Trending Now
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.
Climate
Flags hung at the reconvening of the COP16 conference in Rome last month, with an inset image of Adrian Gahan, the ocean lead for Campaign for Nature.
Countries gathered in Rome in late February to finalize key decisions left unresolved after last year’s COP16 summit in Colombia. In Italy, negotiators agreed to the first global deal for finance conservation, which aims to achieve the landmark goal of protecting and restoring 30% of the world’s land and seas by 2030. Eurasia Group’s María José Valverde interviewed Adrian Gahan, the ocean lead for Campaign for Nature, a global campaign founded in 2018 to secure the 30x30 target, as we look ahead to the UN ocean conference and continue building on the nature agenda for 2025.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
María José Valverde: What are your expectations for the achievement of the 30x30 goal in the marine space, keeping all upcoming UN environmental processes (biodiversity, plastics, ocean, climate) in mind?
Adrian Gahan: This is an important year because we’re only five years away from the 2030 target. And the reality is that we're not making progress at the pace that we should. Something really important that can happen this year is the ratification of the High Seas Treaty. Whilst it’s been agreed, it needs to be ratified by at least 60 countries before it comes into legal effect, and at the moment, we’re at 17 countries. We should aim to get those remaining 43 countries in 2025, and we need to do it before Q4 for the treaty to come into legal effect this year. This would represent a significant step forward, and it'd be great if going into COP30 in Brazil we’re already counting down the ticker on the treaty taking legal effect.
Could you explain why this High Seas Treaty is so important?
Before this treaty was agreed in 2022, there was no legal instrument to manage biodiversity on the high seas, areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) 200 nautical miles off of a country’s coast. Instead, you had a patchwork of preexisting organizations — the International Whaling Commission, which is species-specific, and the International Seabed Authority, which covers the seabed but doesn't regulate the water column above the seabed. But they couldn’t establish marine protected areas covering the whole water column or all flora and fauna within it because they didn't have the legal capacity to do that. The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Treaty, or BBNJ, will allow countries to agree on setting parts of the international waters aside for nature in the context of all of these pre-existing organizations. And that is an innovation.
The high seas treaty could impact interests in critical minerals, deep sea mining, and those benefitting from marine genetic materials. The recently launched Cali Fund could also be a financial instrument for BBNJ areas. What are your thoughts on its potential implications?
This is one of the reasons why it’s taking countries a long time to ratify this treaty. They need to figure out what are the benefit-sharing mechanisms, what are the legal and financial instruments involved, etc. A lot of it has to be discovered as we go along. My headline observation around digital sequence information and the Cali Fund is that if it’s going to be meaningful, it has to be a regulatory requirement. That also needs to apply to BBNJ areas, which obviously have more complexity to it by definition because it’s beyond the territorial boundaries of any of these countries. But to be effective, it needs to be legally binding.
What’s at stake if we don't reach an agreement on finance at COP16.2, and what are the best- and worst-case scenarios for the marine sector?
The money is very important as part of the biodiversity COP process, not just because of the funding, but also because it’s a currency of seriousness. If we are asking the Global South to protect some of the last great wild places in the world that are providing vital infrastructure to the whole planet, then we need to be prepared to pay for it. This is not about charity – nor should it be considered aid. Donor countries need to show seriousness on this, and finance is one of the ways to do that.
It’s also important to consider our political context. Given budget and geopolitical constraints in the Global North, we need to continuously make the case as to why this is important. It is not just because nature is beautiful and special. We’re protecting it because it provides us all with an essential service, and this is an extension of our national security budget. We need to keep making that case. We also need to keep making the case that the private sector, which is making a lot of money and continuing to drop significant externalities onto this infrastructure, needs to pay its way. That’s an example of where governments need to intervene more in the market: tax and regulate.
The plastics negotiations have a lot of interlinkages with the biodiversity talks because of the Global Biodiversity Framework’s (GBF) Target 7 on pollution. Do you see any implications from the UN plastics treaty negotiations on your work?
We focus more on spatial targets and protection because the biggest threat to the global ocean, other than climate change, is not plastics, it’s overfishing. This is really worth reminding people. Plastics and pollution are very serious, but overfishing is a bigger threat. The crisis of overfishing is an absence of something, which is a harder narrative to sell than showing people an ocean full of plastic. The risk of the plastics narrative is that people think using paper straws means the crisis is solved. But, the ocean is facing so many more threats than plastic straws. However, the issue can be an important way to introduce people to the crises of climate change, coral bleaching, ocean acidification, and invasive species.
My final point on that is that the single biggest polluter of plastic in the ocean is not PepsiCo or Coca-Cola — it’s the global fishing industry. The single biggest source of plastic in the ocean is discarded fishing nets known as ghost gear. It doesn’t biodegrade, it’s hugely destructive, and it’s very helpful to the global fishing industry if everyone obsesses about plastic straws and bottles instead.
Conversations around fishing are tricky because they become a discussion about livelihoods and food security. How do you navigate these difficult issues?
It’s much easier to campaign against Coca-Cola than it is to campaign against local fishermen dropping their nets in the ocean. However, the most destructive fishing is conducted by very large and wealthy industrial fishing vessels, almost all owned by rich countries from Europe and Asia, not by local small-scale fishers. That said, there also needs to be training and engagement at the local level, which is difficult and time-consuming. One answer is to set parts of the ocean aside where you state there’s no fishing, and that makes it a lot easier to regulate. This requires government intervention and financial support for fishers who need to, for example, change their gear types or face a reduced catch for a short period while the spillover effect takes place. It becomes very complicated, and that’s why we’re making very slow progress toward the 30x30 goal.
One of the things we’ve been paying attention to is the nature tech market. What are some concrete examples of nature tech in the marine sector, and what role is the private sector playing?
I think it’s a really positive story. One of the most important, disruptive technologies that has helped in establishing and enforcing marine protected areas is satellite technology. I've been working for years on a UK program called Blue Belt. We work with local communities that are concerned about illegal fishing coming into their waters and far too remote to have their own enforcement capacity. The UK Government runs the satellite monitoring programs and then provides them with the intel. They can tag any suspicious activity and pursue the vessel legally through the Port State Measures Agreement. It’s a legal process where, if one of these vessels fishes illegally in these protected areas and then pulls into a port to offload the fish, the port state can take legal measures against the vessel, even though the vessel didn’t break any laws in that port state. This has been a very effective tool for protecting these areas.
This would not have been possible probably 15 years ago. That’s a really positive tech story to tell and something people should take some hope from because presumably this technology will only continue to improve and get more affordable. Bad news can be very overwhelming for people. So I think it’s good to remind people that good people are doing good things in the world.
María José (Majo) Valverde is a global sustainability analyst at Eurasia Group.
“I can tell you Europe is absolutely committed to tackling climate change, to developing this green economy, and to making the green transition a European success,” said Nadia Calviño, President of the European Investment Bank.
The rollout of artificial intelligence has raised big questions about how it will impact Europe’s transition to a more sustainable economy. During a Global Stage livestream at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Calviño stressed the continent’s role in addressing risks generated by AI. She said, “I think it will be key when we're talking about these technologies that have such a huge demand for energy supply.” Alongside countries being energy-conscious, Calviño stresses that building strong trust between businesses and citizens will help the new technologies “unleash their full potential.”
This conversation, moderated by Becky Anderson, was part of the Global Stage series at the 2025 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft.
Click to watch the full discussion for our panel's insights on AI's future and how it is expected to transform our economy and society by 2030.
- Norway's PM Jonas Støre says his country can power Europe ›
- Is the EU's landmark AI bill doomed? ›
- AI's impact on jobs could lead to global unrest, warns AI expert Marietje Schaake ›
- Exclusive: How to govern the unknown – a Q&A with MEP Eva Maydell ›
- Europe adopts first “binding” treaty on AI ›
- France's AI Action Summit maps a European vision for AI - GZERO Media ›
"We are on the right path to building, what I call, the 'intelligence grid' alongside the electricity grid," said Peng Xiao, CEO of G42.
As Donald Trump begins his new term, artificial intelligence has reemerged as a major topic of discussion. During a Global Stage livestream at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Peng highlighted the benefits and challenges of advancing AI technology. He praised Trump’s global infrastructure build-out initiative and AI’s potential to integrate seamlessly into daily life but underscored, "We cannot afford for intelligence not to be equally distributed."
Peng emphasized the need for global governance and development to be "equitable, systematic, and coordinated across regions." Thus as private sector investments in AI surge, policy decisions in the coming months will be closely watched
This conversation, moderated by Becky Anderson, was part of the Global Stage series at the 2025 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, presented by GZERO in partnership with Microsoft.
Click to watch the full discussion for our panel's insights on AI's future and how it is expected to transform our economy and society by 2030.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum attends the vice president?s dinner ahead of the inauguration of Trump, in Washington, U.S., January 18, 2025.
The AI race depends on fossil fuels. That was the message from Doug Burgum in his Senate confirmation hearing last Thursday.
Burgum is currently auditioning for two jobs. If confirmed by the US Senate, the former North Dakota governor will not only serve as secretary of the interior but also as the head of a new committee called the National Energy Council.
Burgum said that the US will lose its “AI arms race” with China unless it takes full advantage of fossil fuels. To run artificial intelligence models on advanced processors, data centers require copious amounts of electricity. He criticized wind and solar energy and said the country needs more “baseload” electricity from coal. “The sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow,” Burgum told senators, signaling plans for a deregulatory environment in the energy sector.
Companies are rethinking their climate ambitions in the age of AI. In July, Google’s Chief Sustainability Officer Kate Brandtadmitted that the company’s goal to become carbon “net zero” by 2030 is now “extremely ambitious.” The Biden administration has encouraged the development of nuclear energy infrastructure as a way to get more “clean energy” to pursue AI at scale without further delaying progress on climate goals. Google and Microsoft have struck deals for nuclear energy, while Meta is seeking a deal of its own.
Burgum’s confirmation hearing showed that while Trump’s administration may be just as enthused about dominating global AI, it’ll be less stringent on using renewable or clean energy to do so.
America’s adversaries are looking to exploit the transition period between the Biden and Trump Administrations, China has a fateful choice to make about its own role in the world, and the biggest challenge for US foreign policy might have more to do with clean energy than hard power, according to outgoing US National security Adviser Jake Sullivan.
Sullivan, speaking with Ian Bremmer before a live audience at 92Y in New York on Tuesday as part of a special episode of our nationally-syndicated television show GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, shared his views on key US foreign policy issues at what he said was “a huge, plastic moment of turbulence and transition” in global politics.
A few highlights:
On the transition to Trump. Despite huge differences of opinion about policy, he said, Team Biden has been working hard to ensure that with Team Trump everyone is “singing from the same song sheet” on key risks, in particular the prospect of a weakened Iran accelerating its nuclear program.
The unexpectedly swift collapse of the Assad regime, he said, is a moment of “promise but also profound risk” in which the US must work both with its Kurdish allies in the country as well as with other outside powers to ensure that the country doesn’t become a power vacuum and a haven for international terrorism.
A “just peace” in Ukraine should be “up to the Ukrainians.” He said he hoped Trump will “continue to provide Ukraine with the defensive capacity so that Ukraine's in the best possible position on the battlefield, which will put them in a better position at the negotiating table.”
Russia is more beat up than it looks. High inflation, unsustainable spending, and staggering combat losses in Ukraine are taking a toll, he said. “The conventional wisdom from a few months ago was ‘Russia's got it made in the shade economically, they can do this indefinitely’ – I don't think the economic signals we're seeing right now bear that out.”
China has a big choice to make. Does it want to slip deeper into an axis of reactionary powers like Russia, Iran, and North Korea, or does it want to assume a more constructive global role, even as it competes with the US? “The world,” he said, “should put the onus on China to make the right choice.”
What worries him most? “The one thing that makes me nervous,” he said, “is the need for us to deploy clean energy rapidly enough to power the computing power necessary to stay at the cutting edge of artificial intelligence.”
For more of the conversation: including what Sullivan learned from spending hundreds of hours with Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi, why he thinks Joe Biden’s foreign policy planted seeds that will bear fruit “for a generation”, and how an American invasion of Canada might compare with Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, keep an eye out for Ian’s GZERO newsletter, dropping later today.
And to catch the whole interview: tune in to GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airing on PBS-affiliates nationwide starting Friday. More info here.
Protesters gather at the venue of the 29th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, dubbed COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Nov. 16, 2024, calling for developed countries to take responsibility for the greenhouse gasses they have emitted.
Aftermarathon sessions and deep divisions, COP29 concluded in Baku, Azerbaijan, with a commitment of $300 billion in annual assistance by 2035 to help poorer nations cope with climate change. That’s up from today’s pledges of $100 billion a year. Twenty-three contributors will kick in the funds, including the UK, US, Japan, and countries in the EU. Recipients include countries in Africa and South America, as well as a host of small island states.
While some delegates applauded the deal, many developing nations branded it a “betrayal.” Indian delegate Chandni Raina called it “an optical illusion.” “This will not address the enormity of the challenge,” she said. Meanwhile, low-lying nations like the Marshall Islands acknowledged that the deal is a “start” but ultimately insufficient.
While the agreement also lays groundwork for next year’s COP30 in Brazil, big questions remain. Will wealthy nations deliver on their pledges? How will the funds be divided? What can developing nations do if it isn’t enough?
The urgency is real. 2024 is expected to be the hottest year ever (the second record year in a row), with global emissions still rising. The world is currently on track for temperature increases of up to 3.1 C (5.6 F) by the end of the century, according to the 2024 UN Emissions Gap report.
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
North Korea ratified a major defense treaty with Russia. What do both sides hope to gain?
Well, the North Koreans really want mutual defense. They are helping the Russians out in their time of need, sending a whole bunch of troops, things that the North Koreans have in surplus and don't really value and the Russians can really use right now. And they would love to see Russian troops in North Korea. They'd love to see that appear as mutual defense and give the North Koreans a lot more leverage so they are not forced to be supplicants in Beijing, and they can also be more assertive versus South Korea, Japan, and others. This is a major escalation in this war and a big problem geopolitically.
The Russians, of course, are just looking for more troops, more ammunition, more ability to fight, and they are in a much, much stronger position to get terms that they want from the United States and from the Ukrainians. Especially now that the US has elected somebody that says he really, really wants to end the war. Putin will be like, "Okay, but here are the things that I need if you want me to end the war." Trump's incented to give him a lot more of those than almost anybody in NATO right now.
Japan's PM survived a rare parliamentary vote. How will he tackle the country's sluggish economy?
Well, he is saying that he's going to do a lot more stimulus, and so basically blow out the budget. Exactly, not where he has been historically. Japan's economy is pretty flat. Interest rates are close to zero, though they've been pushing them up a bit, historically surprising, recently. It's not like companies are all itching to get into Japan. Their demography is falling apart, and most people are pushing their production elsewhere, so including Japanese companies. So it's a real challenge, and Ishiba is going to be there maybe for a year. This is a very weak LDP coalition government.
What do I expect to come from COP29, the new climate summit happening in Baku?
Well, the Americans are attending with their knees cut off because Trump is going to be president in a couple months and he will pull the Americans out of the Paris Climate Accord once again. The trajectory on post-carbon investment and the prices coming down at scale for the Americans and for everyone in the world is already way too well-developed to pull back, and that's a good thing. But the US is going to be focused more on additional permitting and for oil and gas and production increases. Even beyond the record levels that they are right now under the Biden administration. They'll go further.
And so it's really, the Americans are going to be pretty marginalized at this summit, and the Chinese are driving the bus. They're producing a lot more coal, of course, but at the same time, they're also producing a hell of a lot more post-carbon renewables at global levels. In other words, China's doing at global scale what Texas is doing in the United States. And that is making them much more important as decision-makers.