Piyush Goyal's Reality Check to Europe Over Climate Crisis on Int'l Stage, Says 'You Caused...'

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: I think we need also to say that climate change is a serious thing. It's not something. So we have to be, I'm saying this, so maybe I'm not. [00:00:12] Speaker 2: You're giving me the perfect opening for my comments. Okay. [00:00:16] Speaker 1: It's complete. No, no, I'm completely saying that SEMA is coming from this. Perfect. I love what you said. Fully endorsed. [00:00:22] Speaker 2: We can lean back. Now may I? Of course. [00:00:24] Speaker 1: I'm not saying that I'm in favor of SEMA. [00:00:27] Speaker 3: No, no, what's coming I've heard many times before. Yeah, go ahead. You're giving me the perfect opening for what I wanted to say. [00:00:34] Speaker 2: Who's responsible for this mess in the first place? In the? Where did this ozone layer get damaged? Who sent all that carbon up there? [00:00:45] Speaker 1: All of us. [00:00:46] Speaker 2: No, I'm sorry. I support 17% of the world's population. My contribution to that carbon up there is less than 3%. You support probably 3% or 4% of the world's population. And your contribution to that carbon or the mess is? Is 6%. Is? 6%. I'm sorry, madam. [00:01:09] Speaker 3: No, no. He's talking about cumulative. Ah, cumulative. But that's what matters. [00:01:13] Speaker 2: It's humongous. Probably near 20%. So the problem was caused by you for good reasons. You were growing your economies. You wanted low-cost carbon-based energy. You blew coal day in and day out so that your energy cost remains low. [00:01:34] Speaker 3: But you is not only Europe. It's also the US, right? Sorry? It's not only US. It's also the United States, right? [00:01:39] Speaker 2: You're talking about you. You, you, you, you, you, you, you. That way, right? [00:01:46] Speaker 3: This is the fairness argument. And it's a fairness argument. [00:01:51] Speaker 2: And even today, as we sit here, my contribution on a per capita basis to the carbon emissions is probably less than 10 or 15% of what you do. Even today, the waste in Europe, the per capita damage to the ozone layer or carbon emission is probably seven or eight times per capita what the Indian person does. It's not per capita. It's always per capita. [00:02:26] Speaker 4: Well, I'm supporting 17% of world population. [00:02:32] Speaker 2: And I am more conscious of waste, more conscious of circular economy, more conscious that I have to also meet the needs of 1.4 billion people. I have to meet their energy needs. I have to meet their food needs. I have to be secure as a nation. Despite all of that, we have one of the fastest growing clean energy program. We are greening our steel. We are supporting global efforts towards climate, to fight, address climate change. But in Paris, when 2015, all the world came together. By the way, it was Prime Minister Modi who collected the Global South, got them all to sign at COP21 to our collective intention to address the climate change problem. And what was discussed and decided? There will be common but differentiated responsibility. It was agreed that the developed countries who have enjoyed the fruits of messing up the climate for so many decades will pay a greater price and will support the developing and less developed countries. The island nations, the Pacific Caribbean nations, you want to support them. And what? Only $100 billion a year. That was the only support that was promised. 11 years later, we haven't seen a nickel or dime of that. It's all promises. And does CBAM recognize the common but differentiated responsibility? Does CBAM recognize that the less developed countries have a right to offer their children and their families and their people also a better quality of life? I think that's the larger question which European Union or CBAM have failed to answer. They have failed to respond to the needs of the less developed countries to support them in their decarbonization efforts. And in any case, by the way, I don't mind all these regulations. The more regulations you put onto yourself, the faster will it become difficult to sustain these kind of costs. [00:04:53] Speaker 3: I think this is a classical debate in climate and Paris agreement where you have us looking at the situation today. You want to level playing field. You want to create incentives to become carbon neutral. If you believe that's a good goal, which I do. And the historical perspective and the fairness argument, which always comes correctly from India. And we need to find a compromise between accounting for that. We have done it, but we still need to move forward. And this is what is the tough part. In the G20, we're discussing this many times. So now, Martin. [00:05:27] Speaker 4: No, I was just wondering what kind of discussion I got in here. Because I understand your country needs to basically increase growth and growth faster than other parts of the world. Otherwise, you can't catch up and you can't deliver the standard of living that your people have the right to achieve. Fully understood. I also understand that Europe needs to become more competitive and that we need to do our own homework. I also understand that we need to solve carbon problems. Now, I'm coming back to my first day. When I said partnership, I wasn't sure whether I was on the wrong track because we all talked about friendship. I think this was a classical example. We need partnerships that have a mutual benefit and not rely on friends. If we were friends, we would say, you get the money. I don't care what you did before because you have an emotional attachment. We don't have that. We have interests. You have an interest. We have an interest. We need to fight each one for our interests. And we need to find common ground to basically increase the outcome, a better outcome, if we find some kind of cooperation. And whether CBAN, I'm not an expert, is the right thing and whether the trading system in Europe is the right thing, I don't know. But I know that we need to, in Europe, at least reduce complexity. Sure. And maybe we should start with other things. I haven't heard over the last years any investor I talk to that is super keen on CSRD. Maybe we should get rid of those things first that create paper and not real results. CBAN is a little bit different, but CSRD, for example, is something, just let's get rid of it. And not only for the small ones, for everyone, right? Nobody's reading it. And the people that basically sit in these companies and have to write these reports are super frustrated because they're saying we're hardworking and nobody cares. So doesn't achieve anything, get rid of it. I agree. [00:07:32] Speaker 2: I think if we all work in that spirit of partnership, ultimately how did Marosh and I close this? Marosh was appointed only on 1st December 2024 and 27th January 26th. So that's 13 months we closed the partnership. Yes. 13 months. Before that, the officials were negotiating and fighting on modalities and gateway issues and all of that. Marosh came in. We brought political depth to the discussions. And we decided exactly in the spirit Martin mentioned we have to work as partners, as friends. We resolved many of the regulatory issues also, as friends do. We grabbed the low-hanging fruits. We kept the sensitive issues out so that let's not make perfect the enemy of the good. And I think we achieved an agreement where every country was happy. Everybody's sensitivities were taken care of. Right. And now we are forging partnerships. We have a wonderful partnership with Germany on green hydrogen, for example. We have a great relationship. I'm meeting Deputy Prime Minister Tayani next month again. And we've been meeting so frequently on strengthening the Italy-India relations. So you're right. We are creating partnerships. Since you raised a philosophical question on Europe, I gave you my straight answer. Sadly, I'm not a diplomat. I can't speak as smartly as my good friend, Ceiling, who counts the same thing in much, much nicer words. [00:09:10] Speaker 1: Well, thank you. Thank you. I'm learning from you. Sometimes, you know, beyond learning what to do, I also learn what not to do. Please, no offense. The more important thing is, I mean, even the fact that I've got seven minutes left, I'm just going to take one or two minutes. I'm a perpetual optimist. I think it is dialogues like these, you know, with you, I think, leading, with great minds, excluding myself. I mean, the rest are great minds. You know, coming together and really sort of articulating, venting, and also at the same time, pointing out what are ways in which we could improve. I think that's the way we can move forward. But I think what's important is, I mean, just reflecting on what you talked about, the partnership with benefits, the third path. For us in Singapore, we invest significantly today in the U.S. Thank you.