The Truth About Net Zero Targets: Insights from John Lang

In this episode of the Climate Confident podcast, I’m joined by John Lang, Project Lead at the Net Zero Tracker and a leading figure in the fight for transparency and accountability in climate action. Together, we explore the complexities behind net zero commitments and unpack what’s needed to transform promises into meaningful results.

John explains the work of the Net Zero Tracker, which monitors over 4,000 entities worldwide—including countries, companies, cities, and regions—on their progress (or lack thereof) towards achieving net zero. He sheds light on a troubling reality: while ambition is on the rise, integrity is still lagging behind. Shockingly, only 1 in 20 entities meet the minimum procedural requirements for credible net zero targets.

We also delve into the role of subnational governments—regions and cities—in driving climate action, particularly in the face of national inaction. John outlines how aligning local and national policies (what he calls "vertical governance") and fostering ambition loops can accelerate progress.

A key takeaway from this episode is the persistent confusion around net zero standards, which allows some entities to hide behind weak targets. John stresses the urgent need for standardisation and convergence, which could close the gaps in accountability.

Finally, we discuss practical ways individuals can make a difference, from talking about climate change to pushing for systemic change, whether through politics or their personal spheres of influence.

This conversation is a compelling reminder of the challenges we face, but also the power of collective action in moving the needle on climate goals.

Have a listen, and let’s keep this vital conversation going!

Sign up to Climate Confident+ for deep dive analysis of the major climate and energy stories of the day.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

John Lang: 0:03

One of the most political things you can do is actually learn about climate change so that you can then speak about it. But yes, you can do also do other things. You can join an organization, you know, that's deeply political. You can move careers, again, deeply political. You can go into politics which is very obviously the most political thing. But yeah, for me, it starts around talking about it. And, you know, that's, that's one of the most encouraging things that I think looking back over the last five, 10 years is how many people are talking about this.

Tom Raftery: 0:33

Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are in the world. This is the Climate Confident podcast, the number one podcast showcasing best practices in climate emission reductions and removals. And I'm your host, Tom Raftery. Don't forget to click follow on this podcast in your podcast app of choice to be sure you don't miss any episodes. Hi, everyone. Welcome to episode 197 of the climate confident podcast. My name is Tom Raftery. And before we kick off today's show, I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to all of this podcasts amazing supporters. Your support has been instrumental in keeping the podcast going. And I'm really grateful for each and every one of you. If you're not already supporter, I'd like to encourage you to consider joining our community of like-minded individuals who are passionate about climate. Supporting the podcast is easy and affordable with options starting as low as just three euros or dollars. That's less than the cost of a cup of coffee and your support to make a huge difference in helping me keep this show going strong. To become a supporter you simply click on the support link in the show notes of this or any episode. Or visit tiny url.com/climate pod. In today's episode, I'm going to be talking to John Lang CEO of the Net Zero Tracker. And in upcoming episodes, I'm going to be talking to. Chris Kruger. Who's the CEO of AYK energy. We'll be talking about Marine electromobility. Katie Anderson senior director from EDF, where we'll be talking about methane. Stefan Mueller from SAP, we'll be talking about amongst other things, cop 29. And Charlie Angelakos who is the Chief Sustainability Officer from McCain's the chip people. So that's going to be a fun one to listen to as well. So a lot of great episodes coming up. Back to today's episode. As I mentioned today, I'm talking to John. John. Welcome to the podcast. Would you like to introduce yourself?

John Lang: 2:26

Thanks very much, Tom. So my name is John Lang. I founded something called the Net Zero Tracker back in 2019 with my former boss Richard Black. And the Net Zero Tracker is an accountability and transparency tool, and we'll get into that in further detail in a little bit, but, I specialize in analysis and explaining climate change science and policy to the public. I became very passionate about explaining climate change because I had a lukewarm politician stepfather back in NewZealand. So I thought I'd do my due diligence on this issue, on the climate issue. And then I became a prisoner of what I knew and I knew I started to know too much about it, to go in a different direction from a career perspective. Another tidbit about myself is I founded Kiwis in Climate, which is a 500 strong group of New Zealanders working in climate and sustainability related fields around the world that sprung out of London but is now an international initiative.

Tom Raftery: 3:22

Okay. And you head up the Net Zero Tracker as part of the ECIU which if I can remember correctly is Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit. Can you talk to us a little bit about what that is and, you know, how, how it works.

John Lang: 3:38

Yeah, sure. No, so that's correct. We actually stole the name from the Economist Intelligence Unit, I believe. It's, it's a rather pretentious name as our, as our then boss Richard Black said. But yeah, so the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit we're a bunch of analysts and communicators. And we were founded back in 2014. So we're approaching our 10 year anniversary. And we were founded to try and clean up the misinformation landscape in the UK media landscape. So, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, or ECIU, have had a huge effect in the UK by bringing accountability to what people say in opinion pieces and also in articles, especially on the right side of the aisle where the conversation actually needs to be won. It doesn't need to be one on the left side of the aisle. It needs to be one on the right side of the aisle. And ECIU was founded to try and make sure that there is informed debate, on climate change and energy, especially on the right side of that aisle.

Tom Raftery: 4:38

Okay, and what would you say has surprised you the most in your journey from you know, starting out looking into climate, you know, your lukewarm politician stepdad to where you are today leading the net zero tracker for ECIU.

John Lang: 5:00

Yeah, I, I'll say a couple of things. First, firstly, a personal thing. I think the most surprising element is actually the more you understand about climate change, the less scared of it you are. Because you actually understand you understand the intractability of the problem, the enormous challenge that it's going to be, but you also meet all the, all the amazing people that are working on it, and you also see that the progress is real at the policy level, at the clean energy level, at the communications level at the activism level. And actually that fills you with hope. So I, I often say to people who feel fraudulent. talking about climate change. I just say to them, well, actually learn more about it. And I think you'll feel it'll be liberating and you'll feel more comfortable about speaking about it and actually more positive about the direction that humanity is going in terms of tackling the issue. So that's kind of the personal, that's the personal surprise. The professional surprise was probably relating to the speed at which countries, companies, subnational governments, so both subnational governments, I mean regions and cities, have taken up this concept of net zero. Net zero was a scientific concept that was, I think, first tabled in 2008 by Miles Allen and a fellow Kiwi, Dave Frayne. To go from 2008 to being a new scientific principle, to being part of the policy landscape through the Paris Agreement in 2015 and then hit the actual mainstream around 2018 in the wake of Greta Thunberg inspired climate consciousness and the IPCC's, I should say, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's special report on 1. 5 degrees. That was an unbelievable surprise. When I joined the ECIU, I'd never heard of NetZero. And then as soon as I joined, about six months later, I created a little infographic and a small database on what, countries and big companies were doing on NetZero. And suddenly, that snowballed, and went viral on Climate Twitter. We were approached by Oxford University and two other international organizations, one in the US and one in Germany, and we formed the Net Zero Tracker. And little did we know that we would see the amount of GDP covered by Net Zero increasing from, I think, 18%, to 92% in the space of about 24 months. So that was unbelievably surprising from my perspective. It almost went too quickly, but we can dive into those details because the policy world, the standards world had a really difficult time of keeping up with that proliferation of net zero targets. But yeah, let's leave, let's leave those details for a bit little later. Cause that kind of gets to the, the lack of integrity and the confusion around net zero more generally.

Tom Raftery: 8:03

Okay, so for who are listening, who might not be aware, just give me a little bit more detail. I mean, we can guess from the name, but give me a little bit more detail of what the net zero tracker is and does.

John Lang: 8:14

Yeah, sure. Firstly, a lot of people get confused by as soon as you say tracker, because we're often conflated with carbon tracker, climate action tracker, a whole bunch of other trackers. But yes, as you say, it's an intuitive name, the Net Zero Tracker. So what are we? We're essentially an accountability and transparency tool for looking at what well, every country, big companies the largest regions in the world so we look at all regions in the 25 largest emitting nations in the world, and every city with over 500,000 people. So in total, the Net Zero Tracker looks at over 4,000 entities. Earlier this year, we also added the 100 biggest private firms in the world because for us, that was a bit of a black hole. So, at the tracker, we have to balance breadth with depth. And at the moment, we've had a real bias for breadth rather than depth. And now we have been criticized for that, but it is mainly a resourcing problem. We can't look more deeply into some of these targets. And our friends and partners at New Climate Institute, they do these deep dives every year. So they compliment our work. Sometimes what I say is thin scrutinizing. But, so just to dive, dive into a little bit more detail on the tracker. So at the heart of the tracker, is a small army of Oxford University students that actually collect the data manually. So, as you won't be surprised to hear, Tom, and many of the folks listening in, there's a lot of reporting holes out there and there's very little standardization across that reporting landscape. And so what we, what we've tried to do is we've tried to create the most comprehensive, credible, consistent, and current database in the world using manual data collection, looking at publicly available documents and trying to standardize that in the first instance. And so that's a huge, you know, it's a monumental effort. But now I just want to say a big thanks to actually if some of those volunteers, some of those volunteers may be listing. I think we've had about 500 go through the system and I think we have about 200 in the system at the moment. Those volunteers are mainly at the University of Oxford, but we have expanded that cohort to other universities around the world as well. What else? To just bring the Tracker to light. So I've mentioned four organizations. I think I've named dropped Oxford University of named dropped new climate Institute. Another one that's worth mentioning is the Data Driven Envirolab We want to go with this. Because I don't think we're going to have standardized reporting around the world anytime soon. Probably not until the 2030s. I think we'll get there, but we're not quite there yet. So we are going to need these, this pool of volunteers doing what they do best, but we'd love to make the user experience better by integrating ChatGPT infrastructure, trying to be at the vanguard of web scraping. And also AI to try and make the life easier for these volunteers and also the data more, even more credible than it is today. So, I think that brings the tracker to light a little bit. The other thing I should mention is that what we're trying to do is we're trying to alleviate confusion. I think about net zero from this perspective, net zero suffers from a deficit of credibility and a surplus of confusion. And so what we try and do is we try and alleviate that confusion. And we see that actually as a prerequisite for trying to tackle the deficit of credibility around these net zero targets that have been set by, I think over 1, 500 entities that we track today. For me that's a really big one. I said earlier that I love to explain climate change science and policy to the public because it is so enormously complex. And so, one thing in the Tracker we do try and do is, is break things down to make it really simple so that people can actually understand Net Zero in the first instance.

Tom Raftery: 12:02

So, is it the case that you're saying, okay, this particular entity, be it a government, be it a company, have said they're going to get to net zero by X date, but looking at their data, they're only X percent into it, and so the chance of them getting it by date Y are negligible or fantastic or somewhere in the middle?

John Lang: 12:20

Yeah, exactly. So what we do is we look at the intent, and the integrity of net zero targets. We don't look at the implementation. And of course, people say, well, you need to be looking at if they're actually reducing emissions. Yes, of course, we do need to be doing that. But we're trying to get our house in order first. And what we're looking at, we're looking at these entities to see if they've got their houses in order. So yes, we ask that first question. Do they have a net zero target? But then we dive into the important details. And this is the bread and butter of the Net Zero Tracker. So we look at things like, do they have a plan? And is, is that plan complete? Are they being transparent around the use of offsets or carbon credits? Often, you one of the findings we find time and time again is that they're not being transparent. These companies are not telling us what they're going to do around offsets. And that undermines their whole strategy to get to Net Zero. Other things like progress reporting. Companies other entities reporting on progress annually. Are they covering all greenhouse gases? So not just CO2 but also methane and nitrous oxide. If you're a company, are they covering scope three emissions? So that's hugely important and we have seen growth in that area. You know, which has been one of the few positives that we have consistently found.

Tom Raftery: 13:33

Good.

John Lang: 13:34

Another element is, is there accountability at the company at the board level for hitting some of these targets. So we look at a range of integrity criteria, which we borrowed from the UN Expert Group on Net Zero Targets and also the Race to Zero Campaign. So they're both UN orchestration initiatives. We don't try to reinvent the wheel. We actually look at those standards that are emerging out there and we apply them to our over 4,000 entities. We ask very simple questions. Each year we produce a report called Net Zero Stock Take. And what we found is we found growth at the intent level. So there are more and more companies, cities and regions setting Net Zero targets. Companies have increased by 23% in the last 18 months. Regions have increased by about 28% in the last 18 months. And, you know, that's great progress on intent. But when we look at integrity, the, standards that we use, we call them minimum procedural requirements. We just want to know, are these entities, are these companies and these regions? Are they doing the Minimum Procedural Requirements? And what we consistently find is that very few are doing that. So about one in 20 across all entity groups are actually hitting all Minimum Procedure Requirements. So we look at about 7 or 8 criteria. So a lot of entities are doing four or five of those, but they're not doing all eight. And we actually see all eight as integral to being able to claim that you have a robust net zero target.

Tom Raftery: 15:11

Right. we're, we're hearing more, you talked about earlier, but subnational governments and their role in climate action. Can you tell us why cities, states and regions are so critical to achieving net zero targets and what's holding them back if they're, as you mentioned, not hitting all their, their targets?

John Lang: 15:55

Yeah, sure. Happy to. Often there's a focus on those charismatic countries and charismatic companies that we always see in the news. And so this year we decided to have a special focus on subnationals. And so by subnational governments, I mean both regional governments and city governments. We see the importance of these entities. I mean, they are the real world actors and with the prospect of a potential Donald Trump second administration, these subnational actors are going to potentially become even more important over time. And there are two main reasons why we concentrate our efforts on looking at subnationals and that's summed up in two phrases. So Vertical Governance. That's a really important term. And another, another term is The Ambition Loop. So Vertical Governance, it kind of says what it is on the tin. So are subnational governments lining up with targets and strategies at the national level? And then getting to the Ambition Loop side of the equation. Are they influencing what's happening at the national level or vice versa. So what national governments are doing around policies, around targeting, around strategies, having an influence at the sub national level and indeed at the company level. That's why it's so important to look at the whole chain rather than concentrating, say, just on companies or just on countries. And that's one of the founding principles of the Net Zero Tracker because we want to look at the whole of the economy and what the whole of the economy were trying to do around net zero. Just to bring the Ambition Loop to life a little bit more, I often define it as the bidirectional relationship between different levels of governance. And there is emerging evidence that actually there is an ambition loop. And sometimes I think of, think of it like a sandwich. You know, so how do you actually get action? You need to get groundswell and you also need the kind of top down stuff. And in some, in some locations we are seeing that you know, which is great. So what we did find in this recent Stocktake is that national targets often serve as a ceiling to climate ambition at the city and regional level. But that's, in some countries, some national governments do go above and beyond. So, for example, in Germany, in India in Australia, we have seen regions actually pushing further and going beyond what the national government has said. And in some cases, I think in the case of Australia, Japan, and Mexico, you've actually seen a case where some national actors setting targets and setting robust strategies and increased ambition which in turn, hopefully increases action. So, there's a lot that subnational actors can do and they are at the very forefront or at the tip of the turbine of net zero.

Tom Raftery: 18:43

You mentioned that a lot of the companies and cities, a significant proportion of them still lack integrity. How do we, how do we bridge that gap between ambition and action? And what's been the biggest barrier in improving the quality of these commitments?

John Lang: 18:58

I'll start in reverse order because I spoke about confusion. I genuinely think the surplus of confusion is a massive impediment to these entities actually improving integrity. And by confusion, I mean, basically, if you've got a lot of different standards, so say you've got 10 different standards trying to achieve the same thing, but all saying slightly different things that gives opportunities to entities, especially companies to hide behind the least credible, the lowest common denominator, that least credible standard. So that's I think what we've seen. And so one of the hugely important elements around our ecosystem, around the accountability ecosystem, is to, try and converge around what good net zero looks like. And so for me, that's hugely important. And so we are seeing convergence. We are seeing for example, the International Sustainability Standards Board, ISSB, have just brought out their disclosure standards. That's been taken up by 20 plus countries already, or promised to be, and you've also got the net zero standard, which has been developed by ISO. So the International Organization for Standardization. If we can get that convergence, I think there's going to be fewer places for these entities to hide. Another element of the lack of integrity is that there is a disparity between the resources of say, a S&P 500 company versus a city in Mongolia or a city in Kazakhstan. So, that's an interesting area that demands a lot more research and it is a sensitive subject, because it's important that you get those equity and sectoral dimensions right. We shouldn't carry too large a hammer on, on the integrity aspects, but what we should be seeing across all entities is improvements. So some entities may start at a lower place but we do need to see those, all those trends increasing. If we get increased integrity, we think that we're going to start to see actual implementation. Again, by implementation, I mean emission reductions.

Tom Raftery: 21:11

Great. And you mentioned that over 40 percent of subnational governments still have no mitigation targets. Why? Why do you think so many major actors are still sitting on the sidelines? And what can national governments do to nudge them towards ambitious climate goals?

John Lang: 21:28

Yeah, it's a great question. And I wish I knew the answer. And it's not, and it's not just, it's not just subnational regions and companies. it's also countries. So I mentioned that 92 percent of GDP is covered in a net zero target, but that still leaves about 50 nations that haven't got a net zero target. And we're not asking, for much we're not asking for a net zero target of 2050. We just, we just would love to know if a country has a net zero target this century. That would be great. If it was 2090, we're still going to put it on our, in our database. What can national governments do? Now there is there is talk of countries mandating transition strategies from both regions and from companies. In the EU for example you have got the The Corporate Sustainability Standards Directive.

Tom Raftery: 22:19

due diligence directive.

John Lang: 22:21

That's the one, yeah, CSDDD. Yeah, so, you know, that's going to mandate transition plans from companies, not just large companies in the EU, but also large companies outside of the EU that have big supply chains in the EU or at least want to sell into the EU. So, and you know, you're, you're obviously familiar with that, Tom. So we are seeing progress on that front. But we do need those extra territorial dimensions that are coming out of the EU to be taken up by other jurisdictions. So yes, we've got about 40 percent of actors that, that need to set net zero targets. We often talk about net zeros, we need more but most importantly, we need better.

Tom Raftery: 22:57

We've heard some talk as well around spheres of influence beyond the company's direct value chain. Can you explain what that means in practical terms and how leading companies can use this concept to, genuinely make a difference?

John Lang: 23:13

Yeah. It's essentially sum it up with don't lobby against climate action. Lobby for it. And I often compare it to individual behavioural change, because we know that there's a dichotomy between individual behavioural change and political change or systemic change. And I think it's the same concept at the actual entity level. So, at the Net Zero Tracker we look at what Companies are doing inside the value chain. Do they have targets? Are they covering all emissions? But this spheres of influence concept It actually looks at what a company is trying to do outside of their value chain or beyond their value chain. You might be familiar with the new term beyond value chain mitigation. That's starting to rise up the ranks in, in the climate ecosystem. And so It's getting to the point that what a business is doing, are they diversifying their business models that are going to be fit for a net zero world? For example, are they aligning on policy? And as I said before, are they, are they making sure that they're not lobbying against climate action but for it? And not just directly, but also indirectly through their trade memberships and their industry associations. So that's a huge part of it. And we've got a great partner influence map. We, we, we auto feed their data into the Net Zero Tracker portal and they actually look at these questions around kind of spheres of influence, lobbying, policy, advocacy, and alignment. And that's hugely important. I would say that's the most important thing that a company can be doing, is aligning their spheres of influence with the net zero transition. Yes, they need their own house in order, but they need to be contributing to systemic change. Just as an individual needs to be thinking about systemic political change rather than just individual behavioral change.

Tom Raftery: 25:05

I have a particular interest in the automotive sector, for example, because I'm a big fan of EVs and we can see in the automotive sector, the likes of Toyota, who are lobbying against emissions legislation for vehicles, increasingly tightening the legislation they want to be allowed to continue polluting. You can put that up against other manufacturers, the likes of Volvo Group or Volkswagen, who are going the opposite direction and lobbying for increased legislation on emissions for vehicles. That's roughly what you're talking about, right, but broader.

John Lang: 25:41

That's exactly right. And I shared that I made the mistake. We actually had a representative of Volvo Group at our net zero stock take launch a couple of weeks ago. And I, I mixed up Volvo Group with Volvo Cars. Little did I know, cause I knew that Volvo Cars had just done a retreat from one of their targets. And I accused Karen of being part of that but of course she was with the Volvo Group and she was like no no no no no We go to the opposite direction. We're doing all the right things. So so that was good to hear. So yes, it's exactly right. You've got other leaders that InfluenceMap have profiled and surfaced. And again, that's, that's also a really important part of this. We need to be profiling those companies that are actually using their spheres of influence to change the systemic landscape. You know, one of the things we are guilty of at the Net Zero Tracker is we concentrate on those with net zero targets. Not necessarily those without them, because, like I was saying, our bread and butter is looking at the integrity of net zero targets. So by definition, we're not looking at those without targets. So one of the things to counter that is to profile those leaders because you don't want to be just banging a stick on those that are actually, you know, they actually have the intent to go to net zero this century. So yeah, yeah, so just vigorously agreeing with you, Tom.

Tom Raftery: 27:00

Okay. great As you've said a few times now, Net Zero Tracker is a global initiative. Maybe you'd like to talk about some emerging trends or bright spots in regions or industries that have surprised you.

John Lang: 27:14

I mean, I'm guilty not just the net zero tracker. I'm guilty of not I've not profiling the good goodies. I mentioned Volvo group, they're doing great things on advocacy. And also the supply chain issues. You've got the likes of Google that are exploring 24 7 renewable energy. A lot of their moves are what we think is counter to climate action in terms of the emissions that are coming from data centers. But you know, you are seeing leadership from the Googles, from the Microsofts. Where else are we seeing leadership? It's one of the usual suspects but Maersk and the shipping industry. So if we locate, organizations and companies that are doing good things in what we, what we call hard to abate or hard to reduce sectors, we should be profiling them above those that are doing the right things in easier to abate or easier to abate sectors. So, you know, I mentioned Google and Microsoft and they're IT companies. But actually, we need to be profiling and surfacing those companies and indeed those regions that are in high emitting nations that are pushing the envelope, and that kind of gets to the that ambition loop point that I made earlier. So, you know, it's not a very satisfactory answer, I don't think, Tom, but I mean, you've, reminded me yet again that I need to go away and look at those that are doing really good things because we need to be profiling those actors more and more.

Tom Raftery: 28:35

Yeah, I know it's interesting. You mentioned Google and Microsoft, obviously in the tech sector, so easier to decarbonize, but both Google and Microsoft have made separate announcements in the last couple of weeks about reopening mothballed nuclear power plants or in Google's place, it's about signing a deal with a company that makes these SMRs, the small nuclear reactors, to power their data centers for AI, because I guess AI is hard to abate. I

John Lang: 29:04

mean, I mean, it's inevitable. We, we are going to pursue AI with gusto. So we do need these innovative solutions. I, we don't want to fall down the rabbit hole with nuclear, but for me, nuclear is firmly a low carbon technology. And so, you know, this is an and this is an and question, not an or. So I mean, you'll pick up my, my position on nuclear on that, but we need to be doing, and these companies need to be doing everything they can to try and source low carbon energy. Because, you know, let's face it, this is inevitable. You know, AI is going to change, change our world over the next 10, 15 years. One thing I do I worry about. I mean, there's a few things I do worry about. I see that understanding more about climate change is liberating, but it's also it also reminds you about how difficult the challenges. So, you know, the rebound effect that some people would be familiar with, our disposition from a collective point of view of using more energy when it becomes cheaper and more readily available. And so it is something I really do worry about. And, you know, we have seen renewables. We have seen demand energy demand shooting up and renewables, thankfully, covering that that demand increase, but we do need that demand increase to at least stagnate so that our renewable deployment can actually start reducing emissions and make that gap wider with energy demand. So, yeah yeah, I think I'll leave it there. I mean, we don't, we don't want to, want to dive too far into those, into those details, especially nuclear.

Tom Raftery: 30:27

Yeah. yeah, the old Jevons paradox now coming back to bite us in the ass again, and not coal this time, but renewables.

John Lang: 30:36

Yeah, exactly.

Tom Raftery: 30:37

Looking ahead, What do you think the big challenge is for countries and companies that have set net zero targets? Are there any key milestones that we should keep an eye on the next couple of years? I know in the next five years, we've got 2030 coming, but, you know, beyond that or ahead of that.

John Lang: 30:56

Yeah, for sure. You know, so firstly, not all net zero targets are created equal, you know, we've touched on that and we've spoken around the need to look at implementation, we need execution of these targets. I think almost all, every entity that we, that we track has sort of set their target, and then being like, okay, how are we going to do this? And, you know, that whole question of net zero is really, really difficult in a world that still emits 42 billion tons of CO2, plus another 15 billion tons of CO2 equivalent through other greenhouse gases. We need execution, if we can, and we need leadership. So, countries are looking forward to 2035. So the carbon cutting Nationally Determined Contributions that they're going to be sitting next year. And so we really need, we talked about how regions and companies look at this that ceiling of ambition that comes from the national level. So we need governments all over the world especially, you know, key G20 nations to set ambitious targets or what sometimes we call stretch goals because we know that the growth in clean energy we, we know that these clean energy innovations increasing rapidly up the S curve, so we need to bake in some of the projections from the likes of the IEA and Bloomberg New Energy Finance into these national targets for 2035 through these submissions that all countries have promised to do by COP30 next year. And that will then hopefully filter down to the sub national level. And the company level because they will see that that ambition, that direction of travel. We already seeing a proliferation of both policy. So the enabling environment, but also regulation, around getting these entities to align with these national net zero targets and especially these interim targets. So we need more of that. We need these stretch goals. We need nations to be ambitious. And we need some domino countries to lead the way.

Tom Raftery: 32:53

For listeners who might feel overwhelmed by the scale of the climate challenge, you know, what's an action or actions they can take to help ensure that the net zero targets don't just remain targets, but become reality.

John Lang: 33:07

I touched on this earlier, but what I often say is that, if an individual action doesn't have political implications or political consequences, it's often better for your conscience than it is for climate. And so I really do stick by that. So, the most political thing that any individual can do is to talk about climate change. You know, I'm stealing and plagiarising from Catherine Hayhoe you know, probably the best climate change communicator in the world, but it's, it's deeply true. To talk about climate change, you actually first have to understand it. You know, not in, not in its full glory, but at least at a minimum. So one of the most political things you can do is actually learn about climate change so that you can then speak about it. But yes, you can do also do other things. You can join an organization, you know, that's deeply political. You can move careers, again, deeply political. You can go into politics which is very obviously the most political thing. But yeah, for me, it starts around talking about it. And, you know, that's, that's one of the most encouraging things that I think looking back over the last five, 10 years is how many people are talking about this. And yes, we have 8 to 10% of folks out there that still dismiss climate change, completely, but we know that about 90% of the population are malleable in terms of shifting their positions on how urgent climate change is. And so, you know, we could speak if we talk about climate change, we can speak to that 90%. And we can help create this movement to try and achieve these net zero targets more quickly. So, yeah, so that would, that would be what I would say. Make sure it's political.

Tom Raftery: 34:45

Very good, and vote, make sure to prioritize climate in who you're voting for.

John Lang: 34:50

Exactly, and not just voting, but voting with your wallet, of course. So yeah, no, last thing I would say is I've got a, I've got a graphic that I haven't yet published yet, but it's looking at your, looking at your climate shadow. We talked about the spheres of influence, but how can you increase your climate shadow to make an impact. Moving from your carbon footprint or your climate footprint to actually your climate shadow and the, all the things we just discussed there fit in the shadow.

Tom Raftery: 35:15

Nice. Nice. You must shoot me a link to that when you, when it goes live. Left field question, John. If you could have any celebrity, fictional character, actual character alive or dead to represent the ambitions of the Net Zero Tracker, who would they be and why?

John Lang: 35:39

Wow. I Think, I think it would be, can I go two people?

Tom Raftery: 35:46

Sure.

John Lang: 35:47

And I'm going to go two men, which is which is a bit controversial, but I'm going to go with Albert Einstein. Number one, because he said, if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand a lot of it's a, he not only, he not only made, you know, pushed the body of human knowledge into the, into into the strat, into the stratosphere but he also said it as it is. If you connot say it simply, you don't understand it well enough. So that's hugely important for us at the Net Zero Tracker and for anyone involved in Net Zero you know, we're all afflicted by the curse of knowledge so we should try our very, very best to explain stuff simply. The second person I would say would be Stephen Schneider. So the late US climate scientist who said that when it comes to climate change, the two least likely outcomes that it's good for us and that it's going to be the end of the world. And so, for me, that's a hugely important message, and probably quite a nice one to finish on, Tom, because, you know, climate change isn't going to be existential in terms of the end of human civilization, and it's certainly not going to be good for us, but there are a lot there are a multitude of outcomes in between that and we need to make sure that we that push the best possible outcome we can get to

Tom Raftery: 36:59

John, we're coming towards the end of the podcast now. Is there any question I did not ask that you wish I had or any aspect of this we haven't touched on that you think it's important for people to be aware of?

John Lang: 37:12

I'm going to say I don't think so. Yeah, yeah, I, I think. Yeah, I think the, the point around, I mean, what I can do is I can point people to some of my infographics that try and explain climate policy and science in as simple terms as possible, but try not to go too simple so that folks can actually talk about it. So so, and if, if folks would like to know where they are, I'm happy to give those. Links over to you, Tom. Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit hosts a section on, on, on infographics, explaining complex issues. The Net Zero Tracker is, is, has also got a few infographics, so.

Tom Raftery: 37:48

Sure. Yeah. That's always my final question. If people would like to know more, where would you have me direct them? So I guess it's, is it ECIU, or you clarify for me where

John Lang: 37:57

Sure, I think ECIU and the Net Zero Tracker I've got other projects on the, on the sideline, but those, those two are, those two are the most notable, for sure.

Tom Raftery: 38:04

shoot me those links. I'll put them in the show notes and that way everyone will have access to them.

John Lang: 38:09

Thanks very much, Tom, appreciate it.

Tom Raftery: 38:10

Yeah. No, thanks. Thanks to you. Thanks a million for coming on the podcast today. It's been fascinating.

John Lang: 38:16

Yeah, thank you so much yeah, and it'll be great to be on, in, in future when we when we finally hit Net Zero.

Tom Raftery: 38:22

Okay, we've come to the end of the show. Thanks everyone for listening. If you'd like to know more about the Climate Confident podcast, feel free to drop me an email to tomraftery at outlook. com or message me on LinkedIn or Twitter. If you like the show, please don't forget to click follow on it in your podcast application of choice to get new episodes as soon as they're published. Also, please don't forget to rate and review the podcast. It really does help new people to find the show. Thanks. Catch you all next time.