Ep 13 Saving the planet without the bullshit with Assaad Razzouk

SEAP 13

Intro:

Hi, welcome to Sustainable Energy Asia Podcast. I'm Yiou.

And I'm Ben.

Today we're receiving Assad Razzouk to talk about his new book, saving the planet without the bullshit. On his day job. Assad is developing renewable energy in Asia and also the host of the angry, clean energy guy. How was the interview? Ben?

It was great. Assad communicates very effectively on critical issues. Around climate change. He's. He's very vocal to call out bullshit. And he does just that in his book. He wrote this book to everyone that cares about this issue and want to get through this information and at an individual level. And he has one advice for us.

And what is that

to be less nice to our guests and call that bullshit.

I think this is something we can consider to take onboard.

As always, we would appreciate if you could take the time to rate and comment on the show. It helps listeners to find us.

Thanks. And on with the show.

Benjamin: Hi Assad. Welcome to the show.

Assad: Thank you. Very good to be.

Benjamin: You as the CEO. Of growing energy from the renew. Host of the angry clean guy and most importantly, author of saving the planet without the bullshits. I really enjoy your book. And I liked it was targeted towards the audience to have them understand critical issues around climate change and to have some actionable ways to do things at individual level. What was your motivation to write this book in the first place.

Assad: I have. a 26 year old son who's my eldest. And over years, I noticed that that entire generation actually really cares about doing the right thing from an environmental perspective. But I also know that we are drowning in noise and misinformation. About what that right thing might be. And so the book was written really for the most general audience possible.

There's no not much scientific lingo or, you know, dense content to help someone navigate their daily lives in terms of what they eat and what they drink and how they dress, and how they take holidays and how they travel, and how they. so my motivation was to really cut through the noise of what is incredibly often propaganda by the oil and gas industry that has been around and been building for 40 years to really confuse the public about what's impactful and what's not.

and it's almost like there's an enormous amount of information out there that is trying to make us do stuff make us feel like we are making a difference in terms of climate change, when in fact we are being distracted from doing the stuff that actually makes a. And that is probably the most important recurring theme in the book and the motivation for writing it. It's really your guidebook to climate action that matters

Benjamin: And could you talk about your career working in clean energy in Asia and what you learn on the way?

Assad: Well, interestingly I start the book in China and I end the book in China because one of the drivers for writing that book was the suffering that I saw. In the coal mining industry in China and the effect it had. on me and on raising my own awareness of environmental destruction all around us. And so while on the positive side, I am trying to help build Asia's renewable energy in infrastructure in my day job, so to speak on the negative side. Traveling around Asia gives you really a front row seat to the suffering that people are feeling from climate change. And that front row seat until very recently just was a concept. If you were sitting in Paris or London or New York or Boston. , right? It was all conceptual. Whereas here, you go to the Philippines and you see it with your own eyes. You go to Thailand, you see it in your own eyes. Vietnam, China, Pakistan, India, et cetera, right?

Benjamin: Yes. In one of your previous interview. You talk about how you're feeling. Pinole colleagues were impacted by climate change. So in today's. Interview, we are going to discuss about your book. We are going to first focus on the key. Messages of this book. Because I feel you are conveying them in a very compelling way.

And then we'll focus in the second part in some item, which I found interesting and surprising. If we know focus first on the main. Main messages of this book. You talk extensively about oil and gas company in your book. And does the fact that the main culprits of the looming climate crisis that you're facing now?

Now. Could you maybe start by talking about the ExxonMobil internal notes that they published in 1982 and explain what was the content of these reports and what's XML buyer then has done with finding in these reports.

Assad: Yeah, and it's not just Exxon, by the way. So in 2015 investigative journalists discovered internal company memos at Exxon indicating that it had known since the late 1970s that its fossil fuel products could lead to global warming with dramatic effects before 2050. if you read these internal reports, they just basically say that relatively clearly. And then more and more documents kept coming out showing that not just Exxon, but the US Oil and gas industry's largest trade association has likewise known the same thing since the 1950. The coal industry's known this since the 1960s, and power companies have also known this since the 1970s, including companies like Total, for example. Now, when scholars very recently analyzed these documents, this is post book publication because the news story and the paper in the journal science came out just a couple of days ago, what they found. is that the Exxon projections of exactly how much warming we're going to be at in 2023 were actually incredibly accurate.

So not only did they know the 1970s, by the way, is a long time ago, right? So not only did they know, but they actually have been misleading the public. At large since then that's, that's kind of the central point. So the vast majority of everything, Exxon and Total, and bp and Shell, and Chevron and others have been.

Publishing since then, so the majority of their public communications basically promoted doubt on the issue of climate change, therefore, diluting global action to mitigate it.

Benjamin: One of the main strategies that you say that these company applying is shifting the blame. So, there are 90 companies in the world which were present to serve the global green guys houses, emissions, and among them. A lot of oil and gas companies and those. Or then gets companies are spending a stunning number of 200 million USD per year into lobbying. Basically you explain that's they're spending that amount of money for the static that you call shifting the blame onto the rest of the society. Could you explain what is really destructive and wizards have been successful so far?

Assad: Well, I would say it's been hugely successful because emissions continue to increase, right? So we have not actually tackled the problem in a way that bends the emission curve. But I mean, , you know, this is all factual now. It's all facts and it's all in the public domain. The information maybe is not being socialized as much as it should be, so a lot of people still don't know.

And my book is a contribution not only to actually repeat the same information, which is in the public domain and in other books, but also kind of give. Guidance as to what is it that we should do about it, right? Because, we know what they've done. We know that they're still doing it.

But the question is, you know, what do we do about it? Right? Because we need to look forward and we need to bend that emission curve and we need to stop all new oil and gas, and we need to phase out the existing oil and gas.

Benjamin: You talk about how eight conveners in the eighties and nineties have been successful in making HIV drugs, widely available to patients. What are the lesson you're taking from them to apply to climate activism?

Assad:

Well, there's a chapter in the book that describes the action. That was taken against big pharma in the fight by AIDS activists to ensure that drugs were available at a very low price point to save lives and and to help the people that are suffering. There are extensive lessons that can be drawn from studying these social movements and that can then be applied to the climate movement and some of the central conclusions are that we need to be focused in what we're trying to do.

You know, you can't fight in industry that has been. Making billions of dollars of profits each year for 50 years or more, and has enormous financial muscle and political muscle as a result by fighting it in every place that its products show up. So you have to focus what we're trying to do, and then you have to use tools that are impactful.

And almost invariably this means a top down approach to the problem, not a bottom up one. And what I mean by that individual action, for example, often. Helps people feel better about themselves in terms of, for example, not using plastic bags just to take a simple action, but it doesn't actually make plastic bags go away, right?

They just pop up somewhere else and certainly plastic then pops up somewhere else as well. So what you have to do is you have to approach the problem more from a top down perspective, because effectively you need to eliminate plastic. And you're not gonna get there by me and you stopping to use plastic bags if they are ubiquitous and essentially free.

Benjamin: And in another important chapter of. Of your book. You talk about natural gas. The European investment bank was. Was in 2019. The first DFI to essentially end lending to fossil fuel projects, including gas projects. And that was widely discussed at the time. I was quite surprised by disrupter because in public's minds, natural gas, as it is branded is cleaner than coal and oil. And you explain. Why is this is incorrect. So could you explain why this is incorrect then? Share some numbers to happen and stands the climate impact. Fact of gas compared to. All cold.

Assad: Look in simple terms. Gas. You have to extract it, you have to compress it, you have to transport it, and you have to use it at the other end. Every single one of these steps actually leaks methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas. And if you do your math correctly, you see that actually gas is more polluting than coal, right?

So that's kind of in simple term. And I think that knowledge is actually now becoming more common. However, it's being fought incredibly wild by the oil and gas industry. Effectively marketing natural gas as a clean fossil fuel. And that marketing is really everywhere. I mean, I'm sure even on your LinkedIn page, shell and Total and others show up regularly, promoting natural gas.

But there's another aspect which is also interesting about it, which is what the Ukraine war has shown us. So not only is it incredibly polluting, but it also weakens national security if you have to import it. And so I very much hope that what the Ukraine War has done is accelerate a movement to clean sources of fuel.

So renewable energy, in other words. And, even though we see some increase in. For example, use and in gas use in Europe, that increase is temporary as renewable energy ramps up. So I do think that the knowledge of how bad it is compared with the national security implications, or on a maybe five to 10 year view, a very clear signal that gas will be phased out.

Benjamin: We'll need to phase out oil and gas, and transition toward renewables. And renewable energy especially solar is now the cheapest sources of energy. However many person argue that due to the intermittency nature of the renewable energy is actually a bit hard to achieve grid supply a hundred percent by renewables. So in your view what are the main challenge to achieve? Uh, agreed with a hundred percent renewable and what needs to happen to make it possible?

Assad: Look, I think we've moved beyond this conversation. Let people argue and let them say what they want. What's happening in the real world is that renewables deployment is accelerating and a hundred percent renewables is achievable. There is over, there are now over 500 scientific papers that. It's not me who says so. And so the, the fact, you know, once again, it, it's another one of these situations where, first you deny the climate change is a problem, then you accept that it's a problem, but then you sell some kind of a medical energy transition that's gonna take a hundred years, because of this type of reasoning. I e renewables can deliver grid stability or, we need peaking gas or we need fossil fuels to stabilize the grid and what have you, which are all actually demonstrably false. So I think let them talk in the real world. The renewables deployment is taking place and you know, everywhere from countries like China to India, to the United States, to the EU and elsewhere we will each year show. , how you can achieve a hundred percent renewables and get closer to that goal. And I think you'll get there in some parts of the world by 2030. In particular, for example, in Australia, perhaps not all of Australia, but certainly a state for example. And as I said elsewhere as well.

Benjamin: No, there was some chapter where I was. Quite surprised by the information you provided, so I'd like to talk about a couple of them. So first you advised to never buy a carbon of offset, and especially if it's purchased on the voluntary carbon markets. Could you explain why?

Assad: Look, I'm. You were surprised in multiple chapters, because I think that's the whole point of the book. Otherwise you'd be really bored, right? So carbon offsets are when you think about carbon offsets, you have to divide the world of carbon offsets into two. One is compliance markets, so where governments have cap and trade mechanisms, for example, and laws and enforcement mechanisms and penalties. And the other is the voluntary market where people do what they want because of voluntary reasons. So if you take a flight, for example, and you click the box that the airline is presenting to you to quote unquote offset your carbon footprint by buying carbon offset.

you're in the voluntary market. You don't have to do that. And the airline doesn't have to do that. And the, the fundamental problem as I say in the book, is that the voluntary carbon market was not supposed to be around anymore in 2020, already three years.

And the reason for that is it was always a transition tool in order for people to actually start decreasing emissions as opposed to bi carbon offsets. And the second reason. Which is as important, if not more important, is that the market is rife with abuse. So when you actually take that carbon offset that you purchased and you look through to see where is it coming from and exactly what methodology is being applied for it to be generated, And what happened to the promise underneath that methodology.

For example, I'm going to take some deforested land and I'm gonna plant a forest, and because of the carbon capture, I'm gonna issue some carbon offsets. And these are the carbon offsets that Singapore Airlines or S sas or Air France are selling to their passengers. You discover that very, very often that carbon offset is actually based on hot. The underlying asset is very, very dodgy. Why is it dodgy? There are no laws that are forcing compliance. There's no penalties to speak of, and people do what they want, and so it's rife with abuse. So my advice to consumers is never, ever buy a carbon offset for.

Benjamin: That, that's interesting. We, interviewed Jay, your former colleague from T Kato, on this subject. I think the discussion we had on the, on the quality of the KA was quite compelling. It's essentially quite a big issue. Second thing I wanted to discuss as well was, you talk broadly about the fashion industry and, and say that how the fashion industry operates today is a big issue for the climate. Could you explain why this is the case?

Assad: Well in simple terms, the fashion industry is a plastic industry. it's really marketing and oil and gas product. By and large, consumers buy fashion because of a feeling. They don't go around opening the labels, checking the material in great detail than Googling what some of that material might mean and where it comes.

And because plastic is a byproduct of oil and gas, which is literally dumped on people, almost free of charge, we created a fast fashion industry which has pushed cheap fashion towards consumers and. The quality of that cheap fashion is such that the consumer has to buy multiple products and then has to buy them again and again and again every six months or three months in some cases, or year.

And therefore, the amount of fashion or items that we collect has mushroomed beyond recognition really over the last two decades. And it's all powered by plastic. And most consumers, the overwhelming majority of consumers actually don't know that. And at the same time, fashion brands don't say that and aren't doing much about it and need to be exposed.

And so I have a chapter in the book detailing All.

Benjamin: and the last thing I found interesting was on green bonds. And you say that's essentially that green bonds do more harms than good. Can you expand on that?

Assad: Yeah, that, that's really a very simple factual argument. If we are in a climate emergency, which we are, if emissions are still rising, which they are. Why are we taking a trillion dollar bond market, ignoring 99% of it and focusing on a tiny sliver of less than 1%, and then calling that green? and celebrating the fact that we are issuing these green bonds. Therefore, again, diverting attention to the 1% and ignoring the 99% bonds that are not green.

So green bonds are a device for bankers and lawyers and issuers to feel good about themselves, when in fact they are contributing absolutely nothing to either. The fight against climate change or bending emissions, all they're doing really is because money's fungible, is giving issuers brownie points on sustainability, which actually should raise the point to any reasonable observer of the entire rest of the business of these issuers.

And while I'm at it, the banks. And the lawyers and the insurance companies that are participating in this charade.

Benjamin: And if once things could be done to save the climate, why do you think it would?

Assad: Well, to stay on the issue of green bonds, any securities issued in the capital markets needs to be green. Now, that would change the world. Because you would move the entire wall of money immediately away from activities that are harmful to the environment and destructive of our climates. People underestimate and maybe don't understand quite well the power of the capital markets.

The capital markets are a 250 trillion monster that is directing capital every second of every day the global economy, and we have to move the international capital markets to do the right thing by effectively increasing the cost of capital of any activity that's harmful to the. And so that would achieve that.

Benjamin: and going back to conclude on the purpose of your book was really. Individuals to help them navigate their daily life and what they can do to fight climate change what are the top three most effective things that someone can do today to fight climate change

Assad: well, number one, push back against the bullshit. Be aware of what matters and what doesn't, and push back against doing what doesn't matter. Number two, make a difference. With a small circle wherever you operate, if you work for a bank or for a law firm or for insurance company, start with your employer.

Even three people in a bank or in a law firm are a movement. They can make a huge difference in which clients, the banks and the lawyers work for. And starting with the cafeteria, for example, and cleaning that up number. Back in NGOs that have a massive impact through, for example, litigation and protest because we have to continue to protest since we need governments and politicians to listen and we need to ramp up lawsuits against environmental destruction everywhere around the.

Benjamin: In your book you talk about what happened in Germany. Could you explain a little bit about that? Because that's interest.

Assad: Germany had a net zero strategy, which was spectacularly unambitious young people. Gathered together and filed a lawsuit, which basically argued that the net-zero strategy of the country was pushing responsibility to fix the climate to future generations and letting existing generations really off the hook.

The courts agreed with them. Within a matter of weeks, Germany had to rework its net zero strategy and came out with a vastly more ambitious strategy, which only weeks before it had said that it could not deliver. That is the power of one single lawsuit. then more recently, Germany, about a year. Germany was shaken out of its topper by the Ukraine war and ramped up even more.

Its renewables deployment goals and its NetZero ambition. Again, doing stuff that it Germany had argued for a decade could not be done.

Benjamin: That was fantastic. Thank you so much for coming on the show.

Assad: My pleasure