Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

U.N. Security Council To Vote On Gaza Ceasefire Resolution; Russia Rains Down A Barrage Of Missiles Towards Ukrainian Capital; Hunter Biden Faces Nine Tax-Related Charges; UPenn President Faces Backlash Over Anti Semitism Rallies; Majority Of Americans Concerned Over Climate Change; Anderson Cooper Speaks About Grief And Loss Of A Loved One. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired December 08, 2023 - 12:00   ET




ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you so much for being with us. So good to be with you on this Friday afternoon. Coming to you live from New York, I'm

Zayn Asher.

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. You are watching ONE WORLD.

Gaza's health system is collapsing while needs are escalating. Those words from U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres as he invokes a rarely used

diplomatic tool to call for an urgent humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. This as Israel ramps up its strikes on the Palestinian enclave in its fight

against Hamas.


ASHER: The IDF says it struck about 450 targets over the past day or so, the most in one day since the end of the truce a week ago. The military

adds its troop killed numerous terrorists in a two-hour series of precision strikes. And with fierce fighting happening right now in both the north and

the south, residents are saying that, look, it is really impossible to find any safety anywhere.

This, we are looking at right here, is a scene in Khan Younis, that is Gaza's second largest city. The U.N. says society there is on the verge of

a complete and total collapse. The Hamas-controlled health ministry reports that the death toll, which has been steadily rising, now tops 17,000.

GOLODRYGA: And disturbing images, meanwhile, have been posted to social media showing a mass detention of men in Gaza by the Israeli military. Some

of the images of the men kneeling blindfolded and stripped to their underwear. The images have been geo-located by CNN to Beit Lahia, a north

of Gaza City. The exact dates and circumstances of what happened are not clear.

CNN's Jeremy Diamond has the latest on this from Tel Aviv. So Jeremy, how exactly is the IDF characterizing these images, and how are Palestinians

responding to them?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, two completely different responses, obviously. The Israeli military says that the men that you see

in these images are either Hamas members or suspected Hamas members. That's according to Jonathan Conricus, a spokesman for the Israeli military. He

also says that they have been disrobed in order to make sure that they do not have an explosive vest on them.

The response from Hamas and Palestinians has been very different, of course. A member of Hamas' Political office Izzat al-Risq says that this is

quote, "kidnapping, invasive searches, and disrobing." And he says that these are a quote, "group of displaced Palestinians calling this a

reprehensible crime."

What is clear though, is that the images speak for themselves in terms of what you can see here, which is dozens of Palestinian men, blindfolded,

stripped of their clothes, sitting in the streets or sitting in the backs of military vehicles. And in what, the Israeli military conducted here is

clearly a mass detention.

Some of these men may very well be Hamas fighters, but what we do know is that some of them certainly are not. And that's because relatives of some

of these individuals, as well as the employers of some of these individuals, have already spoken out and identified some of these men.

One of the men already has been identified as a correspondent for "Al-Arabi Al-Jadid," a Palestinian news outlet. There is also another man whose

relative said is not involved with fighting, not involved with Hamas, who simply exited his home after there was a mass call by the Israeli military

in the streets for all fighting-age men to come out of their homes. And when he did so, he was eventually detained.

Now, the Israeli military says that it investigates and checks who has ties to Hamas and who does not. But for now, at least, it appears that at least

some of these men are not Hamas fighters and were detained. Some of them, of course, very well could be.

ASHER: But as you point out, very different characterizations from both sides. Jeremy Diamond, live for us there. Thank you so much.

GOLODRYGA: The U.N. Security Council is set to vote in the next few hours on a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. But it is not expected to


ASHER: Right. The U.S. has threatened to veto this measure, saying that it is simply not useful. That is what the U.S. is saying. Other Western allies

also oppose it as well. The Security Council is actually taking this up after a rare move by U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres to invoke

Article 99 of the U.N. Charter, which is reserved for threats to international peace and security.


GOLODRYGA: Yeah. The head of the U.N. aid agency is painting a bleak picture of its operation in Gaza. The commissioner general says that the

constant bombardment in sufficient humanitarian supplies and overcrowded facilities are severely limiting its abilities. CNN's Ben Wedeman has more

on the dire situation there.


BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Isra was born the day the truce went into effect, seemingly so long ago. She lives

with her parents and brother in a makeshift shelter in Deir el-Balah.

It lacks the basics of life for the cold for the winter, says her mother, also named Isra.

This young family is part of the 1.9 million people, 85 percent of Gaza's population that has been displaced. Displaced but still in danger.

Smoke rises over Rafah where so many fled to.

Wednesday afternoon, this house in Rafah's refugee camp was bombed. Inevitably in such a crowded place, children were among the dead.

There's no safe place in Gaza, says Iyad Al-Houbi. Any place can be hit.

The Palestinian Health Ministry says more than 20 people were killed in the strike, including 17 members from the same extended family.

They told them the south was safe, they came here, the safe place, and they were all killed, says Bassam Al-Houbi.

Death now stalks every corner of this land.

In Khan Younis, the focus of Israel's current offensive, the hospital is overwhelmed with the injury. And yet more come.

The World Health Organization Gaza envoy says they're doing what they can.

RICHARD PEERPERKORN, WHO GAZA ENVOY: But the health infrastructure is on its knees. It's almost collapsing. That is what the reality is. It's almost


WEDEMAN (voice-over): Collapse, chaos, destruction, and death. Such is Gaza's lot.

Ben Wedeman, CNN, Jerusalem.


ASHER: All right, I want to turn now to Ukraine. Russia really raining down a barrage of cruise missiles towards Kyiv. City officials say the air raid

lasted about two hours or so, but all of the missiles headed toward the capital were indeed shot down. However, some homes were damaged because of

the debris that fell.

GOLODRYGA: Elsewhere officials say missile attacks killed two people. One here in the Kharkiv region where shelling damaged seven apartment

buildings. Another person was killed when missiles struck the eastern city of Pavlova. The attacks come as the outlook for more U.S. aid hangs in the


ASHER: Exactly right. Nick Paton Walsh joins us live now from eastern Ukraine. So Nick, President Biden would certainly point to what happened

here and say, look, this is another example of why Ukraine desperately needs the U.S. to pass that aid package for Ukraine. What happens if

Ukraine does not get the money it so crucially needs at this point in time?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, we don't have a precise timetable for when this U.S. aid drip that's been so

vital to the Ukrainian war effort actually comes to an end. There's not been total transparency on the numbers, but the latest package the U.S.

announced a couple of days ago, which they called one of the last, only offered $175 million.

A lot for most ordinary people, but a paltry sum compared to the billions we often saw every other week being announced to keep the Ukrainian war

effort going, to train troops, to pay salaries, to pay for the weapons that Ukraine has urgently needed to repel a Russian invasion. What we saw

overnight, though, was raising fears here, really, that the bitter wit of, frankly, you can see just in my shot here, may also herald with it another

Russian campaign against Ukraine's infrastructure.

Remember, at the beginning of last winter and throughout, they aimed at energy infrastructure, the things that make basic daily life here possible

in Ukraine and after a 79-day pause in which cruise missiles hadn't been used by Russia to attack Ukraine. Remember, they aimed more Iranian-built

drones and other missiles against Ukrainian targets.

That the resumption of the use of these cruise missiles meant that perhaps Russia's boast that it could make an infinite number of them may, in fact,

cause greater problems for Ukraine during this winter. Ukraine said they managed to intercept 15 of the 19 that were fired, capital spread,

Dnipropetrovsk certainly not, one dead, therefore injured, and also a separate missile attack using S-300 missiles hit the eastern city of

Kharkiv causing significant damage as you said.


But these kind of cruise missiles, something the White House has pointed to as being one of the more likely things to get greater traction because air

defenses often funded, supplied by the United States, will be amongst the first things to be impacted if U.S. funding is indeed impacted in the next

weeks or so if this stalemate in Congress continues.

ASHER: Nick Paton Walsh, live for us there. Thank you so much.

GOLODRYGA: U.S. President Joe Biden's son faces nine new tax-related criminal charges. On Thursday, a federal grand jury indicted Hunter Biden

in connection with a long-running Justice Department investigation. Prosecutors allege that Hunter cheated on his taxes by millions of dollars

to fund an extravagant lifestyle.

ASHER: Yeah, and the Justice Department is saying the president's son could actually face a maximum of 17 years in prison if indeed he does end up

convicted. Hunter's attorney issued a statement essentially saying the charges come to two years, come two years rather after Hunter paid back his

taxes in full.

GOLODRYGA: So for more on this, let's turn to CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reed. So Paula, as noted, these are very serious

charges and it comes just months after what was seen as a deal between prosecutors and Hunter Biden's attorneys fell apart. Walk us through what

happens now.

PAULA REED, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, that's exactly right. All of this was expected to be resolved with a plea deal over the

summer, where Hunter Biden would have pleaded to two misdemeanors to resolve this investigation.

But after that plea deal fell apart, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney David Weiss, who has been investigating Hunter Biden's finances and other

matters going back as far as 2018, he was appointed a special counsel. And since then, he has brought two criminal cases against the president's son.

Now, just last night, these charges include, as you said, these are nine tax offenses, three felonies, and six misdemeanors, quite a contrast to

that plea deal with just two misdemeanors. And he'd previously filed gun charges, three charges in Delaware against Hunter Biden.

Now, according to the special counsel's team, Hunter Biden engaged in a four-year scheme not to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. And this

indictment, it's quite voluminous. I was actually quite surprised last night, having followed this case pretty quickly, pretty closely rather,

they include a lot of embarrassing details about what else he spent his money on instead of paying his taxes. Prosecutors say, quote, "He used it

to pay for drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing and other items of a personal nature, in

short, anything but his taxes."

Now, we'll note that eventually, Hunter Biden did repay these taxes, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees and penalties. And in a

statement, one of his attorneys, Abby Lowell, said that Hunter Biden's last name was anything other than Biden, that he would not be facing these

criminal cases in Delaware and now California. They insist that the special counsel has sort of folded to political pressure from Republicans.

Now, he faces the possibility, a maximum sentence of 17 years, if he is convicted. But his lawyers have said that they're pretty confident that

they can beat these charges both in Delaware and in California in court. And of course, most people don't get the maximum sentence, but certainly a

very grave situation for the president's son.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, and of course, noting that this does not involve the president himself, but clearly the last thing the administration wants to

have in the way as they're going into an election and a reelection year. Paula Reed, thank you.

ASHER: All right, still to come here on ONE WORLD, Calls to resign donors, pulling out why three powerful figures in U.S. education are under a lot of

pressure right now, when we come back.

GOLODRYGA: Then it can be overwhelming, all consuming and at times even crippling. So why isn't grief something we talk about? U.S. President Biden

speaks to Anderson Cooper about his deeply personal journey.




ASHER: So University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill is facing a lot of calls to resign right now after that very controversial testimony she

gave to Capitol Hill this week to Congress.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, McGill, along with the presidents of Harvard and MIT, was questioned by lawmakers about anti-Semitic rallies held on campus. Her

response to the questions has drawn outrage.


REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): Specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?

LIZ MAGILL, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESIDENT: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment. So the answer is yes. It is a

context-dependent decision, Congresswoman.

STEFANIK: It's a context-dependent decision. That's your testimony today. Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context. That is not

bullying or harassment. This is the easiest question to answer. Yes, Ms. Magill. So is your testimony that you will not answer yes?

MAGILL: If it is, if the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment. Yes.

STEFANIK: Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide? The speech is not harassment?


GOLODRYGA: Meanwhile, alumni and donors at Penn say Magill must go. One wealthy donor said he is withdrawing $100 million in gifts to the school.

ASHER: Yeah, the UPenn board of directors held an emergency meeting Thursday amid speculation that they're going to ask her to step down sooner

or later. No word yet what exactly they decided. But of course, there has been outrage as well at both Harvard and MIT, although the MIT board says

that it is sticking by its president, at least for now.

GOLODRYGA: So let's discuss this more with Kenneth Stern, director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate. He is also the author of the book, "The

Conflict Over the Conflict, the Israel-Palestine Campus Debate." Thank you so much for joining us. So clearly, lawyers and faculty and staff of the

presidents knew that they had to come out and do serious damage control in the hours following, you know, what I would describe as a train wreck of a


I'm curious to get your response, because they issued additional clarifying responses. So my first question to you is how much of what we saw Tuesday

was just due to bad performance prep or does that speak to an underlying policy at private universities that needs to be at least addressed if not


KENNETH STERN, DIRECTOR, BARD CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF HATE: Well, both, in the sense that the responses of the presidents was a little tone deaf in

terms of how they were coming across and not showing sufficient understanding of what the pain of Jewish students when they hear those

things. But on the other hand, legally, they were absolutely right. This is a fundamental difference between somebody saying something really awful on

a campus and doing it in a way that's a true threat, harassment. The legal standards are very clear.

The reality is very clear. And when you try to push things into, you know, what words should not be said on a campus, what you're doing is A, blinding

everybody towards the things it can actually do to push back against hateful speech, including using the assets of the campus, the curriculum,

programs, speakers, and so forth.


And you're also trying to create a simple answer to a complicated question. And once you open that Pandora's box of which pure expressions ought to be

suppressed, there's no end to it. And we see in the United States too, other efforts similarly saying that things should not be taught about race,

things should not be taught about gender.

I may disagree with some of the things that are being taught, but once you start trying to create this wall in a university where certain ideas are

just not ones to study and look at and say why people are so disturbed by that, that's a problem. Keeping students safe, keeping them if they're not

harassed, if they're not intimidated is critically important, but having them hear things that disturb them as part of the educational process, and

then what do we do with it when we're on a campus?

GOLODRYGA: So do you think that these presidents should indeed keep their jobs then?

STERN: Yeah, I think that they were technically right on the question. And there are a whole bunch of things about what happens with a college

president up to boards. But if I were on a college board, I would say let's focus less on what our sound bites were in front of Congress and more of

what we're going to do, more about what we're going to teach.

Are we going to teach more classes about anti-Semitism? Are we going to teach about how at Bard we're doing a class in the spring about all these

different words, anti-Semitism, colonialism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, what do they mean? Let's take deep dives instead of just using them as

rhetorical weapons.

You know, for donors, I can understand why they want to, you know, pull their money and go elsewhere if they're upset, but if they're really

concerned about education, shouldn't they be saying, okay, what are the programs we're going to be doing not to promote communal advocacy but to

really help students understand this moment and why somebody who's a friendly student in your art class or your physics class has these

diametrically opposed views? And how do we understand how hatred works and why students may be feeling hatred towards others?

And there are a whole bunch of issues that get totally lost when we're looking at it. Let's have a simple rule, and say what can be said and what


GOLODRYGA: I think where some of the concern and outrage comes is you're right, you keep saying that these presidents were technically correct or

legally correct, but you hear now from others hypothetically that let's say you insert another minority or marginalized group into that description

instead of it being Jews, you know, a genocide against Jews, it would be another minority that there would be more outrage that university faculty

from presidents on down, including just the nation as a whole, would find that unacceptable. What is your response to that?

STERN: I agree that there's probably more likelihood if somebody was going to say, let's kill all transgender people, or let's kill all black people.

Although, you know, the statements in question and the testimony were about Intifada and From the River to the Sea, and those are not, you know,

exactly the same as calling it a genocide (inaudible).

GOLODRYGA: But you know how the River to the Sea is interpreted.

STERN: I know how it's interpreted, but some people may not be using it in a way that is intended that way. And when you say that somebody is going to

be protected from hearing things that they see as hateful, you're denying the ability on campus to really look at these issues of why we have

different points of view.

The other thing on this too is that if you, I'm old enough to remember that when David Duke, the clan leader back in the 60s with LSU, he was in a

space that was talking about exterminating people and supporting Nazis and so forth. It was awful, he got condemned, but we didn't turn into a free

speech fight. So, you know, the problem here is that I think there's a lot of saying, okay, let's stop all types of speech we don't like on campus.

And I think the reality should be that we should make it so that all types of speech that are just opinions, not true threats, including about other

groups, should be detected, but then we should push back against them. There are a lot of different ways, including doing, you know, sort of

project lemonade types of things.

If somebody says something, you're gonna donate to something that they detest. You're gonna use the educational resources and the faculty, bring

in speakers and so forth to mind this on all of this. But I don't think, you know, going down that road that DeSantis was trying to do in Florida

about critical race theory you know, and gender issues is the way to fight anti-Semitism.

I've been involved in fighting anti-Semitism for decades. I could tell you when you make this into a free speech fight, you're gonna lose. You ought

to make it a fight about hatred, how human beings get into these buckets, how we understand how anti-Semitism works politically, and use it as a way

to expand knowledge, not to suppress speech we don't like.


ASHER: So you're saying it's essentially a teachable moment for a lot of people, and maybe that there are lessons that can be learned here. The fact

is, Liz Magill is an extremely accomplished woman. She was provost of UVA, she was dean of Stanford Law. I mean, her resume is stellar.

And yet, really, after this moment, the only thing that anyone is ever going to remember about her is her failure to protect Jewish students from

violent, anti-Semitic rhetoric. What do you think the presidents of other universities, who were obviously watching that testimony this week, what,

do you think, they should be learning from all of this?

STERN: Well, you know, the rhetoric was awful, but there's a difference between that and violence. And you know, I think the other president should

be learning that when you speak about these issues, you have to acknowledge that your students are hurting, that they're hearing hateful things. And by

the way, when I talked to Palestinian professors, they were also having students come and crying in their office. They've seen trucks go on

Columbia and Harvard that were doxing them, saying they should never be employed.

You know, so it's not only just happening in one direction, but I think the president should acknowledge the hurt. They should acknowledge the hate.

But they should also underscore what a university is supposed to do and how they're going to protect their students not from hearing hateful things,

but understanding it and getting the tools to speak back against it better using the tools of the faculty.

But if you go down the road of speech codes, which is what, you know, was the implication or using law to define what could be said and what can't be

said on campus. We're going to destroy the whole academic enterprise. Of course, it's based on the idea of looking at difficult issues and why

people have different views.

And when you say that some can't even get past the gate, you're making, you know, at a rah-rah place as opposed to how do we understand the world

better for the next generation.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, I think a lot of people took issue with just their demeanor overall, described as smug, sticking to talking points, and not

coming across as ultimately those in charge of making sure their students feel safe, both, you know, emotionally and physically on campus. Kenneth

Stern, Director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, thank you so much. We appreciate this conversation. I appreciate it.

ASHER: Thanks, Kenneth.

All right, still to come here on ONE WORLD. Demanding Action, a new poll shows a large majority of Americans think that their government should be

doing a lot more about the climate crisis, what they want and when they want it just ahead.




ASHER: Welcome back to ONE WORLD, I'm Zayn Asher.

GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. Global warming -- about the global warnings, about global warming and the climate crisis are getting more

frequent and more urgent and increasingly dire. But the good thing is Americans appear to be paying more attention to it and want to do something

about it.

ASHER: That's right. A new CNN poll reveals that a large number of people, in fact the majority of people living in the U.S. are really concerned,

they're really worried about the threat of climate change in their communities and they want their government to take action. And that

actually includes 50 percent of Republicans who are polled to agree with President Biden's goals to slash America's greenhouse gas emissions in half

by 2030.

CNN's Bill Weir joins us live from New York. Array of sunshine here, Bill. Are you encouraged that according to this poll, Americans do seem to be

taking more ownership and paying more attention to climate change?

BILL WEIR, CNN CHIEF CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT: Well, yeah, Bianna, you know, this topic has been so politicized for the last generation or two right

now. But we just went through a year that is the hottest ever recorded. There were 25 separate billion dollar disasters that took almost 500 lives.

So it's becoming harder and harder to ignore what's going on. It's in the conversation more and more. So when we ask how worried you are about

extreme weather in your community, the pollsters found. About 50 percent are either very or somewhat worried. Only 13 percent don't think there's a

problem at all right now.

ASHER: And just in terms of what the government should be doing, most people, most Americans actually say the government is not doing enough,

that they could be doing so much more. What should Congress be doing, though?

WEIR: Well, there's a lot of subsidies still going to these multi-billion dollar oil and gas companies. And we're on track right now. If you look at

oil production. The biggest petro state in the world by far is the United States.

And if you look at the projections, the United States, it will be pumping more gas in 2030 and oil than they are right now. So this is an interesting

tug of war on Joe Biden's approval ratings. That's something that you won't hear former President Trump point out. This thing here, as he says, if he

gets back in power, he's going to drill, baby, drill. That's what's been going on right now.

But if you look at how much responsibility the U.S. has to reduce it, 52 percent say a great deal. 26 percent say just some, not enough. And this is

how much the U.S. is doing right now, too little. Almost 6 in 10 are saying they're the right amount, 26 percent and a tiny majority say that they're

doing too much.

If you ask, should the U.S. work to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 which is the pledge by the Biden administration. That's the stunning

one. 73 percent of Americans, including 50 percent of Republicans.

GOLODRYGA: Yeah, that really shocked me too, Bill. 50 percent of Republicans, you just mentioned they're likely a candidate for the

Republican nomination. Donald Trump going saying, drill, baby, drill. I'll be a dictator for one day, and that's the first thing I'll do. That does

appear to be sort of out of step where now at least half of Republicans, according to this survey, say that more needs to be done.

WEIR: You know, it's so interesting. You know what the number one green energy state in the union is these days? Not California. It's Texas. There

is more wind and solar power in the red state of Texas, despite fierce ideological and sort of political resistance against that, because the

economics are just now impossible to fight against. The price of these energy sources have fallen off a cliff in the last decade. So if you're

building a new power plant anywhere in the world, it just makes sense to use wind and sun these days.


But it is an upholster to see 50 percent of Republicans agree with decarbonization is really something. And it breaks down by party there. The

independence number is there too. So when you look at the election, Democrats seem to have the abortion on their side. But this climate, folks,

are agreeing with this by 13, 14 points, regardless of party.

ASHER: Who would have thought Texas, the number one state?

GOLODRYGA: My home state.

ASHER: Oh, yes. Sculls from Texas.

GOLODRYGA: But Bill's right to point out, because that's where the money is. That this is a big economic decision, and that, for no other reason, is

something to be optimistic about. This is less ideological now for a lot of people, and more economic.

ASHER: Just common sense at this point. All right, Bill Weir, live for us there, thank you so much.

All right, as COP28 winds down, India and China have made it known that burning more coal is actually a key part of their plans to meet future

energy demands, refusing to sign a pledge to increase power generation from renewable sources. CNN's Vedika Sud has more.


VEDIKA SUD, CNN REPORTER (voice-over): The world's two most populous nations are deepening their reliance on fossil fuels. Governments in India

and in China, home to almost 3 billion people combined, want to satisfy a growing need for energy by burning more coal.

Both are pledging greater coal-fired power capacity and putting their net- zero ambitions in doubt.

There will be no compromise on power needed for growth, India's Minister for Power, R.P. Singh said last month, even if it means addition of coal-

based capacity.

In November, the United Nations production gap report revealed that if all the coal projects currently planned around the world materialize, we will

burn 460 percent more coal in 2030 than water be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

KATE LOGAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CLIMATE, ASIA SOCIETY POLICY INSTITUTE: This energy security issue has really spooked a lot of the local

governments in China and prompted China basically to renege on that commitment to limit new coal power bills.

SUD (voice-over): China says it will be carbon neutral by 2060, India by 2070. But according to a report by the Global Energy Monitor, China had 136

gigawatts of coal power in construction and over 255 gigawatts in earlier stages of development, while India had over 65 gigawatts in the pipeline.

HARJEET SINGH, HEAD OF GLOBAL POLICY STRATEGY, CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK: We need to understand Indian context in a much more nuanced manner than just

looking at it as a large emitter. We should also look at its energy needs, its poverty levels, its energy poverty.

SUD (voice-over): As both countries continue to develop and drag people out of poverty, the baseline power that coal provides remains attractive. But

it's not all bad news.

LOGAN: In the near term, there are signals that China's actually very close to peaking its emissions, in part because China is also the world leader in

adding new renewable power.

SUD (voice-over): China possesses more solar power capacity than all other countries combined and could hit peak emissions before the end of the

decade. While India could soon be producing 500 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2030, far more power than it currently produces.

SINGH: More than 80 percent of green finance in India is domestic, which means that international partners have not played their role. They've only

put pressure on India. So India is largely on its own.

SUD (voice-over): For both countries, coal capacity is the backup plan. The danger is that if a coal power plant is built, there will always be

pressure to use it.

Vedika Sud, CNN, New Delhi.


GOLODRYGA: Such an important angle there. And I'll be back at the top of the hour to talk climate crisis with the UAE's Minister of Climate Change

and the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.

ASHER: ONE WORLD continues next.




ASHER: All right, technology is transforming many aspects of day-to-day life in Africa. We head to Rwanda now, where agriculture technology is

making farming practices much more efficient.


ASHER (voice-over): The team at STES, Seed Technology Engineering and Science, use innovative tools like precision sensors and big data to

improve farmers' day-to-day lives.

NZITONDA KIYENGO, MANAGING DIRECTOR, STES GROUP: So in agriculture, there is many talents. We are buying fertilizer from European countries, and this

is chemical. As we have problem of climate change, this chemical, this fertilizer, sometimes it destroys our soil. Baza Farm, which is going to

help in this situation, is to monitor real data or real information in the soil so that the producer or the farmers can know what they can do with

their farm.

WILSON NDAYISABA, HEAD OF TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT, STES GROUP: We are helping farmers by using hardware and software to monitor their soil parameters and

they are given information to take informed decisions like when to put water and why and how much. The same way with the fertilizers.

ASHER (voice-over): These young engineers research new technologies and develop products to make farms more efficient, profitable and climate


KIYENGO: We have to share with others so that others can be inspired from them for future development of our country.

ASHER (voice-over): With the help of these sensors constantly monitoring soil conditions, farmers can make better informed decisions about how and

when to treat their crops.

NDAYISABA: We call the product Baza Farm. Baza is a word in Nicki Yerwada which literally means ask the farmer.

JEAN MARIE VIANNEY HABUMU, FARMER (through translator): I've been a farmer for six years and I grow maize and soya. And also beans, if needed. I first

heard about the STES group when they came to install these devices in our fields. The first thing they solved was protecting the farm. We got to know

how to spray in our farms. We used to have a lot of epidemics which then led to us having to spray about four times in a season, and that was

costly. But with the STES smart irrigation system, you can only spray once a season. Not like before when we used to spray about four times. Now it's






ASHER: At some point in our lives, each and every single one of us will experience loss. And for many, it will be profound, at times debilitating

and even life altering. Grief is a powerful, complex emotion that never fully goes away. But too often, it's faced alone. CNN's Anderson Cooper

continues his own deeply personal journey. And in the second season of his podcast, he lost and eventually finding purpose beyond pain.


ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "ALL THERE IS WITH ANDERSON COOPER" PODCAST (voice- over): A few days before I spoke with President Biden, I was going through a box of stuff in my basement that belonged to my brother Carter. He died

by suicide when he was 23.

I don't have a lot of pictures of my brother on display in my house. His death is still so painful to me that I find it hard to see his photos.

These two pictures really stunned me. They were taken shortly before Carter graduated from Princeton in 1987. He looked so young and happy. There's no

hint that 15 months after this picture was taken, he'd kill himself in front of our mom.

Looking at these photos, I don't recognize my brother. And I realized I don't think I ever really knew him. I didn't allow myself to, and I didn't

allow him to know me.

When our dad died, Carter was 12 and I was 10, and it slapped us both into silence. We never spoke about my dad with each other or with anyone. I

think my brother would be alive if we had. Why is it so hard to talk about loss and grief? We all go through it, so why do we keep it hidden away, cry

in private, speak the names of our loved ones in hushed whispers only we can hear?

That's why I wanted to talk with President Biden. He's been more public about grief than any American president in history, and this is his most

personal interview yet.

COOPER: Do you ever still feel overwhelmed by grief?

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: I do as it relates to my son, Bo. God willing, I'm gonna see him again.

COOPER (voice-over): Bo Biden died in 2015, and in 1972, President Biden's first wife, Nelia, died in a car crash with her 13-month-old daughter,


BIDEN: I found myself spending a lot of time. What could I have done? Was it my fault this all happened? What could I have done differently?

COOPER (voice-over): The interview is deeply revealing. The most powerful man in the world talking about the private pain he still feels.

BIDEN: I opened one of the boxes. It had never been opened. And there was a scrapbook. And there was a picture of the car. I took it downstairs and I

burned it. I could not, could not. I don't want to know the detail.


COOPER (voice-over): Grief doesn't go away, but we can learn to live with it and learn from it. And like President Biden, find purpose beyond the


The second episode of season two, "Our President's Grief" is available wherever you listen to podcasts.


ASHER: And Anderson joins us live now from New York. Anderson, your podcast was so powerful for me especially, just because I lost my dad when I was

five from a car accident. And I think the thing that I've learned the most about grief is that no matter how much you try to compartmentalize it, no

matter how much you try to hide it, it really does change you. It changes everything. It changes the entire trajectory of your life. It changes your


So in terms of how grief has changed you, how does the Anderson Cooper I'm speaking to right now, how does the Anderson Cooper I'm interviewing right

now, compare to the person you were meant to become had you not experienced so much loss?

COOPER: Yeah, well thank you for having me and I'm sorry for your loss. Your dad died in 1988, which was this year, same year that my brother died.

And I know you were, I think, five years old when you died.

You know, I think the person, for me, my dad died when I was 10 years old. The person I was before that is a completely different person or a very

different person than I was after that. And that death is sort of, I mark time as before, you know, when he was alive and when he was after and there

was a me before and there's a me after.

I think the compartmentalizing of grief that you spoke about, you know, is something I did. I buried my grief very strongly as a child. I just

couldn't deal with it was too overwhelming. I pushed it all down. I did the same thing when my brother died 10 years later by suicide.

And it's only now I'm 56 that I've suddenly realized I've never really grieved. And I'm now, just now kind of going through a lot of this buried

pain that I pushed away for so long. And so certainly I think the compartmentalizing is a problem and it's a solution to an immediate problem

of feeling overwhelmed by grief, particularly when you're a child, but it has ripple effects for the rest of your life.

And it's something that it doesn't go away. It doesn't stay buried forever. And at some point you have to make a turn and face it. And that's certainly

what I'm trying to do now and trying to learn from other people through this podcast who have -- haven't done that.

ASHER: I mean, it's your podcast. It's so beautiful. It is so powerful. And I really encourage everyone to go and listen to it. So yes, you lost your

dad when you were 10 years old. And the thing is, your family is your first society, right? Your family is your first society. It is your first

understanding of how love works, of how the world works, of how relationships work.

And at 10 years old, you essentially learned that you can love someone deeply and lose them quickly. That you can really, really love someone and

they can be gone just like that. How has that understanding seeped into all of your relationships as an adult?

COOPER: Yeah, well, you know, essentially my mom lost her father when she was 15 months old. And there was a writer, Mary Gordon, who wrote a book.

And one of the quotes that my mom often cited was from Mary Gordon, who said that a fatherless girl thinks all things possible and nothing is safe.

ASHER: Nothing is safe, yeah.

COOPER: Yeah, and I think that applied very much to me as well. Suddenly after my dad's death, everything felt possible. Terrible things, but also

extraordinary things, there were no kind of rules, suddenly everything was upended and nothing ever felt safe again. And I wanted to very much learn

how to live in a world where nothing felt safe.

Naturally, what I've been doing my entire career, traveling to places where societies have fallen apart, where there's war or disasters and learning

how people survive.

And part of that, it's not just been a professional, you know, journey on my part, it's a personal journey to sort of understand that and understand

how to survive.

ASHER: You know, there's a saying in the sports world that champions are born through trauma, obviously through adversity, that somehow experiencing

difficulty, pain, loss, again, adversity, can not only force us to never, ever take anything for granted, but to also somehow live up to the highest

version of ourselves in various ways.

We talk a lot about how grief can make us closed off, how it can separate us and make us much more withdrawn. But can grief ever change us for the

better over the long term?

COOPER: I mean, I think the answer to that is yes. Stephen Colbert sort of introduced me to this idea who talked about learning, discovering that you

can be grateful for your grief.


Doesn't mean you want to have experienced grief, you don't want the person to have died -- that died, but that I am the person now I am because of the

grief that I pushed down and also the grief that I've experienced and the losses I've experienced.

And it has enabled me to become more fully human. It has enabled me to be more empathetic and to understand the suffering of others and to be more

comfortable stepping into somebody else's pain. And so I think it has made me a better human being than I would have been.

Again, I wish I had not had this education and this lesson, but I do think that there's, you know, grief can be so lonely for anybody out there who's

listening to this right now who has lost a loved one or if you haven't sadly you will at some point, this is the most universal of human

experiences. And yet we so rarely talk about it.

And in that silence and in that, what some have called a privatization of grief, there is terrible loneliness. And it is this bond we share and yet

because we don't talk about it, it feels so lonely. And so that's part of what the podcast is trying to do is just encourage people to have

conversations. I mean, having a conversation with the president of the United States about the personal losses in his life, not about politics,

just about grief. I hope that encourages other people to talk about the pain they feel as well.

ASHER: And sometimes I watch some of your interviews and you could be interviewing someone who is completely different from you, but there is a

sense of depth and empathy and compassion that I have always admired. Anderson Cooper, live for us there, thank you so much.

And that does it for this hour of ONE WORLD. I'm Zain Asher, "AMANPOUR" is up next.