Return to Transcripts main page


Interview With Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL); Interview With King's College London Former Professor Of War Studies And "Command" Author Lawrence Freedman; Interview With World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Petteri Taalas; Interview With Jeju Island Woljeong-Ri Haenyeo Association Kim Euna; Interview With Jeju Island Gangjeong Mission Center Jeong Sun-nyo; Interview With Jeju Island Woljeong-Ri Haenyeo Association Hyum Bok-rye. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired July 31, 2023 - 13:00   ET




BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello everyone and welcome to "Amanpour". Here's what's coming up.

Mixed messages. The Biden administration announces a massive military package for Taiwan, even as it attempts to reset diplomatic relations with

China. I ask Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Committee on China if the U.S. is headed down a dangerous


Then, Russia hits back with another strike on civilians after Ukraine's drone attack on Moscow. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says every inch

matters as Ukraine doubles down on busting through Russia's defenses.

Also, ahead.


ANTONIO GUTERRES, UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL: The era of global warming has ended. The area -- the era of global boiling has arrived.


GOLODRYGA: With July set to close out as the world's hottest month on record, I ask the secretary-general of the World Meteorological

Organization if extreme weather is here to stay.

And few or more acutely aware of the impact of climate change than the incredible sea diving women of the South Korean province of Haenyeo. They

tell Hari Sreenivasan about the devastation they're seeing on the ecosystem they depend on.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in for Christiane Amanpour in New York.

We begin with one of the world's most complicated and consequential geopolitical relationships. Two great superpowers with the fate of an

island between them which stands to shape the course of our immediate history. Despite a recent diplomatic push to reset relations with China,

the Biden administration has now announced a weapons package worth as much as $345 million for Taiwan's self-defense.

The United States has allowed Taiwan to buy its weapons before, but this deal delivers equipment directly from existing U.S. inventories for the

first time, making its transfer and deployment much quicker. Beijing has repeatedly demanded that the U.S., which is Taiwan's most important arms

supply, stop the sale of weapons to the island.

Which all begs the question, what is the administration's strategy on China? And how will the dispute over Taiwan's sovereignty play out?

Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi is a top-ranking Democrat on the house China -- committee on China. And he was with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

when she controversially visited Taiwan last August, causing a major rupture in what was already the tense U.S.-China relations.

Representative Krishnamoorthi, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for your time. So, you welcomed this move by the White House for the first

time, providing military aid to Taiwan through its stockpiles as opposed to just selling the weapons. Why did you do this? Why do you approve of it?

And what do you make of the announcement on a Friday afternoon seemingly under the radar?

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Well, I think that is very important that we deter conflict across the Taiwan Strait between the Chinese Communist

Party and Taiwan. And the only way to deter that conflict is to make sure that we supply Taiwan with enough articles of defense to build-up its

deterrence. Taiwan has already acquired roughly $19 billion worth of weapons that have yet to be delivered, mainly because of issues in our

military supply -- industrial supply base.

And so, using presidential drawdown authority to basically give them articles of defense from our supplies and then backfill later feels

appropriate right now.

GOLODRYGA: You say this is a sign of deterrence. How are you so confident that this isn't, perhaps, something that will instead embolden China to


KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think that the CCP respects strength, and they view Taiwan as weak. And that is why, in part, Xi Jinping feels as though he can

command the military to be ready by 2027 to militarily or coercively reunify, "Reunify" the Mainland with Taiwan.

And so, the best way to prevent that is to make sure that they understand that the cost of trying to coercively reunify the island far exceed the

benefits. And so, building up that deterrence right now is very, very important.


GOLODRYGA: Let's talk about the response that we have seen thus far from China. China's Taiwan affairs office said, no matter how much of the

ordinary people's taxpayer money the United States is using, the Taiwanese separatist forces spend, no matter how many U.S. weapons, it will not shake

our resolve to solve the Taiwan problem or shake our firm will to realize the reunification of our motherland.

A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy went on to say, U.S., stop selling arms to Taiwan. Stop creating new factors that could lead to tensions in

the Taiwan Strait, and stop posing risks to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. What do you make of how China is responding to this


KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, these comments are rather shrill. Of course, they sound a little rich to me in light of the fact that they have engaged in

rather provocative behavior in the Taiwan Strait. They have sent dozens of airplanes, naval ships, even missiles across the Taiwan Strait in recent

months and years. And therefore, this type of military aggressive behavior would naturally cause the Taiwan people to want to defend themselves with

even more vigor.

And so, that's why we are providing them with more equipment to do so. We are indeed obligated to do so under the Taiwan Relations Act, even at the

same time that we observe the One-China policy. I would just close by saying, let's make sure that if there are distance between the CCP and the

Taiwan government, that they are resolved peacefully. That is what our original understanding with the CCP was, and that is what we would ask them

to continue to observe.

GOLODRYGA: Well, it's coming at a very tense time, obviously, in relations between the two countries, and there's an upcoming election in Taiwan as

well. We saw how China responded after your visit with Then-Speaker Pelosi last year. It wasn't just her statements, obviously. We saw some of the

highest-level military exercises performed by China immediately after your visit.

Are you concerned at all that this announcement may in fact unnecessarily put more pressure on Taiwan at a time when, as I mentioned, that they've

got internal dynamics and elections that they're really focused on as well?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, the Taiwan government wants these weapons. They want these articles of defense to build up their deterrence. And again, if the

price of the CCP not engaging and further provocative behavior is to basically leave the Taiwanese people defenseless, that is not going to


GOLODRYGA: This is coming at a time where, as in the intro, we mentioned that the United States is walking a tightrope here, trying to reestablish

relations amongst highest level officials in both countries. We saw Secretary of State Blinken visit, Treasury Secretary Yellen as well. And at

the same time, we found out that the Chinese officials and hackers had gotten access to some U.S. government e-mails.

In the meantime, how do you interpret and how do you tell constituents when asked, what is the state of U.S.-China relations? And how do you separate

this aid to Taiwan from wanting to maintain stable relations with the country?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, it's very timely to asked me that because I have a town hall meeting coming up with my constituents. Basically, the way that

they expressed their views about the situation is, on the one hand, they are very concerned about aggressive behavior by the CCP militarily,

economically, and technologically, including with regard to these cyber hacks.

Roughly 67 percent of cyber hacks, according to the FBI, that are committed in the United States are launched from the PRC, People's Republic of China.

So, they are very concerned about that militaristically and aggressive behavior.

At the same time, we don't want an open conflict. That's something that they expressed to me. And so, we have to make sure that we can engage with

the CCP in a way that puts guardrails on the relationship, but protects our values and protects our interests at the same time.

GOLODRYGA: You mentioned the cyberattacks and we know China's become much more sophisticated in terms of the level of hacking that they've been

conducting around the world and in the United States. Just this weekend, there was a report of the discovery of malware in U.S. systems that has a

lot of people concerned at top levels that this malware may have been placed in response to any military action between Chinese and Taiwan, or

the United States then being delayed in any type of response.

Is the United States prepared to handle the level of sophistication that we're seeing increasingly from the part of the Chinese?


KRISHNAMOORTHI: Yes, although it is disturbing that they have placed this malware in critical infrastructure, including power, water, communications

assistance, that they believe would affect military bases. But what we know is that it would affect civilians as well in the areas concerned. What they

also need to understand, respectfully, is that we're -- this malware to somehow be used to cripple our infrastructure, or to delay response times,

or to somehow adversely affect our people, that would be viewed extremely seriously.

And I think that they are, perhaps, miscalculating how Americans would perceive the use of that malware in the way that they would want to affect

our critical infrastructure.

GOLODRYGA: We talk about this first traunch of the $345 million in weapons from the U.S. stockpiles. It is the first traunch if a $1 billion

presidential drawdown authority that Congress has approved last year for support in Taiwan. Obviously, that raises the question of what more we can

expect? Can we see more drawdowns from our stockpiles to Taiwan?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Yes. I think that we need to continue to provide anti- armor, anti -- our air defense systems. Of course, services and training that goes with it to make sure that the Taiwanese can defend themselves.

That is extremely important. They are, right now, in a vulnerable situation. And again, under our law, but also in the spirit of protecting

fellow democracies, friends and partners, and to maintain the status quo, we need to help them build up their deterrent.

GOLODRYGA: What type of weapons are we talking about?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, for instance, you know, with regard to air defense systems, we're talking about potentially man-portable systems. We're

talking about -- in the case of anti-armor systems, you know, what we've provided even in Ukraine. Basically, what it takes to defend an island

which is already quite difficult for the CCP to invade, would require just a lot of asymmetric types of systems that would make conquering the islands

much more difficult.

Again, it's about raising the cost of potentially invading the island and getting the CCP and their leadership to say not today. And we want them to

say, not today with regard to invading Taiwan forever, and peacefully resolve their differences with the Taiwan government.

GOLODRYGA: You mentioned Ukraine, should Americans be concerned in terms of the drawdown from our own stockpiles as to whether there is enough weaponry

to provide both Ukraine, now Taiwan, and obviously to maintain U.S. security as well?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: They should not be concerned. The Biden administration has done an excellent job of making sure that we are able to backfill any

stocks that need to be re-supplied after the drawdown is exercised. But the most important thing is that now we need to get the equipment out into the

field, so to speak, ASAP to really affect, in the case of Taiwan, their ability to defend themselves and to increase their deterrence. And in the

case of Ukraine, to mount their counteroffensive and to continue their battlefield activity.

GOLODRYGA: All right, Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it.

Well, turning now to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. And we have just learned that more than 700,000 Ukrainian children have been taken to

Russia since the start of the war. That unbelievable statistics come direct -- comes directly from Russia. And its so-called Children's Rights

Commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova.

But despite what the homegrown propaganda might suggest, Lvova-Belova is no children's champion. The International Criminal Court put out a warrant is

up for her arrest in March, Accusing her of war crimes in the unlawful deportation and transfer of children.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin has hit another civilian targeting Ukraine. This time in President Zelenskyy's hometown. In an apparent retaliation for a

drone strike on Moscow over the weekend. Historian Lawrence Freedman joins the show now to talk about the increasingly complicated state of play on

the battlefield.

Lauren, good to see -- Lawrence, good to see you. Thank you so much for joining us. So, once again, another weekend filled with more civilians

inured and killed. The Russian missiles hitting a residential building in Kryvyi Rih.

These drones that the Ukrainians, while they haven't owned up to it, most believe that the attack on Moscow came at behest of the Ukrainians.


What do you make of the message that this is sending to Russia, that -- as President Zelenskyy said, we can bring the war to you as well. Is it an

effective one for Russian citizens?

LAWRENCE FREEDMAN, FORMER PROFESSOR OF WAR STUDIES: It has some effect because the whole war is based on the assumption that there are security

threats to Russia, and it's the special military operations needed to push them back. And so, everything that the Ukrainians do which hurts Russian

territory, which -- especially if it reaches Moscow is showing -- it's giving a light to that.

However -- I mean, it's not in itself going to change particularly the course of the war. It's another thing which adds to the pressures on Putin,

but I think he's going to be mainly concerned at first with what's happening in the battlefield. And secondly, signs that international

opinion, even countries that have been more sympathetic to the Russian position are getting fed up with the war and turning against Russia.

GOLODRYGA: Let's talk about the state of play right now on the battlefield. I believe we're about six or seven weeks into Ukraine's counteroffensive.

And President Zelenskyy, Ukrainians themselves saying, it is going slower than they had originally anticipated and hoped for. Obviously, it is much

easier to be on the defensive side of a war front then on offense. That having been said, how would you describe the current situation on the

battlefield and how Ukraine is doing?

FREEDMAN: It's doing OK, but it's slow and difficult for the reasons you've given. When we started off in early June, I think there were some hopes

that they could make some rapid breakthroughs but soon transpired that that was unlikely. The minefields are very formidable. Barrier wants you, you

get stuck then you're vulnerable to all sorts of fire raining down you, and that's what they found.

So, they have to shift tactics to working into smaller groups, to relying much more on attrition, attacking Russian logistics, a couple ammunition

dumps, attacking whatever targets they can find, really, in the hope that this would wear down the Russians. And also, attacking in a number of

different areas, hoping to draw the Russian reserves in. So that if they do make breakthroughs, there's less to get through.

They've been starting to push again. And they seem to have made some progress. But again, it's very hard work. And I think part of the

difficulty with this is that people do have high expectations, given all the resources that's been put in. But it's a very difficult thing they're

trying to do. But they do seem to be making some progress now.

GOLODRYGA: Is there still time for a course correction, or at this rate, are you worried that this may end up -- this counteroffensive, at least,

may end up in a stalemate between these two sides?

FREEDMAN: I think it's going to go on for some time. I think the problem is that what the -- people assume that what we're talking about is some sort

of decisive military victory when the Russian army is just chased, and Putin has no choice but to give up. I think the endgame of this is going to

be more complex. If Russia -- if Ukraine can keep on making progress, and Russia can't return to the initiative, then the pressure builds up on


So, I -- it's -- I don't think it's going to be a stalemate in the sense that the two lines of trenches looking at each other and no movements.

There will be movement. Sometimes it might be rapid, sometime it might be slow. But the political effect to watch for is whether the -- whether

Moscow starts to believe its position in Ukraine is untenable.

GOLODRYGA: You wrote a piece in Foreign Affairs recently that titled, "Putin is Running Out of Options in Ukraine." Let's just read a bit from.

You write, the problem with losing goes beyond the failure to achieve objectives or even having to explain the expenditures of blood and treasure

for little gain. Loss cast doubt on the wisdom in confidence of the government. Failure in war can cause the government to fall, that is often

why governments keep on fighting wars, and admission of defeat could make it harder to hold on to power.

And this is a point that I've really focused on for the past several months. And that is the argument that Vladimir Putin is a weaker leader

once this war ends than as it continues. Despite it not going, and clearly, how he set out for it to go over in a few weeks, in taking over Kyiv in a

matter of days. That's not what played out, and that's likely not how this war is going to end.


So, given that, what do you think are the most likely options for getting Vladimir Putin to agree that this war was indeed a failure?

FREEDMAN: Well, it's difficult because the problem is there's nothing obvious that he's going to achieve now. He's not going to get Ukraine to

agree that any part of that policy is forever, and part of their territory is forever Russian. Maybe there are still arguments to be had about new

security arrangements, that's going to be harder now than it wouldn't be in -- when the war began.

So, it really is about staying in the war, because as soon as he turns this, I reckon, they will -- either we fight this war, what did we gain?

So, this is why I think we're looking for forms of pressure. So that -- the sense of the reckoning is with the Russian elite already. That it's hard to

ignore, and that can be in the economic sphere, it can be -- I think, increasing in the diplomatic sphere. As it well as, obviously, on the

military's sphere. But it's a buildup of pressure rather than a single big event.

GOLODRYGA: But what do you make of this pressure not coming from Russian opposition? Because most oppositions either are in prison, dead, or out of

the country, but it's coming from the far-right. And in a sense, while they're saying that this war was not a rational one to begin, once they're

in war, it seems the biggest gripe is that's it's just not being conducted in a competent (ph) fashion.

FREEDMAN: Yes, I think the -- but this has been true for a while. The major critics of the war have been -- have not been those as you say who are

either in prison or in exile, or just cowed into silence. But those who speak up for the objective has been furious about the competence with which

it's been conducted. The difficulty here for Putin is he really works to appease this group last September when he both upped the anti-Biden (ph),

including four new provinces of Ukraine, and saying they were now part of the Russian Federation in addition to Crimea and went to mass mobilization.

So, other than carrying on letting Ukraine, with this -- beyond these airstrikes, you mentioned in the introduction, which he'll carry on doing,

then the attack on the agricultural sector by ending the grain deal. There's not a lot more that can be done by way of options other than just

trying to hold up what the Ukrainians are trying to do. And this, I think, is a risk for Putin. That he --in last September, when the last position,

last Putin was in trouble, there were new things he could try. It's not clear what he tries now.

GOLODRYGA: Well, his mentality, it appeared, up until this failed mutiny was that time had been on his side. And perhaps he's been proven wrong and

embarrassed greatly by that failed mutiny by Prigozhin. But couldn't you still make the argument that he is holding out for elections, specifically

in the United States next year? We have the leading candidate for the Republican Party, publicly over the weekend, saying statements like the

United States should not be providing Ukraine with military aid. I don't -- don't take my word for it, listen to what Donald Trump said and see if it

reminds you a little bit of what led to his first impeachment.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Joe Biden is compromised. He's dragging us into a global conflict on behalf of the very same country,

Ukraine, that apparently paid his family all of these millions of dollars. In light of this information, the U.S. Congress should refuse to authorize

a single additional payment of our depleting stockpiles.

But the weapon stockpiles to Ukraine, until the FBI, DOJ, and IRS handover every scrap of evidence they have on the Biden crime family's corrupt

business dealings. We have to know, and the public deserves to know. In addition, Congress should immediately vote to block Joe Biden's recent call

up of reserve forces. We're sending our troops over to Europe to fight.


GOLODRYGA: So, we could just spend a segment just unpacking what we just heard. But aside from confirming what led to that first impeachment, a quid

pro quo of sorts for aid to Ukraine based on investigations into the Biden family. I mean, one of the arguments you make and others made as well is

that for Ukraine to win, there has to be a long, steady, consistency of support for as long as it takes for the country. Is Ukraine concerned about

statements like this? If in fact that it's number one provider ends up getting a new president who will stop providing aid.

FREEDMAN: Yes, of course they are. And statements like that only give encouragement to Putin.


The European allies are also very concerned about statements like that, not least because of the rather selfish reasons he gave for making them. But

it's still a long way away from the next election. A lot has happened in the last year, a lot can happen in the coming year.

So, it's for sure, I think Putin does hope that if he can hang on, things may change in the United States. Of course, Congress, even the Republicans

in Congress still tend to be generally much more supportive of Ukraine. So, there's still doubts there.

But I think it's -- I mean, it really even since the start of the war, the full-scale war, Putin has been hoping for western opinion to turn against

Ukraine, to get tired of the war, to get tired of the costs and dangers of the war, but it hasn't happened yet. And if anything, up to now, support

has strengthened the weapons Ukraine is getting now are better than the weapons they got last year.

So, it's for sure that Putin may well be trying to hold on. That this is something to aim for, like he was trying to hold on for the midterms. It

didn't really work out for him either. So, he may be, but it's a long way to go. And if -- and the pressures are a bit more immediate, maybe not in

imminent, but they're not -- but, you know, a year and a half to go is still quite long.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, what the Ukrainians hear, we repeat over and over again, it's more artillery, ammunition as soon as possible.


GOLODRYGA: Lawrence Freedman, thank you, as always for your time and perspective.

FREEDMAN: My pleasure.

GOLODRYGA: Well, as we close out July, we are on the cusp of what is all but certain to go down as the hottest month on our planet, ever. The U.N.

chief says, forgets global warming, we are now living in an era of global boiling. And the evidence is all around us, just walk outside. Temperatures

in the U.S. rise above 120 degrees Fahrenheit, that is 50 degrees Celsius. And deaths related to searing heat are mounting. People are even suffering

from life-threatening burns just from falling on to scorching hot ground.

In Europe, at least 40 people are dead as wildfires rip across the region. In Asia, where heat waves have already claimed many lives, reports of farm

animals and crops suffering from extreme weather. In China, are raising concerns about food security in the world's second largest economy.

Joining us on the show now is Petteri Taalas, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization. Thank you so much for joining us. So, as

we noted, this is the hottest month on record. The new report from WMO said, the hottest three-week period ever recorded. Last summer, we saw

nearly 62,000 deaths related to heat. What are your estimates in terms of what we can expect this summer?

PETTERI TAALAS, SECRETARY-GENERAL, WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION: So, without the impact of climate change, we wouldn't see this kind of

extremes, and we are also having very high temperatures in the Northern Atlantic Ocean. And also, we have in the Pacific, we have just left what

the so-called La Nina phase behind and we are -- we have gone to El Nino phase. There's even likelihood that this year, the whole year, may be the

warmest year on record.

GOLODRYGA: And in terms of casualties, heat related deaths, is there an estimate that the organization is providing given that we already saw a

record 62,000 last year?

TAALAS: So, last year we saw the 60 -- 1,000 casualties in Europe, and the last weeks have been extremely warm in Southern Europe. So, it's very

likely that the numbers will be, again, fairly high. And besides that, we have seen very high temperatures in China, and also in parts of North

America. So, this is likely to be the second fairly dramatic summer on -- as was the case a year ago.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, those numbers, we should note, 62, 000 reflect heat related deaths in Europe alone, not globally. We've mentioned seeing all kinds of

weather throughout the world that we had just haven't seen on record, whether it's from hailstorms, rainstorms, heat waves, drought, wildfires in

Greece. Is this all connected to climate change?

TAALAS: We shouldn't explain everything that we see in the climate -- whether with the climate change. But without the impact of climate change,

we wouldn't see such events. So, unfortunately, this negative trend that we have already seen will continue until total of 60s and we could phase out

the negative trend then.


But until then, we expect to see increasing amount of such events.

GOLODRYGA: The climate scientists at the World Weather Attribution network say, these heat waves bare footprints of climate change. And according to a

new study, I want to read from it, without human induced climate change these heat events would however have been extremely rare. Maximum heat like

in July 2023 would've been virtually impossible to occur in the U.S., Mexico region, and Southern Europe if humans had not warmed the planet by

burning fossil fuels.

As somebody who's been sounding the alarm as long as you have, I'm curious to hear your thoughts when you get confirmation like this as to something

that you have been warning about for years.

TAALAS: So, we knew about this all in the '80s, and now we have -- we are seeing it with our own eyes. And because we could still face out the most

dramatic things by cutting the consumption of fossil fuels, coal oil and natural gas. And we have better both economic and technical needs to do so.

But so far, we are moving towards 2.5 to three agrees, warming up to 1.5 to two degrees warming which would be the best for the welfare of mankind and


GOLODRYGA: So, you say that we have the technological means. In terms of will from the two biggest emitters, the United States and China, let's just

talk about how the Biden administration plans to tackle this climate crisis. And they say, they will reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50

percent below 2005 levels in 2030. Reach 100 carbon pollution free election by 2035. And achieve a net zero emissions economy by 2050.

2050. It is 2023 now. And the reason I'm focusing on this year, in particular, is because I just -- over the weekend, was listening to an

experts say, it is all about zero carbon emissions as to just leveling where we stand right now. That we will continue to see the climate change

and become hotter and hotter, and temperatures rise until we are at zero carbon emissions. That is a good 15 plus years from now. So, what more can

we expect in that interim period?

TAALAS: So, until 2060s, we will see year by year increase of heat waves, increase of flooding problems, increase of drought problems in some parts

of the world. And also more often, more severe tropical storms, hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons. And the economic losses will increase, and also the

impacts on human beings, and the bias -- will increase in the coming decades.

Anyhow, but we should do our utmost to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. And luckily, for example, the prices of solar and wind energy have

been dropping under the prices of fossil energy, for example.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, and we've seen solar and wind energy really step up in Texas, of all places, during this massive heat wave. About 20 to 30 percent

of their energy was now used by fossil -- by solar and wind. And their electrical grid was supported in part because of that.

That same expert that I was listening to over the weekend said this quote, and I wonder if it's something you agree with. He said, "It looks likely

that 2023 will go down as the hottest on record. You could also say that 2023 will be one of the cooler years of the 21st century looking forward."

Do you agree with that?

TAALAS: So, we are moving towards warmer temperatures year by year, and that's something that we cannot avoid. And we have already lost the melting

of glacier game, that may continue even for the coming thousands of years. Thousands of years, which means also increase of the sea level rise. So,

that problem we have already lost, but we could still face out this negative trend in weather deterrence.

GOLODRYGA: What should be some of the top priorities of the world's biggest economies going into the COP28 Summit in the UAE in November?

TAALAS: So, we should speed up our climate mitigation before -- and especially we expect the big Asian economies to have more ambitious goals

to keep us, even on these 1.5 degrees track. We are not, at the moment, at all. And also, we should also invest some money to climate adaptation

because of this continued negative frame for the coming decades.


GOLODRYGA: You said in a recent interview that the planet has, "Lost its glacier mental game and sea level rise game." Why is this so important?

TAALAS: So, we have -- we are already having such high concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that we cannot reverse this melting of

glaciers thing. Most of the melting glaciers will be gone by the end of the century. And then we have the big messes in Greenland and Antarctica. And

we expect to see at least half meter to one meter per century sea level rise because of that. And even 10 meters sea level rise by 2300 is our

worst-case scenario. So, that may even happen if everything totally fades.

GOLODRYGA: In the final minute we have with you, I'm just wondering in this new climate regime that we're entering and living in right now and

experiencing, is there one country that is playing out to be the model to who is getting right and who we should emulate moving forward?

TAALAS: At least the European Union countries have been able to reduce their emissions the most globally. And U.K., Denmark, and Finland have been

the three countries which have reduced their emissions most, and the whole planet should follow this kind of examples. And luckily, we have better

means to do so.

GOLODRYGA: Well, these are important countries and models to follow, as literally the world appears to be on fire, and new records are being set on

a daily basis. Petteri Taalas, thank you so much for everything that you're doing to handle and tackle this critical issue for us. We appreciate your


TAALAS: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, as we've been discussing, often the worst effects of climate change are experienced by those who contribute to it the least. And

no one feels this more deeply than the Haenyeo women of Jeju Island off South Korea. This community of women has been diving for generations. And

they've witnessed firsthand how the climate crisis is destroying the very sea and ecosystem they depend on. It's putting everything they know and

love at great risk.

As Hari Sreenivasan discovered when he went to speak with these women on Jeju, here's their remarkable conversation.


HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, now, for people who don't know what Haenyeo is or what Haenyeo does, can you explain?

KIM EUNA, WOLJEONG-RI HAENYEO ASSOCIATION, JEJU ISLAND (through translator): A Haenyeo is a woman who dives into the ocean without using

any diving equipment, relying solely on her body to breathe. She does this to gather sea life from the bottom of the ocean in order to sell them in

the market to make a living. It's an occupation.

SREENIVASAN: So many women in your family were Haenyeo. What does it mean to you? What does it mean to your family?

JEONG SUN-NYO, GANGJEONG MISSION CENTER, JEJU ISLAND (through translator): It means saving your family. It means giving up your life and your last

breath for your family. When you walk around the Jeju villages, you hear the sounds of Sumbi-sori - breathing sounds. They're the sounds of Haenyeos

coming up for air after diving and gathering sea life. The breathing sounds are strong and carrying, so the Haenyeos diving together can recognize each

other's breathing sounds. If the breath sound doesn't come out, there's been an accident. If you swallow the water, you will die. All the Haenyeos

immediately recognize the troubled sounds and go together as one to rescue the diver.

So, being a Haenyeo is a profession where you give your life to save your family. You take in a deep breath and then expel the air before you dive

in. This exhale is called Jus-Sseung - The World Beyond. After holding your breath while gathering the seafood, you come up for air, this first breath

signifies being alive, it's called Yi-Sseung - heaven. Navigating these two worlds of heal and heaven is the job of a Haenyeo.

SREENIVASAN: They don't dive every day. They don't dive in the same location all the time. There seems to be a method and a sustainability

built into the Haenyeo culture.

KIM (through translator): The first thing I learned from Haenyeo grandmother and my Haenyeo mom is that you can't get greedy in the sea.


It means to not put yourself in danger by holding your breath for longer than you have to in order to gram more sea life to sell. It also means to

not take too much from nature, for sustainability's sake, in order to fulfill your greed. Haenyeos, we don't dive with oxygen tanks, we only rely

on our bodies' oxygen capacity, so we limit ourselves to how much our body can carry. Haenyeos don't dive every day.

There's a promise that we make, depending on the tides, if the waves are too strong, and depending on the weather, there's a promise amongst each

other that we'll take a look at all these factors and debate together on whether to go diving or not. We also don't let each other go into the ocean

at any time we want. A big part of this collaborative culture is to protect the environment.

SREENIVASAN: Yesterday, I heard from an 87-year-old Haenyeo, Sum Chun (ph), she rode up on her scooter. And one of the things she said was that she has

been diving since she was 15 years old. And what she saw in the sea is not there anymore.

HYUM BOK-RYE, WOLJEONG-RI HAENYEO ASSOCIATION, JEJU ISLAND (through translator): From my grandmother, she was a Haenyeo, and my mother was a

Haenyeo. And I'm a Haenyeo. We are three generations of Haenyeos.

Yes, I still go out to the sea to dive. But I'm thinking of retiring this year. In the past, there was plenty of abalone, cockles, and seaweed even

near the shore. Now, there isn't much sea life and seaweed anymore, so Haenyeos don't go into the ocean. There is nothing left for us to gather.

It's different from even two to three years ago. In my 50s, the environment was very different, there were so many clams and conch. Sea life was very

abundant. But now there's nothing, nothing.

The sea is dying. There's nothing for the Haenyeos. The Jeju Sea is dying. My grandmother was able to provide for her family as a Haenyeo, because of

the abundance of sea life that she was able to see in the markets. You ask, will it get better? It has to get better, or the Haenyeos will die off. It

has to get better soon, but I don't have much hope.

KIM (through translator): The ocean is no longer abundant. The water is getting dirtier and starting to rot. The Haenyeos are saying the sea is

dying. Haenyeos feel that something dangerous is looming and they don't see the future. And Haenyeos fell that if the sea dies, their life will also

die. They anticipate this every day. The ocean surrounding Woljeong village and all of the Jeju Island was very abundant. Now it smells putrid, it's

full of trash. And with the increase of tourism and the development of tall buildings and sewage treatment plants, we are witnessing the devastation of

the ocean and feel the quick rate of change on a daily basis.

SREENIVASAN: Right now, you spend time inside and outside a shipping container on a road. You're protesting, setting up a barricade. What is

that for?

KIM (through translator): A sewage treatment plant has been operating in our village for the last 30 years. As I mentioned, because of the

development of Jeju Island for tourism, the infrastructure has expanded, including larger water treatment systems in the village. They're aiming for

a second expansion certification for the construction rights of additional sewage systems.


The Haenyeos have been opposing this. These water treatment plants are actually sewage plants. This waster is being pumped into the sea, the place

where Haenyeos dive for seafood and for their livelihood. This is how they were able to see and experience the changes for themselves, changes to the

sea life, and the damage it was causing to the Woljeong Village and Jeju Island Sea. The Haenyeos couldn't sit back and watch the changing and

deteriorating environment. They're now investing their time and efforts in protesting these developments that do irreparable damage.

I realized that if we don't save the sea, it will be destroyed forever. That's why I joined this fight. While I can't earn a living because I'm

spending my time protesting every day, I can always recoup my earnings or find another job later. But if we let the sea die like this, you can't

revive the nature, once it's damaged, the sea is gone forever. It's this belief that keeps me in the fight and why I started protesting with the


SREENIVASAN: You can protest rapid development. You can protest a navy base. You can attempt to make change with what's happening here on the

ground. How do you change what's happening to the sea because of climate change, forces that were all contributing to?

JEONG (through translator): Before COVID, you couldn't breathe because of the pollution, the sky was covered in fumes from the airplanes, to the

point that you couldn't see the sky. As soon as COVID started, the airplanes stopped flying, tourism stopped. We could breathe again, the sky

cleared up, we could see the stars and we felt like we were human again. If people can course correct a little, we can create a world where we can live

and let nature live as well. I felt this way up to last year.

But stating this year, as COVID ended, we're back to where we were before, we see the same problems in the ocean returning. Before the military base

was constructed, you could see abundant sea life in the water, even 10 years ago. When I was younger, we could predict what sea life products we

would collect by the basket during the four seasons each year. We knew what type of sea life we could collect in the winter and in the spring. We

always brought up a basket full of sea life. Now there's nothing, absolutely nothing. Eerily nothing.

If by chance, we do catch a little something in the sea and eat it, we immediately get sick. There's no plant life or sea life in the ocean, and

the whole Jeju Sea is decaying. We wish for less people to visit, to stop the very cheap flights to Jeju, but rather offer more expensive flights,

that match and reflect the value we place in nurturing the natural resources of Jeju Island.

SREENIVASAN: The number of Haenyeo is decreasing every year. The older generation are passing on, the younger generation are not doing this. So,

my question is, what does it mean? We're sitting in a museum to preserve this culture, to help people understand this. But what does it mean to this

island and maybe to the world, if this is gone?

JEONG (through translator): If we don't change the way we're living, I believe that we don't have any hope. I don't see any hope. This is

difficult to explain. But our lives were cyclical in that sea life was ingested into our bodies, expulsions form our bodies went back into the

Earth to take root and grow things that we would once again ingest.


But one day this cycle was broken. We would have to restart this cycle, our old way of life from the core, and I believe this is the only hope we have.

SREENIVASAN: One of the things the -- Sum Chun (ph) said yesterday was that if the sea dies, we all dies.

HYUM (through translator): For people who have not grown up in the sea, they don' know the ocean. For those who have lived by the sea as children,

they become Haenyeos and they love the sea and it brings them great joy. But for those who haven't lived by the ocean as children, they don't pay

attention to the sea. But for us, we've loved the ocean since we were little and made it our home and profession to support our lives so it's an

endearing place for us. But for those who don't know the sea, they don't have any love for it.


HYUM (through translator): And that's why Haenyeos have been protesting the sewage treatment plants that have been damaging the sea. If we keep killing

the sea, the Haenyeos also cannot live.

KIM (through translator): Haenyeos have devoted their bodies and their livelihoods to the sea. When the sea that they've relied on dies, we take

it to mean that there's no future for us.

HYUM (through translator): We are Jeju's poor Haenyeos. A hard and bitter life is our world. On hot days, cold days, rainy days, this body is diving

through the waves.

SREENIVASAN: The Haenyeo Sum Chun (ph) yesterday, she sang a song that was written in a prison during imperialist Japanese times. Why is it still

relevant today to the plight of Haenyeo, to the plight of this islands, and the struggles?

KIM (through translator): It was a song that a Haenyeo wrote when she was imprisoned during the Japanese occupation. The lyrics are imbued with her

feelings of Han - irreparable sorrow. The lyrics and sentiments still connect to today's Haenyeos in our current protests and fights.

SREENIVASAN: Euna, Sun-nyo, kamsahamnida for joining us.

JEONG: Kamsahamnida.

KIM: Kamsahamnida


GOLODRYGA: What fascinating women. I am so glad that Hari was able to speak with them.

Well finally, more fascinating women. Female athletes are smashing records in creating history. American swimmer, Katie Ledecky, has overtaken Michael

Phelps for the most individual world titles. Get this, she won her 16th gold medal at the World Aquatic Championships in Japan on Saturday during

her 800-meter freestyle race.

Meanwhile, down under, the Moroccans made history. Defender, Nouhaila Benzina became the first FIFA player to wear a hijab at the FIFA World Cup.

Morocco stunned South Korea in a one-nil victory for the country 's first ever win at the tournament. Remember, Team USA playing tomorrow.

Well, that's it for us at this hour. But before we leave you, we have this news to bring you. Paul Reubens, the actor best known for his portrayal of

the character Pee-Wee Herman has died after a private battle with cancer. This, according to a post, on his verified Instagram page. It reads in

part, "Last night we said farewell to Paul Reubens. An iconic American actor, comedian, writer, and producer. His beloved character, Pee-Wee

Herman, delighted generations of children and adults with his positivity, whimsy, and belief in the importance of kindness."

Reuben's last statement to share with the public after his death. He wrote, I have loved you all very much. He was 70 years old.


Well, that is it for us today. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can

always catch us online, on our webcast, and allover social media. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.