got more work to do to implement things around loss and damage, for example, and the just transition mechanism, they are key implementation tasks — particularly the just transition mechanism, a key implementation task for this COP. But I do think there's good examples of where we have implemented, and there's some key examples where implementation has to be a focus this year.

Let's stick to cutting emissions, because I think that needs to be done alongside adaptation. And I'll come to adaptation later. But there are two other things that you did not bring up in your opening remarks, which is the current circumstance in which this COP meeting is happening. Which is during a set of wars, perhaps the most relevant one for the world is the one that's driving energy prices high, which is the war in the Middle East. And there’s also the El Niño that is raising temperatures around the world and making already worse climate impacts, even worse. With that background, do you see countries more willing to make compromises to come to a more ambitious outcome at this COP?

Well, I think certainly the energy crisis has focused people's minds and has given us more scope to make progress. So I agree with that. And El Niño, as you said, is also in the background. El Niño is climate change. I mean, we have El Niños regularly, but this is a super El Niño and it will magnify the impacts of climate change and it is climate change in action. But the energy crisis, you're right.

I mean, obviously I'm talking to a lot of my international colleagues and no one has said to me anywhere in the world, you know what this energy crisis shows us? We need more fossil fuels. No one is saying that. They're saying the contrary, that renewable energy is sovereign energy for many, many countries around the world. And to paraphrase the old saying, the sun has to travel 150 million kilometers to Earth. It doesn't have to travel the 150 kilometers through the Strait of Hormuz. No war can get in the way of the wind. And for those countries that have renewable energy resources, it's sovereign. And even for those who don't, they need to diversify.

Take Singapore, for example, they're not in a position to have massive onshore renewables. They don't have much room, but nor do they want to remain reliant on fossil fuel imports. So they're working with countries like Australia to diversify their energy needs, energy uses. So essentially I'm agreeing with you, both of those things do one, underline the imperative for action, but two, hopefully give us more momentum for action.

But this geopolitical situation also can work against you because let's start with the US, which is now out of the Paris Agreement. It is not going to be on the floor of negotiations, participating directly. It is set to even leave the United Nations climate body next year. But under President Trump, the country is wielding its influence to try and halt climate progress, regardless of whether it's there on the negotiating floor or not. Earlier this year, it stopped the carbon fee that the International Maritime Organization was set to pass.

And that's going to have an impact on global emissions. As the President of Negotiations, how much harder does it make your life to get all the rest of the countries that are still part of the Paris Agreement to actually come to an ambitious outcome when the second largest emitter, and historically the largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, is acting like a rogue state trying to undo those actions?

Well, I guess all I'd say, Akshat, is they're not there. This will be the second COP where the United States hasn't been present. They weren't present in Belem. They were present in Baku. John Podesta was on the way out. He was still, though, very active, representing his nation. But it's not the case that they are wandering around the halls of Antalya advocating against action. They're not parties anymore. In a perfect world, would the United States be present and participating and arguing for action? Well, sure, but they're not.

So we deal with it. And it's not like they're there sort of arguing with parties. They're not part of the conversation. That's a decision that they're entitled to take. They've left the convention, they've left the COP. And so, therefore, they're not a country that we negotiate with at COP.

You have, in recent months, met your counterparts, both in China and India, the other largest emitters in the world. And you will need their support, given they are parties and they bring a lot of weight to negotiations, especially in the last moments when the final agreement has to come together. Let's start with India, because India's stance at COP summits has been pretty consistent. Any attempts that require India to increase its ambition on climate to reduce its emissions, India says, must be matched by access to finance.

Given the debt crisis that many emerging markets are facing, not just India, but a lot of countries, how are you seeing COP31 answering the call for finance in a way that would ensure that developing countries are coming to the table and participating at the level that you would want them to?

So on India, yes, I have had very warm discussions with my counterpart, Minister Yadav, with Bhupender-ji. Firstly, I think it's important to recognize everything India is doing. I mean, India's achievements are remarkable. Electrifying access to millions and millions of houses, having access to electricity for the first time, at the same time as decarbonizing. This is not about anyone lecturing India that you should be doing more, because India is doing a great job. So that's the first thing to say.

Second, to say I have found the Indian government, through Minister Yadav, very constructive, very engaged, very positive. Minister Yadav actually came to pre-COP in Fiji, and that shows a real, I think, commitment to being constructive. I've asked Minister Yadav to co-facilitate a stream of negotiations, and Minister Yadav has agreed to do that. I am very grateful for India's cooperation thus far, and I look forward to ongoing discussions.

On finance, this is not a finance COP, in that we did NCQG [New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance] in Baku and we regard that as being something we now need to get on and implement. So that goes back to your previous question about implementation. This is not about resetting targets. This is about — to the degree it's about finance — it's about how we're going on meeting those targets, and what do we need to do to get the finance that is already there, through multilateral development banks, or through direct country-to-country support, or what we call diverse and innovative sources, to those countries that need it the most.

Every country has to adapt. Every country is spending money on it. Obviously, developing countries need the support, and from our point of view, vulnerable states and small island developing states are at the forefront, and as I said before, they're getting 0.2% of existing finance. So let's focus on that.

Well, there is one thing that you have been focused on, because Australia is backing the Pacific Resilience Facility, and you aim to raise something like $500 million by COP31, and ultimately $1.5 billion for this fund. So far, it's got about $190 million, right? Who do you expect to contribute to fill up that gap between $190 and $500 million at COP31?

Well, I don't know if we'll get to $500 million by COP31, but we'll certainly want to get to that 500 level as soon as possible. We've been working with the Pacific on that. It's now operational, which is a big step forward. It's been a concept until recent months. It's now operational and working. There were some good commitments to the Pacific Resilience Fund at pre-COP, so I welcome the commitments of the United Kingdom, and Denmark, and the Netherlands, and Ireland, who all made new or increased commitments at pre-COP.

I am talking to countries about what they might announce at COP. I'm not in a position to share that with you, Akshat, because it's private between me and those ministers, but I'm hopeful that more countries will step forward. So look, it is an ongoing focus for us because there are many important funds around the world.

I've got great respect for the work being done by Ajay Banga at the World Bank, and my friend, the president of the Asian Development Bank and the head of the Green Climate Fund. They're all doing good work. The head of the ADB and the head of Green Climate Fund both came to pre-COP, which was excellent. Ajay couldn't make it, but he's very focused on climate finance. So we've got more work to do on the implementation, but the PRF is special from our point of view because as great as all the work that the GCF and the ADB and the World Bank does, it's by the Pacific for the Pacific, and we think that's got a role to play.

Given that defense budgets have become a priority for a lot of countries around the world with geopolitical tensions, how much have you seen this conversation between the tension for where the money needs to go, take over money from climate going into defense? Many countries in Europe have done it, including here in the UK. How are you thinking about this shift that's happening right now?

It's one of the factors. It's not the only factor or even, I think, the main factor on my mind. Murat Kurum, the Turkish minister, said something about this at pre-COP, you might have picked up, where he said we all put X percentage of our budgets into defense. Maybe we should be putting X percentages into climate finance. But I think it's part of… look, to be very, very frank with you, yes, you're right, the defense conversation is a relevant one. Although I would point out that climate change is a defense and national security issue.

If we let climate change run unabated, there'll be more climate-related migration. That's a national security issue. If there's more droughts and famines and floods, that causes national security concerns. So we're really talking about the same thing in different ways. And I would argue that spending money on climate change is dealing with the cause of national security issues, less so the effect.

But there are other issues as well, to be very frank with you. Around the world, the populist right is on the rise. They say, look at all this money we're wasting on people in far away countries. Climate change isn't real. Why are we spending money on these countries we've never heard of? And they're all lazy over there, all that sort of populist right-wing nonsense. Obviously, that impacts on the politics of these things around the world.

Ministers have to think about how they're going to explain how it's in the national interest to support climate action offshore in a country that's not yours. That's fair enough. Ministers are politicians. We, you, all of us have to think about how we're going to justify this and explain this to our people. So I would put that in a similar category to the pressures that you're talking about on defense.

Well, that pressure is showing up in some way at this COP, because the number of world leaders that have, at least for now, signaled that they will come to COP at the World Leaders Summit, it's far smaller than in previous COPs. Many of the world's largest economies aren't sending their world leaders, including India. So that's a signal that climate priorities are going down. But let me come to a place where it seems like there is more of an agreement. And you pointed to it at the start on the list of items that you see could be a success for COP31, which is the electrification target, the 35 by 35 you talked about. Which, to go into the details, is the goal to try and increase the amount of final energy coming to the world in the form of electricity to 35% by 2035.

And it's about 23% today. So it is a rapid rise, given it's only risen slowly over the past 30 years. China recently indicated that it is supportive of that goal. But the goal remains on the action agenda, which is the voluntary side of commitments that countries will make at this COP. Are you working toward getting this goal in the final decision text of COP31? Because that would then mean all countries are talking about it and then eventuallyg up to it.

Yeah, you're right, it's in the action agenda. My friend Murat Kurum has the job of getting as many countries as he can, which I'm supporting, to sign the pledge to help get to 35 by 35. If he gets 100 countries to agree to that, that's a great success. If we get 100 countries to agree on negotiations, that's a terrible failure. So it's a different test. We have to have consensus, which means very close to unanimous. So I have signaled that I would like to see a strong outcome on electrification in our presidency-led decision.

What that looks like is a matter for negotiation with the parties. I'm not here to say it must be this, and that I dotted, and that T crossed, or we won't put it in. But there's a lot of momentum around it. It's good that we are trying to find things in the action agenda that we can reflect in the negotiations, because obviously the same ministers are dealing with both. It's just a different test and a different outcome. So yes, we will be talking to parties about how we can best reflect the momentum around electrification in the presidency-led decision.

In this case, electrification is the route to try and essentially be more efficient in the use of your energy, because all these electric devices are a ton more efficient. We talk about this on the show quite a bit, but there is an aspect of electrification that people would like clarity on. So while it is on the action agenda in its current form, can you explain how exactly it will work? Does every country have to come up with its own plan to reach the same goal of 35 by 35, or is it a global goal? What's the inner workings of this target?

It's a global goal. We have to understand different countries have different circumstances, and it's about different things in different countries. In heavily industrialized countries, it's primarily about industrial high heat, things that you can, up until this point, only use fossil fuels for, gas primarily. You know, like cement and fertilizers and steel making. In Africa, it's about cooking, home cooking.

So very, very different tests. And so we can't in Canberra or in Ankara say, this is how you're going to do it. But it's about working together on that global goal of 35% by 2035, and every country playing some role in that, but recognizing that different countries have different opportunities and different challenges. So it's very much, it's not a top down, you must get to 35 in your own country. It's more, let's work together to try and get to 35 around the world.

Is there any way in which there'll be accountability for the countries that sign up? Because there are a lot of items on the action agenda that many countries over the years have signed up to. Tripling nuclear, for example, has been one goal in 2023 that was signed off on. But the follow up on these voluntary goals can be limited or can be challenging. Is there something that's being baked into the electrification goal that would ensure that we are talking about it and getting countries to actually get to this goal?

That's one of the reasons I'm keen to see it reflected in the presidency-led decision and the negotiations, because the action agenda is very important. And we are leaning in to help Turkey with that. And countriesg up to things there is very important. But if it's in the negotiations and the presidency-led decision… like you referred to nuclear, some countries signed pledges for that in Dubai, but it wasn't in the presidency-led decision, the cover decision, but doubling energy efficiency and tripling renewable energy was.

There's a lot more, frankly, analysis of how we're going on that. We can say, yeah, well, the world's making progress, not there yet. But the fact that renewable energy investment is so high… There’s probably more to do on energy efficiency. But there is more analysis and accountability around that because it was a decision of the COP, as opposed to the nuclear pledge, which I think 30 countries or something like that, signed. 190, more than 190 countries in effect, signed up to the doubling and tripling because it was in the presidency-led decision at the time. Do you think this goal also needs to include that the electricity should come from clean sources?

Again, we're talking to parties about that. And I'm hearing views from ministers about that. I've heard different views. The way I see it, pragmatically, in almost all circumstances, electrification is a good thing. So I think about it like, as you've talked about, as you said before on your show, efficiency is so strong. As an example, take transport. In almost all circumstances, if you switch from an internal combustion engine car to an electric car, you're doing a wonderful thing for emissions.

Even if your grid is powered by coal and you don't have solar panels at home, if you're just charging off a coal-fired grid, you are reducing emissions by something like 60%. Obviously, if you have a renewable grid or you have solar panels at home and you're charging off a home solar system, then you're probably reducing your emissions by more than 90%. Now, 90 is better than 60, but 60 is a hell of a lot better than zero.

So I think my approach to negotiations is quite a pragmatic one. For almost all grids, we think around two-thirds of the grids in the world, all electrification is good for emissions reduction. There's a relatively small number of grids around the world where it's more questionable, but for almost all grids around the world, or a substantial majority of grids around the world, electrification is unquestionably a good thing, even if there's still quite a lot of fossil fuel in that system.

Yeah, it is counterintuitive and it's hard to get this across without really talking about numbers and sometimes in those numbers, you lose people. But it does feel odd that you run a grid that is fully dirty and yet on an electric device, you would cut emissions. There was one line in your answer about how you'll deal with negotiations that I feel like we need to pull out a little bit on. You said the decision has to be by consensus, almost unanimous. And this is something I can explain, which is that the power that the President of Negotiations has is one where you can bring the gavel down even when one or two countries aren't quite agreed, if the rest of the cohort is agreeing.

And this has been used by past presidents. So I must ask you, because the country that tends to be the sort of troublemaker toward the very end of COP is Saudi Arabia. How are your conversations with Saudi Arabia going and how do you tackle them during these tough negotiations?

Well, consensus is… we want as strong as possible a consensus as we can. And that means talking to every party and trying to get full agreement to everything. On Saudi Arabia, again, I have good relations with my counterpart, Prince Abdulaziz, the energy minister.

I have seen firsthand, again, they're doing things. I have a confession for you, Akshat. I, like you, study these things closely and I don't want to speak for them because they can speak for themselves, but Saudi Arabia has indicated to me a keenness to be constructive. We've had good conversations. They came to pre-COP at a senior level, Khalid Abuleif, their chief negotiator. They have certain views about things, which we understand, and we will work with them. But I am keen to work with them because they're a big and important country in the COP process. And I respect the role that they play.

So we've got work to do with India and China and Saudi Arabia, the three countries you indicated, just as we have work to do with every country. No chief negotiator will be declined a meeting with me in Antalya, whether they're from Tuvalu or from Saudi Arabia. That's my job.

One thing that helps the President of Negotiations, as much as you have to be a neutral arbiter between countries, is to come to the COP with your own credibility as a country acting on climate, as a minister who understands these issues. And there is one aspect of the Australian story in recent years, which I'm sure, if you’ve listened to the podcast, I have brought up a number of times, which is Australia's success in its rollout of rooftop solar, first and now batteries.

Something like a third of Australian homes have rooftop solar, 5% already now have batteries. It's probably the fastest rollout of home batteries in the world. You are now punching above your weight with the big dogs in a way when it comes to the total amount of batteries installed in the country. If you rank it, it's China, the US and then Australia, which is not a populous country compared to the other two. What is the recipe of success that you think you can take to COP31 to share with other countries that they can replicate?

Yeah, thank you, Akshat, for mentioning that. One thing we do understand in Australia is the role of households and that the road to net zero goes through households. And with the right government policies and the right support, households will respond. So you're right, it's now close to 35% of Australian houses have solar panels on the roof and 5% have a battery. And our home battery story, I'm very proud of, and it's from a standing start. So we introduced a new scheme 18 months ago. It came into force on July 1, 2025, which in effect, it's a little bit more complicated than this, but for the sake of this conversation, provides a 30% rebate to households that put in a battery.

Now, as we speak, 589,000 houses have done it in the last 18 months. By the time this goes to air, it'll be 600,000 and we're putting in 2,000 every working day, every weekday. That's Australians getting on with it.

And one small difference to what you said is, what you said about Australian battery rankings is correct on utility scale. So we're doing it on a big scale as well. So it's China, US and us on utility scale batteries, but on home batteries, it's slightly different. We actually have more home battery capacity than the US, despite our much smaller population. We actually have more home battery capacity than China or India. The only country now ahead of us is Germany.

We have 16 gigawatt hours. Last time I looked, I think they're about 23 gigawatt hours. So I'm hopeful with all due respect to my friend, Carsten Schneider, the German minister, I'm hopeful of taking that number one spot in the next few months and Australia being in absolute terms — not per capita, we're already there per capita — but in absolute terms, the home battery capital of the world.

But what is the formula for success here? There's the policy support, there's subsidies to installing a battery at home or providing some feed-in tariff on solar. Lots of countries do that. What is it that Australia has done differently that allows you to unlock more?

I think it's a combination of things. So we have what we call the small scale renewable energy scheme, which does provide rebates for both solar and batteries. It's lasted a lot longer for solar, came in in 2000 for solar, only in 2025 for batteries. That's important. And you can see that we had very low batteries until July 1, 2025. And then all of a sudden, bang, we're knocking on Germany's door.

Secondly, obviously, you know, we're blessed with good sun and Australians know that. Thirdly, we make it easy for people. I've talked to some ministers and they say, you know, how does it work? How have you done this? And I ask them, well, how hard is it to get solar panels in your country? And I said to the Americans, if you had to have council permission to put solar panels on your roof in Australia, there would be riots in the street.

Because it's your God given right to put a solar panel on your roof in Australia. You don't need council permission. You know, you call an installer, you get three quotes, you say to the installer, I want solar panels. A month later, you'll have solar panels on your roof. So it's easy for people.

And we've developed a good industry as a result. There's 9,000 accredited registered battery installers now in Australia, tradespeople, electricians, and an industry has developed who can do it very efficiently. So it's become a self-fulfilling prophecy and you get a spirit of community. You see the neighbors putting solar panels in, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You go over to the neighbor, you have a barbecue or beer with them and say, how are those solar panels going?

And they say: oh, well, you know, I haven't had an energy bill in two years. You should do it too. Look, I've got this, look at my battery. Here's my app on my phone. It shows me how much electricity I'm using. It becomes a whole neighborhood conversation and becomes self-fulfilling. And they say, well, who did you get to do that? Oh, here's an installer, he's great. It really becomes a thing which the whole community gets behind.

And it takes a little while, but as I said, once we put that home battery policy in, I thought it would work well, but even I'm pleasantly surprised that we're well on track for a million batteries quite soon in a population of under 30 million.

It is a challenge in communication where the hero narrative is something that people grasp easily, where one man did something or one woman did something, or one policy came out, and as a result, bang, we have all this. But really the implementation part is much more complicated and the policy doesn't always succeed unless you have all these other ingredients coming through.

One aspect of this that is already showing up is you are now allowing, in some states, an option, a tariff for anybody to have free electricity between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. The timing tells you it's the peak of sun, there's a lot of solar on the grid. And so if more people use it, that's great. But ‘for free’ is a catch because as you know, there is no free lunch. Somebody is paying for it somehow. How exactly?

We did that because our wholesale prices are often negative in the middle of the day because we have so much rooftop solar. We have more energy generated by rooftop solar. Putting aside, I'm not talking solar farms, utility scale, that's separate. We have more rooftop solar than we have coal-fired power generation in Australia. Plus we have wind and we have utility solar and we have some hydro. So, the energy is often negative in the middle of the day.

So, we thought, well, why shouldn't Australians have access to that? Now, it's not for everyone. We're not pretending that everyone can or should do this. It's an option for people. And what we're finding, to be very honest with you, Akshat, is the numbers of people taking up the offer, which now must be compulsorily offered to people in several of our states. We have some complicated constitutional arrangements, but we're getting there. It'll eventually, hopefully, apply across the country. It's almost there.

But what we're finding is the number of people taking it up is not huge, it's not like home batteries. But those who do are moving a lot of power to the middle of the day. So, our market operator recently pointed out publicly, one minute past 11 in the morning, you're seeing power use go up. You can see it in the grid, just remarkable. 10.59 to 11.01, like that, straight up. And that's helping us. That's helping everyone, not just those who are doing it.

Because obviously, what we are making good progress in, and I'm proud of, is we are flattening the back of the duck curve in Australia. We had the normal duck curve, just like California and everyone else, you know, with lots of solar in the middle of the day and not much energy use and lots of energy use at night and not much solar.

That's getting flatter and flatter and that is batteries, but it's also Solar Sharer, which is what we call the requirement for energy companies to offer free power in the middle of the day. Because if you're at home, if you're working from home, you're a retired couple or something like that, you can put your dishwasher on whenever you like. So, you do it at 11 o'clock in the morning. If you've got an EV, you can charge it whenever you like, if you're home. So, you can do that at 11 o'clock in the morning. And sure, as I said, that's great for you because you're paying nothing for your power, but it's also helping us manage the grid and reducing wholesale prices for everyone.

The other one, which for a long time, Australia was a laggard on, is electric vehicle sales. In 2022, they were 1% of all new cars. Well, they've shot up and shot up a lot this year. For the first time, electric cars in September outsold petrol and diesel cars in Australia. Is it purely down to the price of diesel and petrol right now? Or is there anything else that you think has made this possible?

It's not just purely the cost of diesel and petrol, although that's obviously very important. But to enable Australians to make those choices, what we did was, long before the crisis in 2023, we brought in what we call the new vehicle efficiency standards, which are emissions standards. Australia and Russia were the only two countries in the world, major economies, without standards. And that meant that we were a dumping ground for inefficient vehicles and we weren't getting the EV choices that Australians deserve.

So, it was very controversial, frankly. It was very difficult for me politically, but we got it through the parliament and all the normal scare campaigns that people run, but we got it in. And as a result, by the time the crisis hit, the models that we have, the choice has gone through the roof. And so now the cheapest car you can buy in Australia is an EV.

And when we came to office, before we did this, there were no EVs available in Australia for under $40,000 AUD. Now there's 15 different models available for under $40,000. So, young people in particular, people buying their first car, they're probably going to buy a much cheaper car. So, now they have choices they didn't have. We also have an electric vehicle tax cut, which exempts EVs from some of the taxes that would normally be paid if you get them through your employer etc, that's helped.

But I think it's primarily the combination of the standards and the fuel crisis. I have heard it said that, yes, every country that was experiencing an increase, but Australia's increase over the last six months has been the most dramatic in the world. And I think it's those two things coming together.

There is also the aspect that you are essentially tariff-free for Chinese cleantech exports. So, whether that's solar panels, batteries, or electric cars. This year, Australia is the third top destination for Chinese electric car exports. And again, as we've talked about, Australia is not that big a country. Do you worry about the reliance on China for this cleantech or that's not a worry? You're happy to embrace the fact that you get access to cheap, clean technologies.

I think that's for the Australian consumers to decide which country. And we don't make cars in Australia anymore, we used to, but we don't make cars in Australia anymore for the last 10 years or so. Every car is going to be an import. So, Australians can make their choices about where they buy them from. There are other options available. There's an electric Cadillac available now, and there's a few different models around, but yes, Chinese EVs are very popular in Australia.

And they are great cars. They're very well-designed, and Australians are taking up that option with great alacrity. Now, personally, I don't mind what country people choose to buy their car from. We have strict safety standards, and we're always looking at what standards we need to put in for all sorts of things. But basically, we believe in choice for motorists.

One aspect of electrification of transport that still is a big struggle for Australia, and particularly this year, is just how much diesel the mining industry consumes. The mining industry is, of course, a crucial economy for Australia. We'll come to that later. But specifically on diesel, you also subsidize that diesel to the tune now, at this cost of diesel, it’s getting to A$10 billion a year. Is there a plan to start to reduce that subsidy and get the mining industry to move toward electric options? Because there are now electric options, and around the world, the mining industry is starting to adopt them, but as you've seen, you do need incentives.

Yeah, so there are electric options. So firstly, just to have a factual basis for the conversation, what we do is, this has been a policy that's been in place since the 1950s. Basically, the principle is that diesel trucks on mines don't travel on roads. So they shouldn't have to pay for the roads. Our petrol taxes and diesel taxes are conceptually, theoretically, to pay for our roads. And if the truck is not on the roads, then it shouldn't pay the tax.

So that's why there's a diesel fuel rebate. So you don't pay the diesel tax if your truck never hits the road. So that's what you're referring to. It's called the diesel fuel rebate, because it doesn't impact on road funding.

No, we're not planning on changing that. But what we are doing is we have what we call the safeguard mechanism. It's a funny sort of a name. But it's the policy which requires emissions reductions of 5% a year, in effect, from our biggest emitters, from more than 200 biggest emitters. And it's working pretty well. It's been in for three years. It has seen, so far, a reduction each year, equivalent to 30% of Australia's aviation emissions, domestic aviation emissions. So that's not nothing.

And there's flexibility as to how you do it, because it covers smelters, it covers bauxite mines, it covers our two big airlines. It covers some trucking companies. Everyone's different. So you've got to allow them some flexibility on how they do it. But that's our mechanism. There's a review underway about how it's working and whether we need to do more or make any changes. And that's a very genuine review, where submissions have been coming in. But that's our main focus, Akshat.

Sticking to mining, then, there is that aspect of credibility that we talked about, which is Australia is bringing to the table all this change it has brought on electrification. But if you look at the emissions profile for Australia, it still has, among the G7, since 1990, the highest increase in emissions. It's got a big fossil fuel industry. It's a big fossil fuel exporter. It's also been approving new major fossil fuel projects in recent months. How then, on the equation of emissions, does Australia bring the credibility to negotiate at COP31?

So I understand your question, Akshat, but I think we come with the credibility of a practical approach of a country in transition. I understand the focus on fossil fuel supply, fair enough. We also need to focus on fossil fuel demand. It's not the fault of the fossil fuel exporters, it's not the fault of the fossil fuel importers. Every country in the world is a fossil fuel importer or a fossil fuel exporter. I haven't found one that's not one of the other. So we're all in it together. And you can point the finger at the fossil fuel exporters, you can point the finger at the fossil fuel importers, or you can say, well, no, at the moment, the exporters are providing for the needs of the importers.

And maybe what they need to do together is work out the best way of cooperating to replace that fossil fuel with renewable energy. And that's what we're doing. It's what we're doing bilaterally on things like green hydrogen. Green hydrogen hasn't made as much progress as any of us would like at this point, but it still has a future and still has a role to play, particularly in industrial decarbonization.

We're working with Europe and Germany in particular, and the Netherlands on things like that. Likewise, South Korea, you know, is a very important energy partner of Australia, but they've got very strong decarbonization plans. We're working with them. I see it as a holistic problem. One, I don't think you can just single out exporters or importers, we're all in it together. And two, I do think we're not in glass houses saying, other countries should be doing this and that.

We're saying, yeah, this is hard work. We're not pretending this is easy. We're all in this, this is practical implementation. But I think that means that's the approach we come to it with. We're not lecturing others to say, everyone should be doing more. We're saying, we've all got to keep going here.

As you go into perhaps one of the busiest periods you're going to have over the next few weeks as a minister, but also as a president of a global forum, what gives you the optimism that the outcome will lift boats, will lift the momentum on climate action?

As I said, obviously, I've spoken to many of my international counterparts and people are coming to Antalya in the spirit of getting things done, in my experience. I'm not here to say it's done. That's what a COP is for. I'm not here to say we won't have some tough negotiations or some all-night sessions, because we might. But no one has said to me, ‘ah, look, I'm coming to Antalya to wreck it, I'm coming to Antalya in a spirit of non-cooperation.’On the contrary.

And to be clear, I've had very frank conversations with ministers. I'm not going into details, but ministers have outlined to me very clearly their red lines, their priorities, etc. But I go with some confidence, Akshat, that people are coming in a good spirit. Certainly, we've said to people, look, Australia and Turkey have come together. We both bid to host COP. We both bid to be COP presidents.

We sorted it out. We are now cooperating very, very closely, like it's one team. So if we can do it, if we can come with that spirit of cooperation, please come to Antalya in the same spirit as Australia and Turkey. Thank you. And good luck over the next few weeks.

Thank you. I'll see you around. And thanks for the great chat. And thanks for all the work you do in communicating important issues in energy and climate.