Dispatches From the COP30 Climate Talks in Brazil

This is a series of annual special reports for CMD from guest contributor Alex Carlin about his observations at the United Nations climate conference. — CMD Editors

#6 Did the Amazonia COP Fall Short?

An indigenous woman mingling with the participants at COP30 in Brazil. / photo by Alex Carlin

To better reflect on the two weeks we spent here at COP30, I made a point of scheduling a conversation with Anthony Karefa Rogers-Wright just before we all headed home to various parts of the world over the weekend. He’s an international climate and racial justice advocate and active member of the US-based Black Alliance for Peace. His radio program “Full Spectrum with Anthony Rogers-Wright” airs on WPFW in Washington, DC every Tuesday evening at 6 p.m. EST.

Alex Carlin: What do you think about Trump and his administration being a no-show at COP30?

Anthony Rogers-Wright: The United States of America is the biggest culprit when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions per capita.

AC: Here’s how I see it. Most people in the climate movement assume that “emissions reduction” equals “climate solution.”  But suppose someone has overdosed on heroin and is wheeled into the emergency room. The doctors do nothing to address this patient’s current physical crisis, but rather they barricade the door to block any heroin dealers from entering to administer a second overdose. Shouldn’t people in the climate movement be working to remove today’s lethal dose of CO2 rather than only addressing future additional doses?

AR: Right. I was only referring to the fact that if you are the biggest cause of the problem and you’re not coming to a global conference that purports [to offer] solutions, that puts a gray cloud over the conference to begin with.

AC: I agree. It creates a cloud. But notice that many people here trumpet the logical fallacy that because coal, gas, and oil are the original causes of the climate problem, it follows that if you radically reduce future emissions of coal, gas, and oil that will somehow solve the problem. But this is absurd when you understand that the CO2 fossil fuels have already emitted into the atmosphere is lethal and will take centuries to go away by itself. Clearly, we need to focus on removing CO2 immediately, whether it’s yesterday’s, today’s, or tomorrow’s, and certainly not only tomorrow’s.

AR: Absolutely. This stuff is baked in. If you think of the atmosphere like a bathtub, you’ve got your faucet, which are the emissions. And then you’ve got your drain, which is soil and other carbon sinks. And we’re here in the Amazon, the Amazon rainforest, also known as the lungs of the earth.

AC:True, but there’s actually much more “lung power” under the ocean surface than on land. We get a lot more oxygen from plankton photosynthesis than from trees.

AR: Absolutely. And the waters are getting hotter. We just saw the most powerful storm of the year [hit the Caribbean, [impacting] Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Cuba. And that’s in large part due to the temperature of surface waters.

AC: High temperature surface water spikes the power of those hurricanes, but plankton cools that surface every day by churning up cold water from the ocean depths.

AR: Absolutely. And it was eerie how Hurricane Melissa seemed to be leaving land and going back to the water to get recharged.

So, the US not being here is disappointing. Trump refers to climate science as a “hoax.” So maybe it was a blessing in disguise that he didn’t send his goons and acolytes here to further taint things.

AC: To deliver the poison pills. What is your opinion of the Paris Agreement?

AR: I’m going to defer to someone who holds the sobriquet of being the father of climate consciousness, James Hansen, the NASA scientist who, back in the ’90s, began testifying to the US Congress about the impacts of the climate crisis. Hansen is done with these COP [gatherings]. He has referred to the Paris Agreement as “BS” primarily because it’s not a legally binding measure to actually keep global temperatures below the two-degree Celsius threshold.

AC: What did Hansen want to see?

AR:  Hansen really wanted to see legally binding commitments to NDCs, or nationally determined contributions.

AC: But how would that be enforced?

AR: Earlier this year, the International Court of Justice released an advisory opinion saying that nation states do have a legal obligation pursuant to international human rights law to reduce their emissions and to address this climate crisis. But it is difficult to take these courts seriously when they can’t even stop a genocide in Palestine or Sudan, right?

AC: They put out a warrant for Netanyahu’s arrest.

AR: But still no arrest. So we have a long way to go for international law and enforcement to be effective.

AC: Soon it will be too hot to work outside, too hot for farms to properly produce food, and there will be too much acid in the oceans for fish to survive. What progress do you think COP30 made towards solving that terrifying tripartite scenario?

AR: It is instructive here to remember the Cuban revolution. That is the mentality that has to be applied to the climate crisis. We saw an inkling of that on the very first day of the COP when our indigenous comrades basically did a jailbreak, and stormed the castle. It was an incredible and salient intervention saying, no, we’re breaking through here. We don’t recognize your fake colonial borders, and we’re not going to recognize this fake sort of checkpoint that says some people can get into the Blue Zone [an official badge is required for entry to this main section at COP30, where the negotiations take place] and others can’t.

AC: What was their primary demand?

AR: First and foremost, it was a message to Lula, the current president of Brazil, to get his attention, to say to him: stop approving oil and gas development in our home base. Secondly, [they were sending] a larger message to the nation states that were in attendance here in Belém to let the people who are most impacted lead in these discussions, instead of these bureaucrats. They demanded the inclusion of more indigenous voices and Afro-descendants in these negotiations.

AC: When they appeal to Lula about the oil and gas agreements, are they against them because it would make the planet hotter? Or because it’s going to destroy the Amazon? Or both?

AR: I would say both.

AC: Plus, extracting fossil fuels destroys their homes, their land, their water, and many other life forms.

AR: Yes, and in addition, these indigenous people see themselves as the water, they see themselves as the trees and the land and the air. They don’t see themselves as separate from that. They see themselves as part of that larger orchestra of ecosystems.

AC: They could also see themselves as plankton, since plankton protect the planet so well and in so many ways. I’m hoping that the next time they storm a COP gathering that they have “plankton restoration” as one of their demands.

AR: The Earth in its natural state is a very robust system. Indigenous people understand that ecosystems, including our oceans and organisms in the oceans, need to be able to operate to balance out emissions. We should leave those ecosystems alone and let them do their work.

AC: There is an emerging plan called “100 Villages” where people in fishing villages around the world tend their ocean pastures by putting back missing nutritional dust in the eddies of plankton ecosystems. It’s a way for them to be proper stewards of the ocean.

AR: Absolutely. And some would refer to that as geoengineering. I would not, because that is not doing anything that is unnatural.This is simply replenishing. I think that’s a better way of putting it because it’s no different than what we do when we take vitamins [to avoid or treat] an ailment. If you have an iron deficiency, you take some iron. Plankton are ailing from a lack of nutrition, and what you are saying is simply replenishing.

Anthony Karefa Rogers-Wright in conversation with Alex Carlin in Belém, Brazil. /

photo by Alex Carlin

AC: So what’s your overall take on the two weeks of COP30?

AR: There were a lot of agendas here. I don’t know how many of them had much to do with addressing the climate crisis. I don’t think that there was really a serious effort. I think the best way to describe the agreement that came out would be to refer to it as milquetoast.

AC: The three main issues that COP30 set out to negotiate on were getting rid of cars and oil companies (emissions reduction), protecting the world’s forests, and getting money to pay for reparations and adaptation, meaning funds from the rich countries responsible for the climate crisis to be paid to the poor countries suffering the worst consequences of it. All of that was milquetoast?

AR: For the money issues, we can’t even get an immediate commitment of $120 billion per year. Let’s put that into perspective. The United States of America just gave a third of that [amount] to Argentina, and another third to Israel, and then [there’s the roughly $175 billion given] to Ukraine. So we’re funding authoritarianism, fascism, and war. In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the royal family there spends that kind of money in a month.

So why can’t these 30 years of COPS at least deliver some significant amount of money to pay for the damages? Because [the rich countries] don’t want to. They’re just saying no. They don’t want to stop the status quo. They prioritize profits and GDP over people and the planet. And the $120 billion is a perfunctory number anyway since Hansen has estimated — along with other scientists and environmental economists — that what we really need [in order to make a meaningful impact] is upwards of $3 trillion per year.

AC: The second main goal of this COP was protecting the forests. And this was the forest COP, the Amazon COP! Did they really fall flat on their faces on this as well?

AR: They fell flat. The language was not strong enough. It was mentioned. Similarly, the Afro-descendant population was mentioned, but not given any real agency. They failed to build off of what is going on right now in Ecuador and Bolivia where they literally have the rights of nature enshrined in their constitutions.

AC: As does Colombia.

AR: Right. Why wouldn’t you just build off of that? You don’t even have to start from scratch. But they didn’t want to do that.

And for emissions reduction, [that amounted to] nothing. Go look. It’s not there. When COP28 was held in Dubai in 2023, there was some language [suggesting] a phase-out of fossil fuels. But that [goal] was not included in the final language here at COP30. So, [the final call to action is] even weaker than in Dubai. We’re supposed to be going forward, building off of the 2015 Paris Climate Accords. But we’re actually going backwards. We’re regressing. The UN’s approach to climate action is like the Benjamin Button approach. You know, that movie about a guy who, instead of aging, starts getting younger.

AC: What do you want to see next year for this COP process?

AR: Rather than focusing on an inert, ineffective, inefficacious Paris Climate Accord, focus more on the declaration that came out of the People’s Summit, the “alternative COP” held in the southern tip of Belém. The People’s Summit declaration is beautiful. It includes the issue of militarist ecocide vis-à-vis what’s happening in Palestine and Sudan, and it named capitalism. It [identified] who really needs to be leading on these issues: not nation states, bureaucrats, and corporations, but everyday people — indigenous, poor, and working class people. Next year these people should have a seat at the table, increased agency, the ability to veto anything that is not adequate, and a lot more influence on the agreement that comes out. They should be inside.

The drama between the fossil fuel interests and the folks opposed to them captures the attention of the world media here at COP30, and there is no doubt that we should oppose the fossil fuel industry because it degrades and destroys our most cherished earthly treasures. But if that industry ceased to exist tomorrow morning we would still have essentially the same CO2-related problems to solve.

In that context, I find great value in these COPs because many of us are meeting, networking, and forging lifelong bonds with ultra-talented people from the grassroots such as Anthony. They come from every corner of the globe, year after year. Because of this, I believe that effective solutions will eventually take center stage and become the focus of climate policy at future COPs.

But this COP was special because of the thousands of indigenous people permeating the proceedings who infused us all with their wisdom and power. I felt their presence viscerally. It was gorgeous and dominating, with a hugely beneficial push of moral gravitas that was constantly sweeping away the decadent neocolonial tenets of neoliberalism and replacing it with, well, COSMOVISON [see dispatch #5 for a full explanation of what that is].

#5 Occupy Amazonia

Jorge Gonzalez, Colombia’s national secretary for the coordination of indigenous peoples, speaking last week at COP30 in Brazil. / photo by Achiote Comunicaciones

Here at the COP30 UN Climate Conference in the Amazon region, I am learning an incredible amount of history and material about the indigenous people of this land, which is indispensable to understanding their role in managing the climate crisis.

A few days ago I met a really interesting Colombian activist, Jorge Andres Forero Gonzales, who handed me a fascinating 24-page pamphlet explaining how a vibrant, radical, indigenous movement is dealing with climate change. This compelled me to connect with him for an interview, so we dove in after his event, which featured several speakers discussing various legal issues. Jorge explains how indigenous principles are central to solving global climate issues and to creating a thriving alternative to capitalism.

Alex Carlin: The focus of your event today seemed to be about laws and legal issues. Is that part of your passion, part of your agenda?

Jorge Gonzales: Yes, and that’s a really important question, because for Colombia’s indigenous peoples, law really means the “Law of Origin.”

[This refers to the internal, traditional legal systems of indigenous peoples based on principles and processes that have guided their self-governance for centuries. It provides a framework for maintaining harmony and balance between humans, nature, and the universe. In Colombia, these indigenous legal systems are recognized in tandem with state law.]

AC: The Law of Origin. It sounds so primordial. Please explain.

JG: The Law of Origin is a law of cosmovision, part of the law of nature.

AC: I love that word, cosmovision. But it also needs some explanation.

JG: I come from Colombia’s indigenous Muisca Nation. Cosmovision is our vision of humans as coming from all creation, [as being part of something universal]. In contrast, the Europeans — especially starting with Kant — believe that humans are the center of everything.

AC: Ah, yes. Immanuel Kant, the18th-century German philosopher who ushered in the Enlightenment.

JG: Yes, most Europeans say that all life needs to be centered around human beings. But in our cosmovision, we [are here on Earth] to protect all cosmic creation… what people call “the universe.” But the main point here is that in Colombia we understand that all nature on this planet originally came with a Law of Origin at the beginning of time, the beginning of everything. Think about a jaguar, a really important animal (in our language we say “nimmy”). The nimmy understands everything about life — what he needs to eat, at what time to sleep, [when] to do everything. And it’s the same with the trees. They know.

AC: They have consciousness.

JG: Consciousness, yes. As indigenous people, we understand that we come from that law.

AC: The Big Bang Theory says the universe started from a single point and then it exploded into expanding matter, and then humans came and animals came. Do you agree with that, or do you have a different origin story?

JG: That’s just one point of view. In the United States you have 500 different points of view for the 500 different indigenous peoples that are native there. In Colombia we have 150 different points of view about that. So you need to ask everyone. Human beings want to ask about their own origins, and the science origin is just one. But the science origin supports the idea that human beings are the center of everything. It doesn’t have to, but in the end, it does that.

AC: True. It certainly dominates many cultures.

JG: But with the theory of evolution, who is more evolved? According to “science,” it’s humans. Well, I can definitely say “no” [to that]. There are other beings more evolutionarily evolved than humans. And I’m not talking about aliens. But in terms of humans, who is more evolved right now? A European? An American? Or a guy living in the Amazon supporting and protecting life?

AC: So how is the Law of Origin connected to solutions to the CO2 problems we’re facing now? For instance, soon, it will be too hot to work outdoors and too hot for farms to properly produce crops. Soon, there will be too much acid in the oceans for fish to survive. So how does the Law of Origin connect to solving these very real and imminent problems?

JG: First, we understand that we are the protectors of nature — of the big creation. We are ultimately on Earth to protect it. That means to protect rivers, to protect forests. [It’s our] tradition. We as humans decide that every action we take is to protect life, [which requires us to reject] the capitalist economic system.

AC: You’re opposing the capitalist system because it’s doing the opposite of protecting?

JG: It’s destroying things to make profit.

AC: And you’re doing the opposite? Your motivation is to protect the same things that capitalism is destroying?

JG: Exactly.

AC: Okay, so what are some other ways the Law of Origin helps tackle our climate problems?

Jorge Gonzalez bringing up inconvenient truths at the pre-COP Climate Summit plenary session on November 7, 2025 / photo by Achiote Comunicaciones

JG: Through the land. We need land reform, land for everyone who wants to work. We need more land in the hands of indigenous communities who will protect more of the country.

AC: How do you do that? How do indigenous peoples get more land?

JG: In Colombia, our indigenous communities are just taking the land by occupying it — through nonviolent occupations.

AC: Occupy Amazonia. Brilliant. For example?

JG: One of our nations, the Nasa nation, has a rallying cry, Recuperar la madre tierra para recuperarlo todo. Reclaim Mother Earth to reclaim everything. Reclaim our rights to the land to recover everything.

AC: By occupying it?

JG: Occupying, taking. And they have an indigenous “guard,” a nonviolent one. [So you do it] with guards and the courts.

AC: Guards, acting like the police?

JG: Yes, guards defending the land with traditional knowledge, and even with medicines.

AC: Have any indigenous groups needed to resort to violence in self-defense?

JG: Yes, it has occurred, but not recently. There have been guerrilla groups in Colombia that used guns to protect their rights.

Another example of how the Law of Origin [impacts our climate fight] is the decolonization of minds.

AC: That’s very important.

JG: Yes, it is, because the idea of white domination exists in many minds, even in indigenous minds. So part of our work as a national coalition of indigenous people is to talk to the sectors of our own society and other parts of the world about how we need to decolonize our minds.

AC: I understand that includes not calling the hemisphere the Americas, but instead calling it a pre-Columbian name like Abya Yala, which translates to “noble land that welcomes all.” Part of breaking away from the colonization of the mind is to reconsider what you call your land, right?

JG: Yes. Think about this. What is the capital of Colombia? Bogotá. Okay, that is the word we learned in school. But that word comes from Bacata. Bacata and Mikita were the original names. Well, when the Spanish came, somebody asked, “What is this place?” And when the people said “Mikita-Bacata,” the Spaniards heard “Bogotá.” But, decolonization means not only changing the name, it’s about changing the [social] structure — fighting against racism.

AC: Racism.

JG: Our point is to recover indigenous words as a way of recovering the indigenous way of thinking. Because, if you think as an indigenous [person], you will come to find the right solutions.

AC: Right, the instinctual mission to protect. And that resonates strongly with what I have found to be the best solution to CO2 problems and the greatest overall protector on this planet: ocean plankton. The Law of Origin leads directly to plankton, because their photosynthesis removes enough CO2 for a good climate outcome. Plankton create a powerful protection against lethal temperature rise because their blooms generate enough white clouds to reflect a very significant amount of sunlight/heat back out into space. And plankton also significantly protect the fish from ocean acidification. Compare that to the 30 COP meetings around the world, which have failed to protect much of anything.

JG: Well, you know what is really important? We need to be radical.

AC: The word “radical” means go to the root.

JG: It means the root, yes. Radical means we need to understand that capitalism has been here for only 200 years. It’s destroying so much, but it has only existed for 200 years. So, human beings know how to live without capitalism. We know. Even in Europe, in the United States, [people] know.

AC: What do you see as the alternative?  What would day-to-day life be like without capitalism? You wake up in the morning and — what’s the difference?

JG: [We would greatly limit] energy consumption. Turn off that air conditioner. We don’t need it. But the first and most revolutionary [move] we need to make in order to crack capitalism is to [rethink] the city as an idea of everyday life. The concept of “city” needs to change.

AC: Very interesting.

JG: Why? The only way to get out of this system is to [remove] the city as a [source] of [happiness]. Think about it. This relates to land reform, which I talked about earlier. My family lives in a rural area and they don’t destroy [as much of the planet as] one guy in New York does. They don’t destroy anywhere near as much nature as the urban person.

AC: So for anyone reading this who wants to do the most revolutionary, positive, good thing for the environment they possibly can, but they live in a big city, what should they do to make this revolutionary change?

JG: The first thing is support. If they can’t fight directly, support the fights of the global south because we’re making a difference. And even in your own country, countries like the US have a global south inside. Support rural land and land reform for the indigenous nations there in the United States because you have more than 500 different nations without land. They cannot access the national parks. Go and fight for [their right] to restore their historical lands.

AC: That’s a great point.

JG: Think about making a revolution there. Support the indigenous organizations in your own country. And at the same time, begin to take the idea of happiness out of the city and instead [show people that they will also find it] in the countryside. Start leaving urban areas. You can support indigenous rural areas, and even if you’re not indigenous, you can start living there.

AC: This urban exodus happened in the US in the 1960s.

JG: I know. It was a big movement.

AC: When I was a kid in California, people moved to communes out in the rural hills and it was a very positive thing.

JG: Yes.

AC: So back to ocean plankton as a great protector of Abya Yala. Your tribes have a coast on the Pacific Ocean, so, what do you think the chances are that they would be interested in going out on boats to restore the plankton?

JG: Well, I need to know more about it, but… it sounds great. Those are the kinds of things that make a difference.

AC: And finally, Jorge, in terms of global politics, how does an all-out climate denier like Trump being in power now in the US and his administration being a no-show at COP30 impact your agenda?

JG: The big responsibility for US citizens concerned with humanity, with nature, and with freedom and dignity is to take the impact of Trump’s national and international policies very seriously. You need to [expand and strengthen] your social movements to create conditions to reduce the power of the ultra-conservative movement that Trump represents. You need to [make] a public [commitment] to preserve the planet, and create a social agenda to generate “Ie Cho Buen Vivir” — the Good Life for everyone on the planet. And finally, something that we cannot lose sight of is our political agenda: We [need to] create alternative systems.

The pamphlet that Jorge originally gave me is called Climate Justice: ABYA YALA, with subtext that reads: “Amid Faces of Dispossession. Experiences and Alternatives from the Peoples Against Capitalism.” The articles represent a living agenda for the western hemisphere to finally overcome the ecological destruction that 500 years of Eurocolonial domination has wrought.

Jorge believes that solutions to the problems laid out here at COP30 should be based on the very Law of Origin that propels the indigenous peoples in Colombia to protect the planet. In my opinion, that overriding mission to protect will inevitably lead to Colombia’s indigenous peoples choosing the most effective climate solutions available, such as plankton restoration. And I believe they will succeed where the rest of humanity is failing. After all, that is the reason their origin stories say they “came to the planet” in the first place.

#4: A COP a Day Keeps Climate Ruin Away

Johann Hoschtialek, CEO and founder of the new global initiative 195 in 365, with his daughter Jovana (Grenada’s Youth Representative at COP27) in his home country of Grenada.

Photo by Arthur Daniel 

Virtually everybody here at COP30 would agree that we face climate ruin if we do not implement real solutions very fast. Despite that, the “solutions” on the table here are moving at a snail’s pace.

If you think about it, who could believe that only one global meeting per year would be enough to get things moving fast enough? On the other hand, what if there were 195 mini-COPs every year — one in each of the countries in the world, engaging the entire planet? And beyond that, what if these mini-COPs were driven by the energy of those with the most to lose — those under 35 years old?

This is not only a brilliant idea, it is actually happening, and I had the honor of interviewing both the founder and one prominent partner in this new project.

Johann Hoschtialek, a longtime environmental activist from Grenada, is the founder and CEO of a new initiative called 195 in 365, which has the added tagline “Be the Change.” One of his partners isNawaz Haq, a Scotland-based activist who serves as director of Global Strategy and Engagement for the new group, which is on a mission to send 195 young climate campaigners from nearly every country on Earth on a year-long journey to fast-track environmental solutions around the world.

Alex Carlin: So tell me more about what you plan to do through 195 in 365.

Johann Hoschtialek: [We intend] to bring young representatives from every country in the world to go to [the] 195 countries in the world within one year [to raise] awareness, educate, and mobilize youth around the planet for climate change, addressing sustainable development goals, biodiversity loss, [and so forth]. We will hold mini COPS in every country we go to, bringing young people out along with NGOs and the multilateral organizations to show and empower youth everywhere to say, “We have to save the planet now. These are the tools and let’s get the job done!” 

Alex Carlin: It sounds like a great concept. Nawaz, what do you hope this new initiative will accomplish?

Nawaz Haq: What the world is lacking at the moment is consistent visibility and unity [among young people]. At the moment, there are, of course, many youth organizations and NGOs around the world doing wonderful work. However, they’re all essentially working in silos. And so, what we bring to the table is we’re unifying them. As we take our movement across the world, we can’t be ignored. It’s something policymakers cannot ignore.  

AC: I think it’s a terrific idea because it’s photogenic, telegenic, and mediagenic. Buses and boats bringing young activists to a COP in every country.

JH: So they can tell the stories — roughly 200 young people together with our team of about 100. We will be traversing the land with buses and trucks, plus [going to] 33 [places] by plane, and [traveling around] the Caribbean [using] a flotilla of yachts.. There will be 300 people going around the world the whole time getting people involved, saying, “Let’s do this.”

AC: That certainly will excite the imagination of the general public. But, I want to know about your process for coming up with the solutions that you will focus on at each of these 195 COPs. Say you arrive in Chad. Time is limited, so it’s very important that your discussions focus on the most effective solutions. For example, how will you decide whether to focus on emissions reduction or removing CO2 from the atmosphere instead?

NH: Well, we won’t do it in a silo. We’ve spent years liaising and building, speaking to thousands of NGOs around the world. [We’ve been in the] process of preparing, and are still preparing now. 

AC: OK, but who makes that final decision about which solutions will be prioritized?  

JH: Our board, and members of our team. 

AC: Who is on your board and what’s their role?

JH: We have many people, like Nawaz here. We have Dessima Williams, a Grenadian diplomat and former ambassador to the United Nations, we have a movie producer, and we have a citizen scientist. We have people from many different fields.

AC: Have you been meeting to decide what to prioritize?

JH: We’ve been having meetings, discussing this constantly.

AC: Mini-COPs in every country. 

JH: Yes, and in each bus, we’ll have representatives of different regions of the world. For example, in one bus there will be two people from Africa, one from Asia, one from Latin America, one from the Caribbean. 

The buses can sleep 12 people. We have 24 buses (the big rock star-style buses with some luxury). But youth participants will have to spend two weeks sleeping in refugee-type tents with porta-potties because they need to understand what life is like for refugees.

When we go into a country, the buses will go off in different directions. One will see the bleaching reefs, another one deforestation, another one will meet with indigenous tribes, et cetera. And these buses [then] join the main convoy in the afternoon when we set up to do our events. So, they’re getting a big view of what’s happening in a country. And they’re also [connecting] with NGOs on the ground to make decisions about where to go and to understand what they’re seeing. 

AC: So during these long drives, they get to discuss things and develop their ideas. That’s a positive thing. What is your target date to begin this? 

JH: The second quarter of 2026, about six months from now. 

AC: Are you still in a fundraising mode? 

JH: We have been negotiating with possible sponsors for this trip. [Green visibility in] every country of the world is a corporation’s self-promo [fantasy]. Our mobile stage will be pulled by an electric truck, from either Mercedes, Volvo, or Tesla. Plus, we’re making it into a reality series for streaming and are in talks with some of the different streaming networks now. It’s big. 

AC: The Poster Child of Youth Action, of course, is Greta Thunberg. Is she involved in this? 

JH: No, Greta’s not involved in this. But we’re allowing young people from all around the world to apply. 

AC: OK, so how are you letting them know about it? 

JH: Our outreach is really good. We’re offering free food, flights, accommodations, and a per diem to the young people chosen to go around the world. We’re looking for the best of the best — not necessarily [people who are already active] in climate [issues], but…who can sell the message and empower youth around the world to make change.

AC: So will you find appropriate websites or social media platforms in each country for your outreach? 

JH: Well, all applicants have to make a two-minute video explaining who they are, where they’re from, what they’ve done for their country, an environmental initiative they’re advocating, and how they want to change the world. Then, they have to put that video on their social media with our tag. (laughs) And that [amplifies our initiative, with our name]. It sends it around the world. 

AC: That’s an effective approach.

NH: Regarding solutions, yes, there could be more innovations, but we certainly have enough. And we know that the stumbling block to this whole process is geopolitics.

AC: That’s your premise — the need to break through the barrier of geopolitics?

NH: Exactly. And through this initiative, what we’re really doing is unlocking the power of around five billion people around the world under 35 years old. 

AC: You consider 35-year-olds “youth”? 

NH: Yes. Using UN definitions, “youth” [refers to any age] up to 35. 

AC: That’s a pretty generous, liberal definition. 

NH: There are two and a half billion people in the world between the ages of 18 and 35. Two and a half billion voters!

AC: Good point. 

NH: If they are united, that’s a huge voting block that politicians and decision-makers cannot ignore.

We also want to bring fun campaigns to young people through music. For example, we have a song that we’ve put together. And we have a football [soccer] campaign that’s being planned at the moment similar to the Ice Bucket Challenge where someone would take the challenge and pass it on to another person. What we’ll be doing here is have someone say, for example, “I’m Nawaz Haq. I’m from the UK, and I’m here to kick off with the One Nine Five and Three Six Five challenge to help change the world — Be the Change,” our slogan, and they would kick the ball. And once they kick the ball, they’re going to tag their friends.  

AC: So, it’s a video where the individual videos get edited together, and it becomes this continuing online event. 

NH: Exactly. We are using influential footballers and football teams and associations to kickstart it. 

AC: Soccer players under 35? 

NH: Influencers can be any age, but by and large, yes, they are under 35. And they themselves will be the champions of this initiative. So, we’re coming at this from various angles to get the ball rolling with global youth. 

AC: Regarding your focus on youth, when I do climate solution journalism, I use this frame: Imagine you are talking to a 10-year-old person and you consider what his or her life is going to be like 20 years from now. Is the solution under discussion actually going to produce an outcome where someone’s life 20 years from now will be decent instead of a nightmare? That’s the frame. That’s the litmus test. 

For example, most climate solutions at COP30 are framed by the goal of CO2 emissions reduction. However, if you eliminate all the cars and oil companies tomorrow morning, we will still have the exact same lethal amount of CO2 in the air since it won’t disappear for centuries. Therefore, most climate solutions do not pass my litmus test. 

JH: Right. Let me show you how we not only pass the litmus test, but how this is the future benchmark for litmus tests. I often tell people climate change is a symptom but not the cause [of our problems]. Humanity has lost its way. We’ve forgotten what it’s like to be neighbors, keepers, and the custodians of the planet. 

We need to look at this thing holistically to [figure out] what we need to do to change the planet. We look to the sustainable development goals of the United Nations, the SDGs — everything from dealing with poverty, gender inequality, water, life in the sea, the whole works. This is why we’re [talking about these issues] at events. We’re also encouraging multilateral organizations and philanthropists to get directly involved with the people who are making change. So, it’s not just “Yeehaw, we’re jumping around, going around the world!” We are actively promoting ways for companies to help those who are making a difference.

AC: What would make a corporation do something like that? Fear of getting boycotted?

NH: That’s part of it, but the other part is government involvement. If we want the world to change, we need five key stakeholders on board: NGOs, academia, governments, multilateral organizations, and the businesses and corporations. But things only change when you create a movement, when you get young people together to unite as one voice to persuade governments to make proper policy decisions, and then when you hold [the stakeholders] accountable.

AC: That’s all good, but if it only perpetuates the failing groupthink about “solutions” that’s dominating COP30 now, it’s not going to help these kids. 

NH: We’re going to create that critical mass to straighten the path so they can find real solutions. Now, take for example, the oceans. They need attention… and investment. We say, “There are solutions to start fixing the oceans, our biggest carbon sink, our biggest life provider, our biggest source of oxygen.” What are currently seen as side solutions that are underinvested or not taken seriously, we’re taking the opportunity here to bring them [to the attention of young people] to prioritize these solutions. We will challenge the group thinking, because it is not [the right way to go].  

Now, going back to what Johann was saying. When we visit each country, every country has its own solutions, of course. Different dynamics. But the one thing that will be more or less communal in all of those countries’ mini-COPs is nature-based ocean restoration, because that is indeed a very common issue. 

Now, when we go to Chile, where a lot of fast-fashion goes to die, of course we will tell that story. But when we go to another country where that issue isn’t so prevalent, we’ll tell that country’s own story. But the commonality of water, clean water, and the impact on the oceans will always be there.

AC: If you want to talk about clean water, that’s beautiful, but it’s not directly related to the problems that COP30 is presumably about. So, how do you distinguish between all those manifold SDGs versus the specific CO2-related problems? 

JH: Well, [we believe in the idea of implementing] “everything that matters in the right proportion.” We want to demonstrate that 200 young people from different walks of life, different cultures, different religions can go around the world in peace, using fewer resources than we normally like to use, and showcase really good solutions out there that are working and can be replicated in other parts of the world. 

For example, in the Atacama Desert in Chile they use simple nets up in the air that cause droplets to form when cool air passes through them, [which generates] tons of water… to help families, to plant their trees. It’s simple, cheap, and can be replicated everywhere. In India, they make sanitary napkins from banana tree trunks. There are a gazillion examples of innovative solutions like that around the world.

AC: Right, but can you give any urgently needed examples that relate directly to solving our CO2 problem? 

NH: We need to basically accelerate and amplify the work of all carbon sinks. So, for the oceans, we need to put nutrients into the sea to restore the plankton. There’s talk of iron, there’s talk of calcium. But we are there really to highlight the fact that regeneration is necessary. We have to get rid of the killers, the insults, and we have to then provide the needed nutrition. 

AC: Will this be an annual event? How often will you do it? Is this building on the “Greta phenomenon” – her youth theme which caught the imagination of the planet?

JH: The second trip will start about three months after the end of the first trip. Besides the reality series, we will make a feature film documenting the trip. Our executive producer said they would have it ready by the start of the second trip.

On the first trip, we will identify problems and solutions. The second trip is about pushing corporations to address their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) framework, along with their commitments to corporate social responsibility (CSR). We want to push them on their commitment to integrate environmental sustainability into their business models to address climate change. We really intend to push corporations to be held accountable. Corporations simply have to contribute more through their commitments to ESG and CSR. 

AC: So you plan to go to their corporate headquarters and demonstrate? 

JH: No, we don’t need to do that. It’s more about showing [them options for] doing the right thing.

AC: Support the good corporations that commit to sustainability and climate action?

JH: Exactly.

AC: And boycott the bad ones? 

JH: Well, I’m not saying boycott. I’m just saying support the good corporations that are making a [positive impact] on the planet. We are encouraging corporations around the world by saying, “Do the right thing. These are the benefits. People will support you.” 

That’s in terms of our trip around the world. But the bigger aspect here is: What’s coming out around all this? For example, before we’ve even launched, there is this new Youth for Waterplus organization with half a million members in India. They invited us to India for their conference. They like what we’re doing so much that they’re actually now replicating in India what we’re doing, planning to go to all the states in India to raise awareness.

We’ve had many youth organizations that have told us they’re saving money already to rent buses so they can join us for a few countries. And countries have indicated they would love to replicate the India model of doing this sort of awareness-raising within the country, getting young people involved before we even get there. 

AC: So about Grenada, is it your base? 

JH: Yes, I’m from the island of Grenada, the world’s 11th smallest country (about the size of Greater Atlanta). But… our government has supported us in many ways, including the prime minister telling me that Grenada will introduce a UN resolution that will endorse our initiative, as it addresses so many of the things that the UN would like to see. Plus, this UN resolution will greatly facilitate getting all those visas we will need.

AC: Are you going to start the voyage from Grenada? Where will it begin? 

JH: It will officially start at the UN in New York and go all the way down to Argentina. Then we put the vehicles on a boat to Africa while we travel in the Caribbean. We will fly across to Grenada, and from there travel to the Caribbean with a flotilla of yachts up to the Bahamas. Then we’ll go to Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Northern Europe, North Africa, and we’ll end the trip in Austria, at the UN headquarters there. We will visit every country in the world. 

When we get to Grenada we are going to do a “model UN General Assembly meeting” — underwater. All the participants who are certified divers will be meeting underwater. 

AC: Similar to the 2009 Maldives underwater cabinet meeting?

The 2009 underwater cabinet meeting in the Maldives drew attention to the sea level rise that threatens the island nation in the Indian Ocean.

Photo by Alamy 

JH: Yes, the Maldives did it back in 2009. That’s where we got the idea. They will be going underwater to vote on four key issues, plus an app will be available that people aged 18 to 35 around the world will be able to use to also vote on these issues. The young people underwater will be caucusing with them and with NGOs and academics in their various countries. So, for example, if you’re going to Oxford University and that university collaborates with us, the Oxford students will have an app that they will be able to use to vote on these four issues: the plastics treaty, the high seas treaty (which is about protecting 30% of our oceans by 2030), the banning of deep-sea mining, and the banning of bottom trawlers. 

All of this will be broadcast live across the world. And if enough young people in these various countries vote, then the prime minister or other officials will have the opportunity to say that civil society is telling their governments that we need to take action now. That’s a huge opportunity for youth around the world to have their voices heard. 

AC: Will you please explain how climate activism by young people differs from that of the over-35 crowd?

JH: For a 60-year-old — or a 53-year-old, which I am — our time is coming to an end. But young people have to deal with this crap that we’ve left behind for them. Unfortunately, the onus is on them to understand what’s at stake for them. 

AC: OK, but is there any difference in the message?

JH: No, it’s not about a different solution or a different [approach]. It’s about motivation due to your age, due to what’s coming in the future when older people won’t be alive anymore. You and I may live for many more years, but the youth, my kids, I know that if we don’t [make radical changes], they’re screwed. The stakes are higher for them than for us. And our campaign is about bringing that consciousness to everybody. 

We’re going everywhere and seeing everything. For people who like to say that climate change is a hoax, they will see it firsthand. You get to see the melting of the glaciers in Greenland, the rising of sea levels in Fiji. Then [it becomes impossible to deny] reality. 

AC: You’re learning from your voyage.

JH: Exactly. What are the problems? Where are the solutions? Who’s finding solutions? And most importantly, how do we upscale them? 

195 COPs, each one in a different unique location. We’re going to learn things from each of those locations that we would not learn otherwise. That’s the point. We’re like a roaming, traveling circus going from country to country, bringing the coolness, the challenges, all of it, so people can see and experience it firsthand. A big part of what we’re losing in this world is storytelling.

NH: So we’ll have 200 young people with 200 stories from all over the world, bringing that out through social media.

JH: Everybody wants to come to the annual COP, you know? And they are frustrated because it’s either too expensive or you just can’t get the passes to go. This is why we’re bringing COP to all these people. They’ll get the vibe, get the feeling of, look, there are like-minded people who want to change the planet, and together, we are going to change the planet. 

NH: And this is for everybody, young and old. We know the youth are the ones who have the most vested interest in it, but we are reaching out to everybody. We want everybody to be the change magnets.

AC: This all sounds amazing. So how would you sum up where 195 in 365 stands at the moment?

NW: I don’t think things will change at the pace that we need them to change without a mass-coordinated, positive solutions-led movement that decision-makers in governments, and also corporations, cannot ignore. 

AC: Would you add the words “youth-generated” to your description of the movement?

JH: Youth-led. Because if it’s youth-led, it will bring in wider, mass [support]. This is a basic call to young people around the world. We say, “You are our last line of defense. What we’re offering you is a solutions-based movement that you can get involved with — to claim this as your own initiative, as your own organization. Come together to be the change that the planet so desperately needs.” 

It’s so refreshing to learn about such an ambitious project here at COP30. We certainly need to ramp up our ambition to have any chance of solving these existential problems in time. A near-daily mini-COP in every country. Difficult to pull off, but that just makes it more impressive once they’re on the road. Bravo!

#3: Breaking the Bondage (Part Two)

Juanita Los Angeles Arisa Guzman, who directs Colombia’s National Water Network, at COP30

Photo by Alex Carlin

Juanita Los Angeles Arisa Guzman, director of Colombia’s National Water Network, continues to explain how Colombia’s epic ordeals over the past half century frame the struggles in Latin America for preserving water, the land, and a livable climate. 

AC: It’s incredible that after 70 years of right-wing control, the government didn’t say, “You can’t do that. We don’t accept your votes against us. We will stay in power.”  The army must have believed in democracy, right? Otherwise, they would have said “Go home! Forget about it.” Can you comment on that? 

JG: I can explain. Earlier, the president that killed everybody was named Alvaro Uribe. He’s the assassin of assassins, like Colombia’s Hitler. He killed everybody — even the cats. 

AC: I remember Uribe. He was president in the early 2000s, right?

JG: [Yes, from 2002–2010]. He had a minister of defense [later president] who was a liberal guy. His name was Juan Manuel Santos. Center right. But Uribe was extreme right. Santos started having to [deal with] the families of the dead, with all the crisis and the misery. And eventually it got to be too much for him. He had enough. Enough, thank god. 

So, no, the army did not interfere in 2022. The election [held], and a new president came in. Santos was president from 2010—2018, and this is when he first betrayed or broke his relationship with Uribe, and started the peace process. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the war with the guerillas. But the problem was that when he made the peace deal, he made a national referendum to ask the people if they agree with the peace deal. And the people voted no. 

AC: Why?

JG: Because…well, because the people hated the guerrillas for being assassins, drug lords, and rats.

AC: There were the corrupt left drug lords and the right-wing paramilitary. But isn’t there another side? 

JG: Yes, normal people were the third side, us. The third side, right. That’s the three. 

AC: So, then what happened?

JG: The right wing came back to power in 2018, and the new president [sent] missiles against the people. And that’s when [most Colombians] said, “Hell no!” They [rioted on the streets everywhere]. 

AC: What year is that? 

JG: 2021. A national riot. That was when we decided to create a new government, so we [created] something called a National Pact. Things got so crazy that we finally had an opportunity to make something good. We had the opportunity to get [the bad guys] out of power by uniting [everyone] — Black people, women, young people, the indigenous, the campesinos, and [all the other regular Colombians who want a normal life]. And this is the first time that we have a normal government, one the right wing had to accept. This was only three years ago, so we are only recently able to [implement] the philosophy of the constitution written in 1991 — 30 years afterwards. 

AC: The constitution of 1991 talks about the rights of nature, yes? And it recognized indigenous people?

JG: Yes, the 1991 constitution upgraded the 1896 constitution. It took more than a century to make the new constitution, and after all of that violence we activated it. The new constitution recognizes indigenous people and their Afro-descendants as citizens with rights. The first article of the new constitution says that Colombia is a multicultural, pluriethnic country, and we are a state of rights. Everybody is equal with equal rights.There’s no slavery. Women have rights of their own (the other constitution said that women belong to men, and things like that). The new constitution was super modern, but the times were really hardcore, so it took us 30 years to finally start implementing it. 

AC: And what about the rights of nature? 

JG: Yes, it [includes] the rights of nature, so much so that it has a nickname, “the Green Constitution,” and is the source of a whole jurisprudence worldwide because it is the first constitution that recognizes environmental rights, the right to a healthy environment.

AC: That’s amazing!

JG: [It spells out] a duty of the state to protect nature… so it created an environmental corporation owned by the state, which is named after the Magdalena River, the biggest river in Colombia. 

[The constitution is] beautiful, but the problem was this: Why did the drug lords kill everybody? Because they needed the land to [grow] plants for drugs. So that’s why they never saw nature as something to protect, and they didn’t implement it. They didn’t give a damn. But they didn’t even care about implementing the parts about the people either. Their right-wing model of development was to assassinate everybody and sell the land. But what the constitution is saying is that the land is ours, the land is  common property [that belongs to] the nation. It is a serious, modern, and logical constitution, the first constitution to recognize the “fourth wave of environmental law,” which includes recognition of the common responsibility for protecting and supporting nature. 

AC: It is great that it’s all in the constitution. 

JG: Yes, despite all the bad stuff that happened, the main core concepts of our indigenous people were — and are — the basis of our philosophy. Indigenous principles are embedded in the constitution.

All of this ideology is embedded in the law because it is culturally embedded in the law…. And it’s really nice because Colombia is a country where many people study law. You can write a constitution and ratify a constitution, and then you can write a bunch of laws, and they did that. 

AC: Colombians are really into writing laws? 

JG: Yes. They’re into it, right? Even to the point where we have a problem because we have about 5,000 laws. The discussion now is like, “Do we need another law or what?” Everybody’s crazy about laws. So, on paper, Colombia is perfect. The problem with us is the implementation of the law. And that’s why I have created the campaign Water for the Future.

We understand how important it is to have things written as laws, and the Colombian people… [are] coming out of this period of terrible right-wing violence and repression — a horrible nightmare — and they’ve elected great leaders, and they have a whole new life. And part of this is about water and about writing a law that protects water and honors water. 

AC: What are you doing in this regard? 

JG: Connected with the history of Colombia, the reason why I started working on water protection is because I understood that one of the reasons for all of this violence was the control of water. And one of the reasons for the assassination of our people, our leaders, good ones, was [about] the control of water. So, I decided that I was going to fight back against the government, the establishment, the paramilitary and so on by means of environmentalism, environmental law. I started fighting, and I created the National Water Network. And what I did was to start protecting people, protecting communities, and taking legal action…to protect them as much as possible. It is a case of success for Colombia, and it’s an honor for us because we succeeded. 

AC: When did you start all this? 

JG: I started in 2011. I was a candidate for the city council and my campaign was called “Water, Women, and Future.” Then in 2012 I had the chance to participate in the continental “Run of the Indigenous Peoples” for water protection. And I ran from the Land of Fire in Argentina up to Guatemala — for seven months. Uh! 

And that’s where I discovered the continent, and I realized that the fight for water is a continental problem. I visited more than 700 indigenous communities in Central and South America [over those] seven months, recognizing the problems, talking with the people. 

AC: So, if some rich oligarch, some right-wing capitalist has some land, he wants that water because obviously the water is going to be super important for his land. And on the other side you’ve got everyday people who say, “Wait a minute, that’s our water.” For 100 years you would lose that argument because they would just kill you, right? And now, your life is protected because you have something written in law? 

JG: We are still [struggling] but we have managed to have new police [officers] help us…. And we did something amazing: we managed to work with the Ministry of Defense to recognize water as a matter of national strategic security. We did that in 2021. But please understand: it’s not just [about] stealing the physical water. It’s the way they do things to make money or have power that destroys the water, and makes the water unusable and unlovable and degrades it. All of that. So that’s protection.

AC: So that’s what your organization does? 

JG: [Yes, we take] legal actions regarding these topics. If the problem is extractivism, we need to work on conservation. The answer for agrochemistry is to work on agroforestry systems. Monoculture, the solution is a native rainforest. Ranching, [shift] to sustainable [practices]. 

AC: That’s fantastic.

JG: If the problem is violence, the solution is peace with social environmental justice. 

And all of this generates ecological stability. So, the reason we have climate change in Colombia is because of all of this crap, all of these problems here. But we know the solution to each problem.

After having the platform of the water network, we created the National Corporation of Water, and I used the word “corporation” to [appropriate it from the business world]. And we have all of these projects already going on. 

AC: That’s incredible — and with water at the center of the whole campaign. 

JG: Mm-hmm.

AC: And when you come to COP30, you’re promoting that, and you’re strengthening that? 

JG: Exactly. 

AC: And you’re drawing people from COP30 into your team? What are your priorities here?

JG: Good question. Our main priority here is to basically look for the people we need to make agreements with in order to include water as a main line of action in the Climate Convention. 

AC: And you’re talking to people from around the world, showing them your water model and your concept, and trying to inspire them to do similar things in their own countries?.

JG: Yes, I’m meeting people. This is the third COP that I have attended. What I realize is that you have to be part of the groups that negotiate the subject that you’re interested in. 

AC: What exactly is it that you’re getting out of these meetings? What are you asking for, and what do you get from them? 

JG: Well, I just started my master’s in international law, so I can actually understand what the hell is going on because this thing is colossal. Initially, when I had the chance to go to Egypt in 2022, I thought, “I have to go to the COP. I have to go to see what’s going on, especially because I [proposed] a law for climate change in the city council in Bogotá, with another city councilor. 

AC: Excellent.

JG: So, I went, and I realized that I really knew nothing about it. I had done huge work in terms of justice (it was connected ideologically), but I wanted to see how to make [laws] match with the source of the law, which is international law. And for three years I [worked to figure] it out. 

AC: You want to use that knowledge from those forums and those international types of law to strengthen what you’re doing in Colombia, right? 

JG: Exactly. Earlier, I was trying to do things at the local level, but then I [turned] to the international [sphere] and I realized that I could [accomplish more at] the international level. 

AC: Will you give me an example of working at the international level that would benefit Colombia?

JG: Well, there’s what we were doing today at our event at COP30 with the International Commission of the Amazon River. 

The ICAR event

It’s something really important because we need to give full support to local communities to save the Amazon River, which is [key to] the whole ecological stability for the entire world. 

AC: You want to create this body of international law that protects the Amazon? 

JG: Exactly. I proposed creating that commission, and I also created the water committees of both the Senate and the House in Colombia. 

But, all of these problems are related to the paramilitary forces and the right wing. [These people are] still alive and doing their thing. 

AC: You’re saying they’re still out there? 

JG: Yes. And they’re still in Congress.  

AC: Although they’re not massacring people anymore, right? 

JG: No, because we have the army [to control them] now. 

AC: Good, that’s huge progress. 

JG: That leveled down the violence 50% or so. 

I know that what we have done is magnificent already, but we need more [help]. And my team and all of us need to be connected with these people because it’s a huge task.  

AC: You mean connected with the COP people?

JG: With the COP people, with the adaptations group people, with the secretary of the water commission. With the UN water people. 

AC: They can help you. They can support you. 

JG: Yes, they support me, and it’s very important for me to have their support. And also, in 2023 we won the UN General Assembly’s human rights prize as part of a coalition, and the General Assembly created the right to a healthy, clean, and sustainable environment for the whole world. That was in 2023, [we worked] together with 1,000 organizations. That’s the whole world you’re talking about. The whole world! And that passed. 

I spent my youth doing this. Yes, I’ve spent 16 years doing this. My adolescence, my youth. Now I’m 38, and I have to spend another 15 years doing this, doing the projects, planting the plants, planting the seeds, and getting the fruits. 

I want to stop focusing on [filing] lawsuits. I’m sick of lawsuits. I want to live a happy life. I want to go and see my friends and get their fruits, get their products. I want to normalize Colombia. 

That’s what we’re [still] working on — leveling down the violence and normalizing the country. 

Juanita is a tour de force who we can all learn from. Her sweeping story and keen insights and strategies give valuable perspective and bring a terrific passion to today’s battles over the Amazon. Her incredibly enterprising work in beneficial agencies increases the chances that COP30 will help the tribes prevail in their quest to protect the Amazon. 

Will the world pitch in and join the quest? Stay tuned.

#2: Breaking the Bondage (Part One)

Photo by Colombia National Water Network

I was honored to perform a song at the Colombian Pavilion at COP30 that was attended by Francia Márquez, the first woman and the first Black person to hold the office of vice president in Colombia. She is not only an environmental and human rights activist who was awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2018, she personifies the miraculous transition in Colombia after more than 50 years of right-wing repression, replete with massacres on a massive scale. 

The event was organized by Juanita Los Angeles Arisa Guzman, who directs Colombia’s National Water Network. Later, I interviewed Juanita, who shared many deep historical details about her nation’s progress from the worst imaginable colonial exploitation and repression to today’s much better but still challenging conditions. This helped explain the path of Vice President Márquez, and provided great context to the issues being discussed inside the meeting halls at COP30 and being protested outside on the streets here in neighboring Brazil. 

Guzman’s agency is the focal point of the environmental justice group known as ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) and she also serves as secretary of Water and Biodiversity in Colombia’s Senate.

Alex Carlin: Have you been having success here at COP30?

Juanita Guzman: It is really incredible that I have [had] the chance to [meet] with the secretary of the Water Convention of the United Nations. She was with us today, and for me that’s a huge thing because I [have advocated] for water for 16 years. And I finally got the chance to be next to her, Sonja Köppel, the person I admire the most in the world. Wow… that’s amazing. She is my hero.

AC: Will you please give us some context for understanding the issues you are addressing here?

JG: First of all, in Colombia, my country, we had the longest civil war of all times. We had 50 years of war — a war between our own people, brothers and sisters killing each other, for political [purposes], for money, for drugs. 

AC: Was it mostly guerrilla fighters versus the government? 

JG: It is very complex. But basically — in the end — it was a fight between the rich and the poor, and the conquering of the richness of nature by means of violence. 

AC: Plundering, conquering, the elites stealing of the riches of nature?

JG: And the elimination of the enemy by assassination. There was a total dehumanization of the people in the war. We had three main violent groups: the paramilitary forces, the guerrilla forces, and the forces of the state. And we had the disgrace that the military started killing the people, so the people created a guerrilla force, but then the guerrillas became drug traffickers. So, it got complicated. 

From 1899 to 1999 we had three main processes that [destroyed] Colombia. First, we had the organization of the right-wing republic [that transformed] Colombia [from] a federation of territories [to] a republic with centralized power.

In 1948 there was a political leader [named] Jorge Eliecer Gaitán [who] was running for president [but] the president of the United States and the CIA decided to assassinate [him] because he was going to meet with Fidel Castro from Cuba. 

AC: Castro was already so active in 1948, 11 years before the Cuban Revolution? 

JG: [Yes], and he was in Bogotá, he was going to meet Gaitán. Then, on the 9th of April in 1948, disaster. The [CIA] killed Gaitán, which started the Age of Violence, [decades of] war in Colombia.

AC: So, there was a right-wing government, but then what happened? 

JG: When the people [found out] about the assassination of Gaitán there was an outburst of [fighting] all over the country. The government [used] the army and the military forces to [suppress] the people with violence, [with] massacres. And what the people did in that time was to create a guerrilla force. 

AC: This is still 1948, ’49?

JG: Yes, around that time. The guerrillas were from the campesinos, the country people. By the 1970s the guerrillas were really well organized, but at this time there was another massacre perpetrated by the government when they assassinated more than 5,000 people who attempted to [found] the first alternative party in Colombia, which was called the UP, the Patriotic Union.  

AC: Was there also a group called FARC? 

JG: Yes, the guerrillas had turned into FARC — the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. And after the massacre, they created several other movements [but eventually] the right-wing and the left wing from the liberal party and this alternative branch connected and made a triple alliance called the National Constitutional Assembly. And they made the new constitution for Colombia. 

AC: That was in 1991? But there was still war for another eight years. 

JG: Yes, we had a problem: the right wing created something called the “paramilitary.” So, they not only had the force of the state, but they created a paramilitary army [as] a parallel power to have more secret power to attack people [who didn’t agree with them]. And they were supported by the drug lords of Medellín. They wanted to keep their business going, right? But the guerrillas [also] became narcotraffickers. 

AC: They got sucked into it? They got corrupted?

JG: Exactly. The good [guys] became bad, because of the money. They forgot about the people. What all these people wanted was territorial control, control of the land. And control of the water. The guerrillas always lived in the rural areas — in the most far away places. And this divided Colombia into two countries: one, which is developed, and another, which is underdeveloped, including all the Amazonas. 

AC: Two Colombias.

JG: Yes. Developed Colombia is in the Andean region, the mountains, the north. And the nondeveloped area is the rest, including the Amazonas and the Orinoquía. In that undeveloped area there are no roads, there’s nothing. There are big cities but you can only access them by airplane or by boat. There are no roads. And in 2011, I was a candidate for city council in the capital, in Bogotá.

AC: And finally the 50-year war ended.

JG: The war ended and the right wing took over power. The paramilitary took control for over 30 years. Sure, there was no war, but it was bad. It was right-wing bad, with the power of narcotraffic drug lords. And they started killing everybody. Jesus. We had more than 10 million victims — like one-quarter of the country. That was starting in 1999. They [conducted] massacre after massacre after massacre. There are even stories that the ex-president of the right wing [participated] in person, disguised as military, and assassinated people with his own gun, for real. 

These are sick, sick, sick, violent people. 1999 is when it got worse because this constitution was done by the left wing and the Liberal Party and so the right wing went crazy. And their technique was to kill everybody.

AC: You were in the middle of all of this?

JG: Yeah…the rest of us Colombians, we resisted, existed, and left. But we took over political power in 2022.

AC: Right. That was this incredible moment when the new government took over. Petro became president with this great woman, Francia Márquez, becoming vice president. You heroes just seemed to flip it from right to left. So how did you get it done? Just by voting? 

JG: With the help of God, yes. The people got sick of the violence, especially in 2020, in the Covid year, something really bad happened. The people were really desperate. They were suffering and they were locked down in their houses. And the economic minister decided out of the blue to make a law to increase taxes for everybody. But nobody had any money.

AC: So what happened? 

JG: People broke the lockdown. They went to the streets to protest. And the president of Colombia sent in tanks! Oh, my goodness. They launched missiles against the neighborhoods in the main cities.

AC: So that’s when people stopped voting right wing?

JG: Right, and they realized that we are facing some really serious, crazy psychopaths. 

AC: So, before that, people were voting for the Right because they believed that the guerrillas were bad or the left wing was bad? 

JG: Exactly. 

In the next dispatch, Juanita will explain how Colombia managed to transcend this darkness, and how she has managed to make great progress in her terrific work for the environment and climate.

#1: Where the Rubber Hits the Road

Professor Georges Kouadio, PhD, at an event in Accra, Ghana in 2024 launching the African Climate Band Campaign featuring OPR.

Photo by King Sobada

I arrived at COP30 delighted to network with the bounty of brilliant ground-level activists from every corner of the globe who permeate these conferences. But I also always come prepared to weather a stream of speeches about approaches that will not have enough impact to manage the three biggest devastations we face from excess CO2: 1) temperatures around the world will soon be too high for people to be able to work outdoors; 2) temperatures will soon be too high for farmers to be able to properly produce food; 3) because of the excess CO2 creating carbonic acid in the oceans, the ocean environment worldwide will soon become too acidic for fish to survive. 

Since 2014, I have attended every COP, always yearning for something — for anything — that provides real, concrete actions to effectively deal with this terrible triple threat. After all, that is what these 30 years of conferences set out to accomplish. Lo and behold, my first interviewee this year stunned me by being well on his way to delivering a legitimate real-world solution for all three of these core issues.

I had interviewed Professor Georges Kouadio three years ago in Egypt when he was the leader of the Côte d’Ivoire delegation to COP27, and a chief advisor to the country’s Ministry of Environment. As a professor of ocean biology, he fully apprehended how Ocean Pasture Restoration (OPR) is primed to be a major solution to these CO2-related problems. 

And recently Professor Kouadio issued a strong letter of support for OPR that brilliantly explains the efficacy of the entire subject. But until our meeting this week I was not aware of how tremendously far he has come in advancing this solution from theory to reality.

So, finally, we do have an example of the rubber hitting the road at a venue where for 30 years we have seen nary a skidmark to avoid climate ruin and ocean ruin.

Alex Carlin: Will you please tell me about your progress for making OPR a reality in Côte d’Ivoire?

Georges Kouadio: Okay, thank you very much, Alex, for giving me the floor in order to tell you about our progress concerning OPR. Côte d’Ivoire put in place a regulatory framework concerning carbon credits. We have an operational carbon market desk in [our country].

AC: Already now, right now? 

GK: Yes, now. Already some contracts have been signed with about three operators in the carbon area. Each month we talk in order to [facilitate] some contracts concerning our national portfolio. And regarding the potential of the blue ocean economy, Côte d’Ivoire has a great opportunity to implement OPR in the Gulf of Guinea, [which is on our border].

And now…our government is open to engaging in OPR with a public/private partnership. We are making progress toward signing a memorandum of understanding, an MOU. Once the agreement is signed, we will place an office in Abidjan with a staff to direct this office concerning OPR. And each day they will come to work and follow up all the steps for the progress of OPR in Côte d’Ivoire. 

AC: That’s very, very good. How many people will be on the team? 

GK: In the beginning, we will need about 10 people. We will have our research experts involved in marine biochemistry and marine science. And we will have experts on fisheries.

And the stakeholders in ocean fishery will help us to put together our strategy in order for OPR to move very fast in Côte d’Ivoire. 

AC: That’s fantastic. The question is, who will pay these 10 people? Where will the money come from?  

GK: The money comes from the two structures, the government and the private sector.

AC: The government has some ability to pay? And the private sector will make some investment? 

GK: Yes. When we sign the agreement, the private sector will pay the first part. 

AC: So, the private sector will see that the government is already demonstrating support for OPR and that will give them the incentive to invest.

GK: Yes. 

AC: The private sector investor will invest before the government. 

GK: Yes. The investor first, and the result of the investment can be a large return on investment. 

AC: What exactly are you offering the investor?

GK: What we offer is to put in place all the regulations — to be flexible. The laws we will put in place, the processes. Now we have a regulatory process in place. And with this regulatory process [established], all the requirements are there. 

AC: How are investors getting a return on investments?

GK: The return of investment is mainly the carbon credits.

AC: The blue carbon, from the CO2 coming out of the atmosphere? 

GK: Yes. It’s the first [ROI]. And the second is the sale of fish.

AC: But when the fish come back, that will benefit all of West Africa since it spreads out all over the Gulf of Guinea, so it’s for all the countries like Ghana and Togo and Benin. So, how does an individual investor make a specific perimeter around the fish that they can sell? 

GK: You put this in the agreement. That is all in the process. We will write it in the document. There are boundaries.

AC: Can you describe your personal role in this?

GK: I work now with the government in the Ministry of Environment. And now I facilitate the process to achieve an MOU.

AC: And when do you actually create OPR Côte d’Ivoire? At what moment is that created as a business, an entity?

GK: In about six months. I think that all things will be ready and operational to create OPR Côte d’Ivoire in six months. 

AC: With the MOU, the government demonstrates that it thinks OPR is a good idea for Côte d’Ivoire? 

GK: Yes. That’s number one. We discuss things with the investor in order to write the MOU together and spell out all the steps for making OPR a reality in Côte d’Ivoire. We talk about the staff. We talk about all the processes. And after we sign the MOU, then OPR can operate in Cote d’Ivoire.

AC: So within a year you will be full speed ahead! This is momentous progress — to have the office, the staff, and then go to the ocean and restore the plankton.

GK: Yes, and we will have this MOU document that every day we can examine as our structure.

AC: Your plan, your guide, your scenario for success. 

GK: Yes

AC: For you and for the world. This is so important for the rest of the world that you’re doing it so quickly because it’s about showing the world it is worth doing it — before it’s too late for any solution to work. Many countries will copy you once they see the effects, the data. And we need many countries to do this soon if we want to avoid climate ruin and ocean ruin.

GK: Yes. It is what we prepare with our ministry.

AC: Earlier, you mentioned the name Russ George. 

GK: Yes. Russ George is the world leader of OPR. I contacted him and he sent me a model for the MOU. The government will analyze this document and we will make some adjustments to be clear. The second step is to operationalize.

AC: My understanding is Russ George can be a consultant for you. Is that correct? He would be available for any questions you have? 

GK: Yes, Russ is a key partner because he can be a consultant, but he can also be an action partner. 

AC: Yes, very interesting. But three months from now there will be an election in Cote d’Ivoire. 

GK: Yes.

AC: Is there going to be a new Minister of Environment? Do you have to wait three months before getting serious? You already seem to be starting now. 

GK: Our two elections, presidential election and parliament election, will end at the end of December. After that, we can have a new government. And this new government will have an action plan. And if we have a good project and good indicators, the new government can’t modify things. They will leave it. They will go with it.

AC: Do you have confidence that the new elections will not be a problem?

GK: No, no, no, not a problem. Because our project is aligned with our national development plan. It is aligned also with our strategy concerning the blue economy. And we are very engaged in this process. 

AC: Will you please give me some examples of this alignment?

GK: Yes. You know that Côte d’Ivoire ratified the convention concerning the ocean with the aim, the objective of protecting the content of the ocean. 

AC: You are not referring to a COP agreement, not the Paris agreement, right?

GK: [Correct.] This is a different agreement, a specific convention concerning the ocean. 

AC: Yes. And so you’re aligned with this?

GK: Yes, this first. That’s number one. And the second example is in our national development plan. We have a section concerning the blue ocean economy. We are obligated to put additional value into these ocean resources.

AC: That’s great. Amazing. 

GK: Third, our ministry in charge of the environment decided to create a staff concerning the blue economy, an ocean blue economy within the Ministry of Environment. Yes, [we have a clear] direction.

AC: And you’re the main advisor in the ministry for these areas, right? 

GK: Yes.

AC: So the ministry is aligned with OPR. 

GK: Yes. And with this direction, we work together in order to make progress very quickly.

It is important to point out why this interview is so focused on the details of forming this entity called OPR Côte d’Ivoire. In the context of the current lack of progress in removing enough CO2 from the atmosphere in time to avoid ruin, the only plan I have seen that combines the capacity, the ease, the safety, and the low cost needed is known as “100 Villages,” which refers to 100 fishing villages, cities, or countries around the world each doing their own OPR. 

Crucially, we need an OPR project to start getting results: quickly restoring massive amounts of fish, achieving the huge amounts of removed atmospheric CO2 to be verified for getting blue carbon credits, and accruing robust regional environmental and economic benefits, thereby triggering a stampede from the next 99 projects or “villages.”

The point is that without coordinators like Professor Kouadio putting their hands to the grindstone, these critical actions will take too long to get going. And the incentive of the blue carbon market is a very good thing. While carbon offsets can be scams and counterproductive in many cases, in this case there is only benefit from it, and it vitally moves this indispensable project along with the requisite speed. 

Professor Kouadio is describing a great example of what real-world climate action is all about: going to work with a team every day to take that lethal dose of CO2 out of the sky via nature-based photosynthesis. The success of the Côte d’Ivoire OPR initiative could inspire enough similar projects worldwide for this solution to reach the scale needed to avoid climate and ocean ruin.