The Maritime Education Podcast
Captain Barry Sadler discusses maritime topics including recent changes to maritime practices, shipping incidents, new legislation, real life lessons from his ongoing pilotage career, hot MCA examination topics and maritime issues in general. With 40 years experience in the professional maritime field, Barry's take on various nautical and shipping matters is in depth and accurate with insightful views on all affairs maritime. If you work, watch or enjoy the sea his podcast will inform and entertain you.
The Maritime Education Podcast
IMO Net Zero - A Passionate Ambassador John Taukave
The extraordinary session of the IMO's Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) session was convened on the 14th October to formally adopt the NZF as amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, which would introduce for large oceangoing ships a global fuel-intensity standard and a GHG emissions-pricing mechanism. However, member States were unable to reach consensus and therefore did not formally adopt the framework at this meeting. Instead they voted (57 in favour, 49 against/abstain) to adjourn the decision for one year and reconvene in October 2026.
This was a disappointing outcome for the IMO.
Three days later I interviewed John Taukave who was present on this committee. This podcast showcases that interview. I'll let the podcast do the talking - it was recorded in a lobby in a hotel next to the IMO headquarters in London (the IMO was a busy place that week!) and as such there is the occasional interruption as people passed through which I apologise for. Enjoy hearing from this passionate ambassador of climate change reduction.
Who is John
John is a Pacific Islander and a diplomat with deep insight into the work of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and in particular into the historic IMO decision to price emissions from global shipping. John offers a unique insider perspective rarely heard in mainstream maritime and climate discussions.
Most conversations about the IMO focus on technical regulation, shipping law, or emissions targets. John brings something different: the lived experience of how these global decisions play out in small island nations - places where maritime policy directly affects culture, livelihoods and survival.
Some angles he could bring to an episode include:
- Climate justice: what IMO climate policies mean for communities already living with rising seas and environmental change.
- Representation: why voices from small island states matter in global shipping and trade discussions — and what’s lost when they are excluded.
- Cultural heritage: how traditional seafaring knowledge and island identity intersect with global maritime regulation.
John’s strength is his ability to bridge technical policy with compelling human stories. He can articulate the cultural dimension of IMO debates in a way that connects with both expert and general audiences.
Come and Visit our Website
https://www.captainbarrysadler.com/
At Captain Barry Sadler Maritime Training & Consultancy we deliver industry-leading online courses, oral exam preparation, and professional resources for deck officers, cadets, and maritime professionals. Fully aligned with UK MCA standards, our training helps you build knowledge, confidence, and a successful career at sea.
Follow us
A very warm welcome, everyone, to the Maritime Education Podcast. My name is Barry Sadler, and for those regulars, welcome back. And for those of you just joining the podcast, it's great to have you on board. So this podcast follows up on my IMO Net Zero podcast that I put out on the twelfth of October this year, prior to the extraordinary meeting of the Maritime Environmental Protection Committee at the IMO. Now, this extraordinary meeting was convened in order to bring about a vote for adoption of the IMO's net zero framework, which, if you listen to the podcast from October the twelfth, I go into some detail as to what that entailed. The committee started meeting on the 14th of October, just two days after my podcast, and began debating climate change and debating whether the IMO's net zero framework was going to be adopted by the IMO, subsequently ratified, and with tacit acceptance, made an international standard in due course. Now, some of you may have read what happened during those few days at the IMO. Tuesday the fourteenth, the committee met, but unfortunately by Friday the seventeenth, a vote had been tabled which adjourned the committee meeting for one year, so no decision was made on the adoption of that IMO net zero framework. This generally happened because developed countries and in particular those developed countries with perhaps an interest in oil and oil related products and services were very, very much against any kind of investment or move forward to try and either fund or encourage countries to invest in new means of propulsion, new marine fuels, and the move away from the fossil fuels that are at the end of the day putting so much greenhouse gas into the earth's atmosphere. Generally led by the US and including countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, a vote was tabled to adjourn that meeting and this vote narrowly passed. It passed forty-nine votes against to fifty-seven votes for an adjournment, so just eight votes in it, and political pressure from the largest countries within that group that opposed the IMO net zero framework to put pressure on smaller countries to support the adjournment. This is obviously a disappointing outcome for the IMO, who were looking to be one of the first international organizations to adopt a framework that required credits to be purchased by ship owners whose ships were polluting the most. It was actually a key agreement that needed to be reached, a landmark deal to cut global shipping emissions. And of course, as I've just described, this deal unfortunately fell on the 17th of October. Three days later, I was invited to London to interview somebody that was on that very committee and talk to them about the events that had happened the previous week and to why the IMO's net zero framework was so important. John Turcavi is a technical researcher and cultural support for pretty much the Micronesian set of islands that were represented at these IMO talks. He works for the Micronesian Centre for Sustainable Transport and in conjunction with representatives from other Polynesian islands, Micronesian islands such as the Marshall Islands, he was there not just to give technical support to the committee, but cultural support in bringing forward how important steps like this were to the people of those South Pacific Islands. Indeed, John's home island only lies four point five meters above sea level and his home island actually has an agreement with Australia that if because of climate change the sea levels rise and his home island is threatened, then they can be resettled in Australia. That's how serious climate change is affecting these South Pacific Islands. As you'll hear from my interview with John, John speaks remarkably passionately about this framework, about climate change, and about all that him and all of those really from that part of the world are doing to try and reduce greenhouse gases, reduce global warming, and at the end of the day preserve the culture, heritage, and literally the islands that these guys live on. Anyway, enough for me. Let's have a little listen to the uh interview, and uh it's great to have you on board once again. Please do enjoy listening to John Telcave. Just one small point before I start the interview. John does start to speak in his home language as a welcome to me. Don't worry, the interview wasn't conducted in his home language. He's literally welcoming me to the conversation and then breaks into English a little bit further on. Enjoy the interview, guys. I've got a really special guest with me today. I'm up in London, right next door to the IMO at the uh at the rather nice Higher Regency Hotel, and I'm sat here with John Talcavi. John, a very good afternoon to you.
SPEAKER_00:Uh Sangte Berry. Barry. Ma tenga tota koa or snot yet in Mauri. I just wanted to first introduce myself in Rutuman and acknowledge your presence, Brother Barry, and you know the work that you're doing on this podcast. And I think it's really good to tell the stories and just acknowledge your love for the oceans as well.
SPEAKER_01:Thank you very much.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, John, tell me all about yourself. Uh first of all, you know, starting with the IMO. Um currently I'm a researcher, I'm a technical researcher and cultural support uh advisor for the Micronesian Center for Sustainable Transport. It's a regional organization based out of the Marshall Islands that provides technical and cultural support for Pacific delegations, specifically on the six-pack coalition. The six pack is uh the Pacific coalition that comes uh to the GHG negotiations here. And I'm also a doctoral uh PhD researcher at the University of Amsterdam.
SPEAKER_01:Excellent, excellent. And John, um we're at the IMO primarily for the net zero framework uh MEPC, but before we go into that, tell me a bit about the IMO from your perspective, John. I mean, I teach about the IMO every day and about the the regulations that come out of the IMO, but let's talk about the IMO as a body itself. Tell me a bit about the IMO.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, absolutely. Thanks for that question. Um, first, before coming into the IMO, um, I come from an island in uh the in the Pacific called Rutuma, it's in Fiji, and so I was raised around the ocean, and the ocean is basically part of our lives. So, you know, growing up on in Fiji in Vatuanga, we were right next to the ocean in Vatuanga. Shout out to all the Vatuanga and the Rutumma communities out there, and if you're listening to this, um, so basically the ocean was part of us growing up, and uh the ocean really gave us a sense of identity. And so going throughout my research work, the ocean became more than just a body of water for me, it became a whole identity that I started to adapt. And when I first stepped into the IMO in 2022, I immediately felt that the IMO was a space not built for voices like mine. Not built for voices like mine. Not built for voices like mine, because when I first stepped in in 2022, I think this was during um ISWG 17, or was it MEPC 79, one of those in 2022? When I first stepped in, I automatically felt a presence, an aura that the experiences of Pacific peoples and just listening to the stories about Pacific peoples' voices in that space were always in a way left behind or sidelined. And it was very discouraging, but it was also an opportunity for me to realize that coming into this space and bringing the ocean and the ancestors off the ocean, you know, from the Pacific that voyaged for millennia, bringing that same spirituality, but also that same mantra to come into that space and to really try and um re like reframe our Pacific our presence and our voices in at the IMO. So that was my first introduction to the IMO that I knew that it was always going to put our voices behind, like leave us behind. And I noticed that in many of the negotiations that the Pacific was not involved in those critical discussions. There was always a certain you know power elite that would always negotiate uh text, and it was very hard to to see those in in the beginning, yeah, but then learning constantly learning about despite all of the setbacks that the Pacific faces at the IMO, they always continue to show up with the support of our leaders, and despite you know being sidelined, they always show up to make sure that their voices are heard, and they always you see that really well in their interventions as well.
SPEAKER_01:So in in the UK, we have something called the Red Ensign Group, in which the United Kingdom are the representatives at the IMO, and we bring in British Overseas Territories under the same Red Ensign flag. Okay, the UK represents them at the IMO, uh, but they follow the United Kingdom legislation in general. Is it the same for Pacific Islands? Do you have representation at the IMO individually or do you go under a collective?
SPEAKER_00:I think, well, for me, I think it's both because like the member states they come together, but we also have a regional body, and that's the Pacific Blue Shipping Partnership, and uh we also have the Pacific Islands Forum. But specifically on decarbonization of maritime shipping, we have this um the Pacific Blue Shipping Partnership, which is a collective of countries that are trying to decarbonize their fleet within the Pacific region, right? And it's this group of countries that really have moved forward to make sure that that happens. That what we agree internationally also applies to the region as well.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, great. Yeah. So at the IMO, as we both know, uh they have various committees at the IMO. Um, a lot of my teaching surrounds the Maritime Safety Committee. Oh, okay. And we have MSCs that come out of the Maritime Safety Committee. Very, very different beast to the committee that you have been sitting on whilst in London over the past week. Yes. The MEPC, the Maritime Environmental Protection Committee. Yep. Um, MEPC meeting number 80. Yep. 80 was in uh April. April. April, yeah. And uh this was an extraordinary meeting that uh took place last week. MEPC 83. 83, so in April. I should know. 83. So were you here in April, John? I was here in April. Tell me about that MEPC meeting in April. Tell me how did it feel to be in the room? Give me give me an idea of how it feels to be inside the IMO.
SPEAKER_00:So, what was what what we agreed in April was to the the net zero framework, right? But initially, the Pacific, we abstained because what the net zero framework was did not support us, it did not support a 1.5 trajectory pathway, and it um it wasn't the best option for our countries, and we abstained from that vote because what we brought was a uh mandatory universal levy on all GHG emissions. Okay, so it was a simple flat universal levy on all ships for their carbon emissions, and I think we over 60 countries, you know, all agreed to this levy, and we made a submission on it, and it was in a way it was put aside, you know, and that was that was a big disappointment on that part because you know, over 60 countries that sponsored this paper on on this on this levy were their voices were not heard, you know. And so what happened in '83 was we adopted this net zero framework, in which the Pacific abstained, obviously, uh and um because it wasn't the best option. However, the net zero framework was not the best option on the table, but it was an option, right? And for us, we reflected on that decision ever since um you know ever since '83. And coming into this session, this extraordinary session, which was a really extraordinary session last week. Yes, we we we thought, okay, we might as well have a framework that we can continue to work on and improve, and you know, make sure that what we get from this framework, you know, like for example, the revenues from this framework contributes to a just and equitable transition, making sure that you know, states like SIDS and LDCs, like in the Pacific, are not left behind, that they're a part of that transition. And so we decided that okay, we're going to support this net zero framework in the faith, in good faith, that we can continue to work on it later. Because if we did not, it would take us way back behind. And obviously, that happened last week was this whole thing was delayed.
SPEAKER_01:Did you have assurances from the IMO for the monies and the credits that would be paid in against the IMO net zero framework? They said we're going to help countries develop their own GHG strategies. Were you confident that the IMO would have taken your home islands into account when distributing those funds for that purpose?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so that was where a just and equitable transition came in, and that's what we always always fought for, to make sure that the revenues, you know, from this economic mechanism was justly and equitably distributed, meaning that you know it revenues from this would come towards the developing states, especially SIDs and LDCs, so that they could transition. Right. Yeah. And that was what we're always fought for because you know, the developed world, if they they'll they'll obviously transition. And the transition is going to cost. Yes. And it's going to cost money. And so for us, you know, for the developing states, it's going to be really costly for us because one, you know, like in the Pacific, we're our geographical locations from these international markets, we pay, we pay two or three times more shipping. And shipping is our lifeline. Yes. And so we need to make sure that, you know, if we're going to transition, that we're, you know, that we are able to afford the transition. And that was what the jet was that made to make sure that revenues were distributed, not only for the transition, but for states to transition as well.
SPEAKER_01:I think the everyday Joe in the street sometimes thinks that transition uh to greenhouse gas principles and the reduction of greenhouse gas is almost a free event. Transitioning, finding extra fuels, finding solutions to greenhouse gases. They just kind of happen. And it's not the case, is it? You know, countries, especially island nations in the Pacific, you need funding, don't you, to be do the research in order to do this.
SPEAKER_00:We need to maintain the ports, we need to, you know, we need the you know seafarer trading to, you know, and we need to make sure that you know we are able to transition as well.
SPEAKER_01:So from what I gather, in April, although you didn't support directly the net zero framework proposed by the IMO, it was the best that was on our stained, yeah. You abstained, and then we move on to uh to last week. Yeah. So you were in the actual meeting, I believe, uh last week on on Friday. On the ground. It started, didn't it, on Thursday? When did the actual extraordinary session start? Was it Thursday, Friday?
SPEAKER_00:It started on Tuesday. Oh, Tuesday. Yeah, it started on Tuesday and ended on Friday. Right. The actual vote came on Friday.
SPEAKER_01:So at what point during that process did you realize that things may not be going in the direction that I believe most people expected?
SPEAKER_00:I mean, we already knew from Tuesday when the first when MEPC first started, when the extraordinary session first started, that was there was going to be a lot, a lot of pressure, you know, from the big the big states.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:And uh I think we even felt that from our own uh we even felt that from our own countries, you know, we felt that pressure coming coming in from the states, we were set note verbals, and you know, one thing that I'm always going to be appreciative is despite the pressures from the developed states, you know who I mean, yeah, despite that pressure, um our leaders decided to stand to stand firm on our positions, and that was something encouraging, very encouraging. Good. You know, it was unfortunate for others, you know, and we saw the pressure because at the end of the day, it lit it it literally came to a political decision, and you know, it reached the highest levels of our governments. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:So that was that was evident, was it from the Tuesday onwards?
SPEAKER_00:From the Tuesday, and then I think by Thursday evening towards Friday, it was going to be a tough call because we still didn't know how it would go. It was a really it was going to be a really close call. And then Friday morning came that, well not Friday morning, like Friday afternoon. Yeah. It was already the vote came. But from Tuesday to Thursday night, it was it was my first time also to see how the delayed tactics of these, you know, the developing, the developed states would go on. It was it was it was extraordinary to see. But it was yeah.
SPEAKER_01:They were just kicking the can down the road until they managed to get more states to succumb to their wishes.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, but yeah, and it was like just simple things like you know, simple things like asking for more time, you know, uh interventions, repeated interventions, and in a way, it was it was like for me in my first session to see that, it was crazy. It's like the theatrics was incredible, like theatrics.
SPEAKER_01:I think that that's a key word from what I from what I understand. Um, theatrics is a key word, and you know, the the IMO itself, we spoke just now about there being different committees. When you're in a safety committee, things to be a little bit more mundane and a little bit more straightforward. Yeah, but once we get into an environmental committee, things start to get a little bit theatrical because the players have the moves that they wish to make. So um I did a podcast last week on what net zero was. So we're not going to go into what net zero actually is, other than just to remind the listeners that you know a key part of it was that ship owners would be buying credits against ships that were emitting more greenhouse gas than they would reasonably expect it to. Um, so we won't talk about that, but let's talk about now where we're at. So, what happened on Friday? So I came through on my phone. I was obviously watching, watching, watching, waiting. Um, I even I even texted uh young uh Barbara to see if she could uh enlighten me. So I was waiting. So tell me about what finally happened on Friday at this extraordinary committee meeting.
SPEAKER_00:So the on Friday there were it the the net zero framework that we that we've literally been trying to fight for the whole week um was actually decided that it was going to be postponed by a year. And it was really, really disappointing that it had to come down. It was a close vote. I think it was 4957. Yeah, 49-57 votes. It was a close one, but it was um it was very it was very disheartening that um you know it reached that vote. And uh yeah, I think just seeing the disappointment, you know, especially in the Pacific, you know, that even though we disagreed to it, you know, we agreed to that we'd continue to work on this, and then when it got postponed, it just showed us that it's gonna be these negotiations are gonna be postponed for yeah. And what does that one year mean? So one year of postponed negotiations means more sea level rise, you know, more natural disasters hitting our region, more you know, more climate impacts, you know, to our communities black home. And I think right after that, I I got emotional about it because it was really bad. And so I went back, I came back to my hotel room, and the first thing I did was I called my family. Yeah, because I felt like I failed them. You know, and you know, you just bring you know that those memories would stay with me forever. And to think that, you know, like we we've invested more than 10 years of negotiations into this, and to get another year of postponement was disheartening. And a lot of our Pacific delegations were were very disappointed at the outcome. And despite that, you know, we were not gonna tell ourselves, okay, we're defeated, we're not coming back, or anything. And you see that right from yesterday at the intercessional working group now, that even though what we're discussing at the intercessional group, you know, it's not binding. We're the we're still showing up to do the work. We're working on the guidelines, the net zero fund. We're all working at you know, the same tactics from the developed states saying that you know we sh it's premature to discuss. But no, we continue to show up, you know. We're not gonna let this defeat, you know, cripple us or you know, make us give up. No, we're going to continue to do that.
SPEAKER_01:I mean, significantly, it's an adjournment of that session. Yeah. So essentially, the session is still. Yeah, it's still there. It's still on the table. We're still allowed. It was, I think it was Saudi Arabia that tabled it in the end. Yeah. And the vote, as we've just said, was 57 for, 49 against, a year's adjournment of the committee. So net zero, still there on the table. A year down the line, you're quite right. There's a lot going to happen in that year.
SPEAKER_00:But you know, the adjournment that you know we still can adopt it, but it also has that opportunity to be killed or further adjourned. So we have, but we're mindful of that, but we we're not thinking about that. We're gonna continue to work on it.
SPEAKER_01:So in a year's time, you'll be back, John. You'll be back there fighting again at the IMO to try and get this uh across the line again.
SPEAKER_00:You can count on it.
SPEAKER_01:Do you think it'll do you think it'll look different in a year's time? I know this is real speculation now, or do you think you're gonna be able to bring this net zero framework back to the IMO in its current form?
SPEAKER_00:Well, you know, for me, you know, just seeing all what happened on Friday, I think given some time of reflections and you know, you know, going going back home and then re-coordinating with our with our countries, I think it's it's going to be a good reflection on what to do. And you know, I think one of the main things to do is one is to connect with the countries that supported to adopt the framework, you know, solidify our positions, you know, really get everyone's positions together to actually support it, and then from there we can outreach because we know that many countries felt that pressure, but we also need to make sure that we really do that outreach and advocacy to those member countries to remind them of how important and how transformational this net zero framework is and how it can be towards um the decarbonisation transition. And I think there's a lot of work to be done, but apart from the outreach, there still needs to be work, you know, done in the intercessional working groups, you know, on the guidelines on the the net zero fund, for example, the fuel certification.
SPEAKER_01:So, what's a what's an intercessional working group? I think I think the lessons be really interested in knowing the technicalities of what happens in between.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. So the MEPC has uh has a working group specifically on DHG emissions from ships, and it's within these intercessional groups that we work on text, that we negotiate on you know the different technical aspects of what the net zero framework is. And then after in these working groups, then we bring it to the MEPC for it to be adopted. Right, okay.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, so it's not just uh, you know, obviously the the committee meetings are the important ones because that's where adoption is created, that's where the the regulatory framework is is hammered home, but these intersessional um meetings sound equally as important, particularly when you're there representing, you know, your home country and your home country's needs.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah. And you know, one thing, like, because apart from the technical, you know, advice that we continue to provide to support our Pacific delegations, I think it's also a key element that when our Pacific delegations come into these spaces, that they're not forget who they're representing. You're not just representing governments, you're representing communities, and to bring that, you know, to bring that story and that spirit of the ocean of from our ancestors coming, you know, from the world's largest vast ocean, and bringing that mentality to come and say, we are descendants of these, you know, of these amazing voyages. And so we want to take that mentality into these negotiations. And so what we've done is it's and it's been really success successful, is in our outreach, while we're negotiating, we uphold cultural elements of negotiations. We apply our culture within our outreach strategies. So things like Talonor, um, ceremonial cover sharings in building and nurturing relationships, and that's how I think we've really built a strong coalition that we currently have, and we're continuing to do it. So I think bringing our experiences from climate, impact, but also our cultures, you know, as you know, as uh descendants of great voyagers, I think that's really helped. And just bringing that ocean and vodka identity with us coming into these spaces. Because sometimes these spaces can be very demoralizing, right? You know, and I think our viewers out there need to understand that if when these spaces become demoralizing, we need to find community because us from the Pacific. We're we're very strong on community and we need to be together to support each other. And when we come to spaces like this, we make sure that we we come together for briefs, we share, you know, in tall know what we call like this open dialogue, we have cover ceremonies, just to practice those moments to to re to encourage everyone that you know you're not alone, we're all in this together, and it really helps in our coordination as well. We we've built a really strong network.
SPEAKER_01:Do you think this greenhouse gas strategy um belongs at the IMO or do you think it needs to move to its own it's its own plinth, really, because you know IMO was based around safety initially, you know, the early days of IMO, load lines, SOLAS, you know, safety on ships was the focus, collision regulations. We could go through many of the early adoptive, easily adopted, easily adopted um conventions on safety. Yeah, but once we get to environmental, the IMO has always struggled a little bit. Do you think that we need to air this laundry outside of the IMO, or do you think we can the IMO can take it further?
SPEAKER_00:I really do, I really have hope that the IMO um can push this adoption on greenhouse gas emissions from ships because you know shipping contributes to what? Uh almost three up almost 3% of all anthropogenic emissions. And I think shipping needs to pay for its emissions because one, you know, for us in the Pacific, we're always at the forefront. And you know, GHG emissions contributes, all emissions contribute to climate. And I think ships have a role in that. You know, and I think I think the IMO, you know, we we we we almost had that chance last week that the IMO would be the first forum to pass and adopt a carbon tax on greenhouse gas emissions. And if in one year's time, if we can achieve that, that will be a historic moment. Not only for the Pacific, but for the IMO itself. And they really, really, really need to, you know, you know, their reputation too is on the line. They have this opportunity for everyone.
SPEAKER_01:It would have been it would have been the the fuel the IMO needs to progress strategy with one win.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, and we feel that they failed us last week too. So we need to again remind everyone about what this means, not only for the region, for our regions, but for the IMO itself and upholding its integrity because it is committed to decarbonising shipping and you know, from the from the JC 2023 strategy, and we need to uphold what we've all agreed to in 2023 and make sure that we adopt that and continue on this trajectory to decarbonisation by around 2050.
SPEAKER_01:I know the Secretary General um himself was very, very disappointed. Uh I heard one account that he had his his head in his hands for a lot of the meetings. I think he could see the writing on the wall, and it was a it was a real shame. I think it's a really important point to make to our listeners is that the IMO needs a win on greenhouse gases. Absolutely. It needs to show that it can regulate shipping in a positive way. Absolutely when it comes to the ship.
SPEAKER_00:Because we have we have the science to back it up, we have you know the evidence that shipping does contribute. So we're supported by that, and we're also supported by the lived experiences of you know small island developing states and LDCs, least developed countries. We have them. You know what else do we need? You know, we need to ensure that this would be such a great opportunity historically, yeah. So we still have that, and it's just on adjournment, but we still have that opportunity that we're not giving up on.
SPEAKER_01:Do you think there's anything that could be uh, I mean, this is really looking into perhaps the intersection. Is there anything that could be tweaked, do you think, in the net zero framework that might make it more appealing to these developed countries that have this bee in their bonnet about it's the bee in the bonnet at the end of the day is about the money, isn't it? I mean, let's let's face it, we're sat here. We've made the point already. Greenhouse gas strategy is not a free strategy. Yeah, yeah. It is going to cost money to develop new fuels, it's gonna cost money to to develop this. What we're doing now costs money, you know, running the IMO costs money. So it is all about money at the end of the day. It's all about the cost and the worry that these costs are somehow going to be passed unreasonably on to you and I. We are the end users, you know. We're both sat here, we're both fully clothed, we have electrical devices, we are the end users, you know. And I think you and I can sit here and honestly put our hands on our heart and say we're not too concerned if our iPhone suddenly increases its cost by 50p in order to help this greenhouse gas. But the stumbling block to me from an outsider looks as if it is literally about money. But is there anything that could change in that net zero framework that really might push it over the line?
SPEAKER_00:No, yeah, I really think that um the voices of the vulnerable need to be uh need to be incorporated more. That there are the ones, especially the Pacific, you know, they're the ones on the front line. You know, it's it it is about the money, you know, because we want to make sure that we're not left behind, but it's also about just making sure that our voices are heard in those spaces. And what I saw from our Pacific leaders last week was beyond amazing. You know, I'm really, really, really proud that we have leaders like that that continue to fight and to make sure that you know we're heard. And also to our our Pacific delegations here and the support, you know, the support that they've been getting, you know. Really, really, really proud of them. And to be part of that experience where, you know, 10 years ago, it was really, really hard to see the Pacific even active in a space like that, to see it now as perhaps one of the most active, you know, and just making sure that we're part of those discussions and our voices are heard. I think that's something that will be really critical in the upcoming months uh when when we hopefully get to really adopt the framework, is that those that everyone is on board together, especially the vulnerable ones?
SPEAKER_01:So when I arrived today, uh I must admit, um, I thought you would be in the hotel, but uh Barbora had to literally drag you out of the IMO to come and speak to me this afternoon. And I'm so so glad that we, you know, that we've had this conversation. What what are you continuing to how long are you going to be here for? And what are you continuing to do at the IMO?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so right now is uh we're we're on the I think the the 20th intercessional working group, meaning we're looking at the guidelines of you know the the the framework, even though it's not been adopted, but we're still um trying to make sure that we do the work that we need to do, you know, so that it helps towards you know, in a year's time when we're adopted, we have this work done. And so we're continuing here.
SPEAKER_01:I mean what sort of things are up for discussion? Give me some of the things. I think I've told me the details. Just some some things that you're talking about.
SPEAKER_00:We're talking about, I think the main thing that we're we're we're uh we're talking about, and the Pacific is really serious about, is the net zero fund. Making sure that when the when the when the net zero fund gets you know the revenues from from the framework, making sure that these funds are distributed equitably to states like ours. You know, that's I think that's one of the main topics that we're discussing on is on that net zero fund to make sure that our countries are part of that just and equitable transition.
SPEAKER_01:So maybe if some of the developed countries that were against this realize the effect that it's having on small island nations like yours, that it will hopefully make them realize that the 50p on the iPhone isn't exactly going to be um economic disaster, and uh the benefits will be absolutely there for there for everybody to see, but in particular there for you to see and you to experience on these island nations where the sea has such an impact on your lives.
SPEAKER_00:Yes, it's it's literally our lifeline. And we already knew that the transition was going to be costly, but what we wanted to know is how could we mitigate the costs of that transition for our states? That was the main thing. And we wanted to make sure that we were part of you know getting those uh revenues for us to transition as well. No, because for sure the the developed countries can transition because they have the technologies, they have the capacities, but we need to make sure that our countries as well could transition along. That's why we say transition and not leaving anyone behind. And that was us, because we were gonna be left behind if we couldn't because we couldn't afford the transition. Yeah, you know, and I think you know, Barbara literally came and pulled me out of when we were discussing the fund, uh, the net zero fund discussions. But you know, one thing that I I love about moments like that is the story that we get to tell. Yeah, and I think that you know, getting the story, you know, from a Pacific perspective of what happened on Friday last week, but also to get that perspective of what we're continuing to do despite what happened to us. I think to get that story out there, and man, that's why when Barbara told me about the podcast, I said, man, in any way that we can get that story out there, we really need to get it out there, you know. The courage of our leaders, the resilience of our Pacific delegations, you know, of not giving up. I think that story needs to get out there. And I mean, more platforms like your podcast and other interviews that I've been part of are really, really key. So man, thank you so much. And I would do that, I would do that to make sure that our story gets out there.
SPEAKER_01:So the podcast, um, as I said to you, is it's in its infancy at the moment, but it does go to a lot of countries. And let's let's assume that there is somebody that's fairly key in one of these developed countries listening to this podcast. Yeah, what would you say to somebody in a developed country that was a bit skeptical about what was going on? What would you say to them if they were sat in front of you right now? Yeah, what would you say to them?
SPEAKER_00:I would look them in the eye and say, yeah, come and sit with me. And it depends on where we are too. I would invite that person wherever we are beside the water and just let them know. This is what this is this is what's happened, you know. Are are you going to find the courage to fight for your countries or fight for your communities in in moments where climate has been really, really impacting our countries? And I'll tell them, think with your heart. What does it mean, you know, to be in spaces like this, fighting for your communities? You know, we've come all the way from the Pacific. So I'll tell them, think with your heart, my friend. Think with your heart and think about your communities, you know, sea level rise. You know, communities are continuously being impacted, and this one year is again more impacts on our country. So that's the that's the thing I would say. Think and reflect with your heart.
SPEAKER_01:Think and reflect with your heart. Yeah, man. Okay. Listen, John, thank you very, very much for talking to me this afternoon. It's been a real pleasure talking to you. A real pleasure and an honour, really, to get insight direct from uh a committee uh that I teach people about. We talk about these MEPCs coming out, we talk about Marpole and what have you. So it's a real pleasure to speak to somebody that's been there at these meetings debating this. And I appreciate the time and space. I really appreciate you talking to me this afternoon. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. And you there listening? I can hear you.
SPEAKER_00:You know, you there, you there, you there. I can yeah. You, that's you. Yeah. Listen, think, and reflect with your heart. Cheers. Love all you guys, man. Thank you very much.