Question
I came here to say a few things, but the chorus that we've had from this stage has been clear. I don't need to repeat that we have the power of choice. Every speaker on this platform has done that. I don't need to repeat that this is the COP¹ that needs action. All of us as a chorus have said that. I don't need to repeat the horror and the devastation wrecked upon this Earth over the course of the last 12 months since we met in Glasgow. Whether the apocalyptic floods in Pakistan or the heat waves from Europe to China, or indeed in the last few days in my own region, the devastation caused in Belize by tropical storm Lisa, or the torrential floods a few days ago in St. Lucia. We don't need to repeat it because pictures spoke a thousand words earlier. But what we do need to do is to understand why—why we are not moving any further. "1.5 to stay alive"² cannot be that mantra, and I take no pride in being associated with having to repeat it over and over and over. We have the collective capacity to transform. We're in the country that built pyramids. We know what it is to remove slavery from our civilization. We know what it is to be able to find a vaccine within 2 years when a pandemic hits us. We know what it is to put a man on the moon and now we're putting Rover on Mars. We know what it is.
But the simple political will that is necessary, not just to come here and make promises, but to deliver on them and to make a definable difference in the lives of the people who we have a responsibility to serve seems still not to be capable of being produced. I ask us how many more and how much more must happen. And I say so because there's no simplicity in it—we get it. I come from a small-island state that has high ambition but that is not able to deliver on that high ambition because the global industrial strategy that we have has fault lines in it. Our ability to access electric cars or our ability to access batteries or photovoltaic panels are constrained by those countries that have the dominant presence and can produce for themselves, but the Global South remains at the mercy of the Global North on these issues. But it isn't only in that. We heard Al Gore just now speak about the difference in the cost of capital to those of us in the Global
South. And I ask us how many more people must speak before those of us who have the capacity to instruct our directors at the World Bank—is that called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development only for the 20th century? At the IFM³, which at least has been trying more than the World Bank?—how many more countries must falter, particularly in a world that is now suffering the consequences of war and inflation, and countries therefore are unable to meet the challenges of finding the necessary resources to finance their way to net zero? This world looks still too much like it did when it was part of an imperialist empire.
The Global North borrows between interest rates of between 1 and 4%. The Global South's are 14%. And then we wonder why the just energy partnerships aren't working. Similarly, we ask ourselves if countries that want to finance their way to net zero and want to do the right thing can't get the critical supplies—will they not have to rely again on natural gasses, that clean bridge? This is the bald reality, and we have come here to ask us to open our minds to different possibilities. We believe that we have a plan. We believe that there can be the establishment of a climate mitigation trust that unlocks $5 trillion of private-sector savings if we can summon the will to use the SDRs, $500 billion of SDRs⁴, special drawing rights, in a way that unlocks the private-sector capital. We believe that that requires a change in the attitude of Congress because the agreement that establishes the International Monetary Fund requires 85% to change that agreement. And if the United States government has 17% of the quota, then it can't be done, Mr. Gore, without your Congress. Similarly, we accept that there was and must be a commitment to unlocking concessional funding for climate-vulnerable countries. There is no way that developing countries who have been graduated can fight this battle without access to concessional funding. We heard it on this stage from the head of my old Alma Mater at LSE. We believe that it is critical that we address the issue of loss and damage. The talk must come to an end.
And I'd like to salute Denmark, and Belgium, and Scotland, for their own modest ways of trying to accept the precepts and principles of loss and damage as critical and as morally just. But for loss and damage to work, we believe that it can't only be an issue of asking state parties to do the right thing, although they must, but we believe that the non-state actors and the stakeholders, the oil and gas companies, and those that facilitate them, need to be brought into a special congregation between now and COP28. How do companies make $200 billion in profits in the last three months and not expect to contribute at least 10 cents in every dollar of profit to a loss-and-damage fund? This is what our people expect. And I ask us as we reflect on what a loss-and-damage fund can look like, and who should access it, that we convene a special congregation that doesn't only involve state parties but non-state actors such as the same companies. We believe as well that a time has come for the introduction of natural disaster and pandemic clauses in our debt instruments. I have said that if Barbados is hit tomorrow, because we have natural disaster clauses, God forbid if we are hit tomorrow, we unlock 18% of GDP over the next 2 years because what we do is effectively put a pause on all of our debt and put it at the end for 2 years, and we pay back that money at the end, but what we get is the flexibility in the first 2 years to address issues of damage and loss.And finally, we believe that the multilateral development banks have to reform. Yes, it is time for us to revisit Bretton Woods⁵. Yes, it is time for us to remember that those countries who sit in this room today did not exist at the time that the Bretton Woods institutions were formed for the most part. And therefore, we have not seen, we have not been heard sufficiently. And if we are therefore to rise to the occasion, to play our part to stop the tragic loss of life that we have seen on these screens and the impact on livelihoods that we are feeling across our countries, then there needs to be a new deal with respect to the Bretton Woods institutions, and we need to ensure that they have a different view to their risk appetite, that we look at the SDRs and that we look at other innovative ways to expand the lending that is available from billions to trillions.
My friends, the time is running out on us. And yes, we have the power of choice. When asked what should he do when he became president of South Africa—should he pursue a path of vengeance or should he seek to build a state?—Nelson Mandela chose to be able to build a state and to keep a country together. He chose blessings instead of curses because he believed that it would make a defining difference. When given the choice of how to treat post-war Europe, President Truman settled the Marshall Plan that made the definable difference to the countries that were responsible, yes, for the destruction of so much and for the loss of life of so many. But in spite of that, they chose to rise above it. I ask us today: what will our choice be? We have the power to act or the power to remain passive and do nothing. I pray that we will leave Egypt with a clear understanding that the things that are facing us today are all interconnected. I thank President El-Sisi for his comments that there needs to be peace because countries like ours continue to suffer as a result of a war that we have no part of and a war that we want to see come to an end. Our people on this Earth deserve better, and what is more, our leaders know better. Because while many of us may not have been alive during the Great Wars, the consequences of those wars still live with us, and we have the capacity to choose differently.
I ask the people of the world and not just the leaders, therefore, to hold us accountable and to ask us to ask in your name to save this Earth and to save the people of this Earth. The choice is ours. What will you do? What will you choose to save? Thank you. using this context give me BODY PARAGRAPH 1 ("Before the Shift")
Topic Sentence 1
This is a claim that supports your thesis and can be backed up with evidence.
Evidence 1
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 2
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 3
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
BODY PARAGRAPH 2 ("After the Shift")
Topic Sentence 2
This is a claim that supports your thesis and can be backed up with evidence.
Evidence 1
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 2
Analysis
Explicitly explain how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 3
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
CONCLUSION
also use simpler words
But the simple political will that is necessary, not just to come here and make promises, but to deliver on them and to make a definable difference in the lives of the people who we have a responsibility to serve seems still not to be capable of being produced. I ask us how many more and how much more must happen. And I say so because there's no simplicity in it—we get it. I come from a small-island state that has high ambition but that is not able to deliver on that high ambition because the global industrial strategy that we have has fault lines in it. Our ability to access electric cars or our ability to access batteries or photovoltaic panels are constrained by those countries that have the dominant presence and can produce for themselves, but the Global South remains at the mercy of the Global North on these issues. But it isn't only in that. We heard Al Gore just now speak about the difference in the cost of capital to those of us in the Global
South. And I ask us how many more people must speak before those of us who have the capacity to instruct our directors at the World Bank—is that called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development only for the 20th century? At the IFM³, which at least has been trying more than the World Bank?—how many more countries must falter, particularly in a world that is now suffering the consequences of war and inflation, and countries therefore are unable to meet the challenges of finding the necessary resources to finance their way to net zero? This world looks still too much like it did when it was part of an imperialist empire.
The Global North borrows between interest rates of between 1 and 4%. The Global South's are 14%. And then we wonder why the just energy partnerships aren't working. Similarly, we ask ourselves if countries that want to finance their way to net zero and want to do the right thing can't get the critical supplies—will they not have to rely again on natural gasses, that clean bridge? This is the bald reality, and we have come here to ask us to open our minds to different possibilities. We believe that we have a plan. We believe that there can be the establishment of a climate mitigation trust that unlocks $5 trillion of private-sector savings if we can summon the will to use the SDRs, $500 billion of SDRs⁴, special drawing rights, in a way that unlocks the private-sector capital. We believe that that requires a change in the attitude of Congress because the agreement that establishes the International Monetary Fund requires 85% to change that agreement. And if the United States government has 17% of the quota, then it can't be done, Mr. Gore, without your Congress. Similarly, we accept that there was and must be a commitment to unlocking concessional funding for climate-vulnerable countries. There is no way that developing countries who have been graduated can fight this battle without access to concessional funding. We heard it on this stage from the head of my old Alma Mater at LSE. We believe that it is critical that we address the issue of loss and damage. The talk must come to an end.
And I'd like to salute Denmark, and Belgium, and Scotland, for their own modest ways of trying to accept the precepts and principles of loss and damage as critical and as morally just. But for loss and damage to work, we believe that it can't only be an issue of asking state parties to do the right thing, although they must, but we believe that the non-state actors and the stakeholders, the oil and gas companies, and those that facilitate them, need to be brought into a special congregation between now and COP28. How do companies make $200 billion in profits in the last three months and not expect to contribute at least 10 cents in every dollar of profit to a loss-and-damage fund? This is what our people expect. And I ask us as we reflect on what a loss-and-damage fund can look like, and who should access it, that we convene a special congregation that doesn't only involve state parties but non-state actors such as the same companies. We believe as well that a time has come for the introduction of natural disaster and pandemic clauses in our debt instruments. I have said that if Barbados is hit tomorrow, because we have natural disaster clauses, God forbid if we are hit tomorrow, we unlock 18% of GDP over the next 2 years because what we do is effectively put a pause on all of our debt and put it at the end for 2 years, and we pay back that money at the end, but what we get is the flexibility in the first 2 years to address issues of damage and loss.And finally, we believe that the multilateral development banks have to reform. Yes, it is time for us to revisit Bretton Woods⁵. Yes, it is time for us to remember that those countries who sit in this room today did not exist at the time that the Bretton Woods institutions were formed for the most part. And therefore, we have not seen, we have not been heard sufficiently. And if we are therefore to rise to the occasion, to play our part to stop the tragic loss of life that we have seen on these screens and the impact on livelihoods that we are feeling across our countries, then there needs to be a new deal with respect to the Bretton Woods institutions, and we need to ensure that they have a different view to their risk appetite, that we look at the SDRs and that we look at other innovative ways to expand the lending that is available from billions to trillions.
My friends, the time is running out on us. And yes, we have the power of choice. When asked what should he do when he became president of South Africa—should he pursue a path of vengeance or should he seek to build a state?—Nelson Mandela chose to be able to build a state and to keep a country together. He chose blessings instead of curses because he believed that it would make a defining difference. When given the choice of how to treat post-war Europe, President Truman settled the Marshall Plan that made the definable difference to the countries that were responsible, yes, for the destruction of so much and for the loss of life of so many. But in spite of that, they chose to rise above it. I ask us today: what will our choice be? We have the power to act or the power to remain passive and do nothing. I pray that we will leave Egypt with a clear understanding that the things that are facing us today are all interconnected. I thank President El-Sisi for his comments that there needs to be peace because countries like ours continue to suffer as a result of a war that we have no part of and a war that we want to see come to an end. Our people on this Earth deserve better, and what is more, our leaders know better. Because while many of us may not have been alive during the Great Wars, the consequences of those wars still live with us, and we have the capacity to choose differently.
I ask the people of the world and not just the leaders, therefore, to hold us accountable and to ask us to ask in your name to save this Earth and to save the people of this Earth. The choice is ours. What will you do? What will you choose to save? Thank you. using this context give me BODY PARAGRAPH 1 ("Before the Shift")
Topic Sentence 1
This is a claim that supports your thesis and can be backed up with evidence.
Evidence 1
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 2
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 3
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
BODY PARAGRAPH 2 ("After the Shift")
Topic Sentence 2
This is a claim that supports your thesis and can be backed up with evidence.
Evidence 1
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 2
Analysis
Explicitly explain how the quote supports your claim.
Evidence 3
Analysis
Explicitly state how the quote supports your claim.
CONCLUSION
also use simpler words
Answers
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
### BODY PARAGRAPH 1 ("Before the Shift")
**Topic Sentence 1**
Before real change can happen, it is vital to understand the challenges faced by countries in the Global South regarding climate action and financing.
**Evidence 1**
The speaker emphasizes that "the Global North borrows between interest rates of between 1 and 4%. The Global South's are 14%."
**Analysis**
This statistic highlights the financial disadvantages that developing countries face. The high interest rates make it harder for them to invest in green technologies and infrastructure needed for climate resilience. It shows that while wealthier nations can borrow cheaply to address climate issues, poorer nations are trapped in costly debt.
**Evidence 2**
The speaker mentions, “our ability to access electric cars or our ability to access batteries or photovoltaic panels are constrained by those countries that have the dominant presence.”
**Analysis**
This point illustrates that developing countries are dependent on wealthier nations for modern technologies necessary for sustainable development. If they cannot access these resources due to power imbalances, it severely limits their capacity to combat climate change. It underscores how systemic inequalities continue to hinder progress in the Global South.
**Evidence 3**
The reference to how “we come from a small-island state that has high ambition but... cannot deliver” emphasizes the disconnect between goals and reality.
**Analysis**
This statement underscores the frustration of many developing nations that set ambitious climate goals but lack the necessary support and resources to achieve them. It emphasizes the urgency for the international community to recognize and address these barriers to foster genuine climate action.
---
### BODY PARAGRAPH 2 ("After the Shift")
**Topic Sentence 2**
The shift towards actionable solutions requires reform in financial systems and collaborative efforts that engage both state and non-state actors.
**Evidence 1**
The speaker advocates for a “climate mitigation trust that unlocks $5 trillion of private-sector savings if we can summon the will to use the SDRs.”
**Analysis**
This proposal indicates a practical method to mobilize financial resources. By using Special Drawing Rights to engage private investment, it highlights how innovative funding mechanisms can address the financial gaps currently faced by developing nations. This shift could enable countries to pursue sustainable projects more effectively.
**Evidence 2**
The call for “the introduction of natural disaster and pandemic clauses in our debt instruments” demonstrates a need for more flexible financial policies.
**Analysis**
This suggestion shows a proactive approach to ensuring that countries can recover quickly from crises without being further burdened by debt. It reflects the need for financial systems to adapt to the realities of climate change and unexpected events, allowing countries to prioritize recovery and resilience.
**Evidence 3**
The speaker notes, “it is time for us to revisit Bretton Woods,” stressing a need for reform in international financial institutions.
**Analysis**
This statement points to the necessity of adjusting outdated systems that do not reflect the current global landscape. By calling for reform, it advocates for a more equitable and responsive financial structure that can better support developing nations in their climate efforts, enabling them to tackle the climate crisis more effectively.
---
### CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the powerful speech underscores the urgent need for change in addressing climate action discrepancies between the Global North and South. By highlighting the financial inequalities and advocating for reform in financial mechanisms and increased collaboration, it paints a clearer picture of how we can move from inaction to meaningful solutions. The call for accountability from leaders and the public alike serves as a poignant reminder that our choices today shape the future of our planet. Ultimately, the collective will to act is what will drive real progress in saving our Earth.
**Topic Sentence 1**
Before real change can happen, it is vital to understand the challenges faced by countries in the Global South regarding climate action and financing.
**Evidence 1**
The speaker emphasizes that "the Global North borrows between interest rates of between 1 and 4%. The Global South's are 14%."
**Analysis**
This statistic highlights the financial disadvantages that developing countries face. The high interest rates make it harder for them to invest in green technologies and infrastructure needed for climate resilience. It shows that while wealthier nations can borrow cheaply to address climate issues, poorer nations are trapped in costly debt.
**Evidence 2**
The speaker mentions, “our ability to access electric cars or our ability to access batteries or photovoltaic panels are constrained by those countries that have the dominant presence.”
**Analysis**
This point illustrates that developing countries are dependent on wealthier nations for modern technologies necessary for sustainable development. If they cannot access these resources due to power imbalances, it severely limits their capacity to combat climate change. It underscores how systemic inequalities continue to hinder progress in the Global South.
**Evidence 3**
The reference to how “we come from a small-island state that has high ambition but... cannot deliver” emphasizes the disconnect between goals and reality.
**Analysis**
This statement underscores the frustration of many developing nations that set ambitious climate goals but lack the necessary support and resources to achieve them. It emphasizes the urgency for the international community to recognize and address these barriers to foster genuine climate action.
---
### BODY PARAGRAPH 2 ("After the Shift")
**Topic Sentence 2**
The shift towards actionable solutions requires reform in financial systems and collaborative efforts that engage both state and non-state actors.
**Evidence 1**
The speaker advocates for a “climate mitigation trust that unlocks $5 trillion of private-sector savings if we can summon the will to use the SDRs.”
**Analysis**
This proposal indicates a practical method to mobilize financial resources. By using Special Drawing Rights to engage private investment, it highlights how innovative funding mechanisms can address the financial gaps currently faced by developing nations. This shift could enable countries to pursue sustainable projects more effectively.
**Evidence 2**
The call for “the introduction of natural disaster and pandemic clauses in our debt instruments” demonstrates a need for more flexible financial policies.
**Analysis**
This suggestion shows a proactive approach to ensuring that countries can recover quickly from crises without being further burdened by debt. It reflects the need for financial systems to adapt to the realities of climate change and unexpected events, allowing countries to prioritize recovery and resilience.
**Evidence 3**
The speaker notes, “it is time for us to revisit Bretton Woods,” stressing a need for reform in international financial institutions.
**Analysis**
This statement points to the necessity of adjusting outdated systems that do not reflect the current global landscape. By calling for reform, it advocates for a more equitable and responsive financial structure that can better support developing nations in their climate efforts, enabling them to tackle the climate crisis more effectively.
---
### CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the powerful speech underscores the urgent need for change in addressing climate action discrepancies between the Global North and South. By highlighting the financial inequalities and advocating for reform in financial mechanisms and increased collaboration, it paints a clearer picture of how we can move from inaction to meaningful solutions. The call for accountability from leaders and the public alike serves as a poignant reminder that our choices today shape the future of our planet. Ultimately, the collective will to act is what will drive real progress in saving our Earth.
There are no human answers yet. A form for humans to post answers is coming very soon!