Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VALERIE MASSON-DELMOTTE, CO-CHAIR, WORKING GROUP I: The way we produce food and what we eat contributes to the loss of natural ecosystems and
declining bio diversity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: If we want our species to survive, we need to change how we farm and what we eat. That from a major U.N. report on our climate crisis. We
get a view from fields in Iowa and climate scientist, Michael Mann joins us.
Then escalating tension from two nuclear neighbors, India and Pakistan. Islamabad’s ambassador to the United Nations joins us.
Plus —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEENA DAVIS, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, “THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING”: My peers and I felt like say you cannot complain about any of this because they won’t hire
you, they’ll just get somebody else.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Oscar-winning actress, Geena Davis, on finding the female voice and her impassioned call for more women on screen.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.
We need a major redo over what we eat and how we produce it if we are to make necessary inroads fighting the climate crisis. That is the verdict
from the United Nations, which at a new report recommends a dramatic drop in meat consumption and a transformation of the way we manage and farm the
land.
According to reports, humans have damaged about a quarter of the world’s ice-free land already and it warms of a vicious cycle where food production
fuels global warming and, that as we know, works as extreme weather events like droughts and severe heat, which damages the land. The bottom line?
If we keep this up, our fragile grip on this planet becomes even more tenuous. The climate crisis is already hitting farmers across the world as
Correspondent Bill Weir finds in the of Iowa.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTIN JORDAN, IOWA FARMER: We had a very, very wet spring and —
BILL WEIR, CHIEF CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT: Too much rain to plant?
JORDAN: Too much to rain to plant.
WEIR: Yes.
Justin Jordan is among the millions of American farmers living on an emotional roller coaster that only seems to go down.
JORDAN: So, this corn is almost two feet shorter than it normally is.
WEIR: Thanks to a bizarre (ph) spring, he’s looking for a 30 percent drop in yield.
JORDAN: It’s kind of between helplessness and stress is what it kind of feels like.
WEIR: Yes.
JORDAN: So — but you just do what you can with what you have to work with.
WEIR: At least he has a crop. Too many farmers lost everything to epic floods and even the lucky ones are losing sleep over fear of an early frost
and trade wars and the highest farm debt in the generation. And on top of it all, comes the latest alarming report from the IPCC, which finds that
growing food from India to Iowa will only get harder as the climate gets harsher.
EUGENE TAKLE, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY DEPT. OF AGRONOMY: So, we’re going to see by mid-century, by current projections, that our
number of days above 90 degrees is going to rise from about 17 days per year above 90 degrees in Des Moines. That will be up more like 50 to 70.
WEIR: The report finds that about three-quarters of the earth’s ice-free surface has been paved, plowed or deforested. Great for economies,
horrible for nature’s cycles. And with all the diesel and fertilizer used to grow the modern meal, they say agriculture is to blame for nearly a
quarter of greenhouse gas emissions.
But here’s the good news. Right now, every corn plant in this field is pulling carbon out of the sky and putting it in the ground. And with the
right amount of innovation and financial motivation, a smart farmer can leave it there and still feed the world. Iowa could be one giant carbon
sink. And unlike miners and drillers and frackers, they don’t have to change careers in order to save life as we know it.
JORDAN: Just listen to all the birds too. Something you don’t hear when you walk out in the cornfield. I mean, there is just so much more, like I
said, not only the plant biodiversity, but the wildlife biodiversity.
WEIR: It’s life.
JORDAN: Exactly.
WEIR: It’s life.
JORDAN: Exactly.
WEIR: Justin takes advantage of a federal program that pays him to let part of his fields go wild, which brings him yields in the long-term.
Over in Nebraska, Brandon Honicka (ph) is trying cutting-edge science funded by Bill Gates that uses bacteria instead of synthetic fertilizer,
the stuff that creates ocean dead zones and red tides.
ERNIE SANDERS, VICE PRESIDENT OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, PIVOT BIO: That’s all petroleum-based kind of products, industry that we live in. And the
more we can move to a more natural bacterial based, I think that’s better for all of us.
WEIR: And even some Conservatives like Ray Gaesser are joining this green revolution, even though the Republican refuses to blame a warming planet
entirely on human habits.
So, how do you feel about big members of your party, even the president, casting doubt and skepticism into whether or not humans can even help stop
this?
RAY GAESSER, IOWA FARMER: Well, I think it’s more about not having severe regulations, you know. I think a one size fits all
regulation really does not fit agriculture anywhere.
WEIR: But like many Republican neighbors, he still embraces wind energy, cover crops and soil conservation.
GAESSER: Well, as we farm a little bit differently, as we sequester nutrients and carbon, you know, we’re doing the right thing. You know, and
that’s what it’s about, is trying to do the right thing. We all want to do that.
WEIR: Absolutely.
GAESSER: And it shouldn’t be political.
WEIR: Amen, brother. Bill Weir, Corning, Iowa.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, there are solutions to the problems we face. Now, for more on this, I’m joined by the leading climate scientist, Michael Mann, who has
previously helped write reports for the intergovernmental panel on climate change. And he’s joining us from Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the program, Michael Mann.
MICHAEL MANN, PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, PENN STATE UNIVERSITY: Thanks, Christiane. It’s good to be with you.
AMANPOUR: So, I just want to pick up a little bit from where Correspondent Bill Weir left off, because he actually showed us some very hopeful
innovation and hopeful farming methods that had already taking place. Let’s just talk about how that one farmer talked about, you know, being
able to plant his land, allowing it to become a constant carbon sink and, you know, to be able to really even feed vast amounts of people. Tell us
what good and what’s right about those sort of farming methods right now.
MANN: Sure. So, the bad news, of course, is that our farming methods, agriculture, land use, deforestation, are contributing substantially to the
climate crisis, as this report lays bare. But at the same time, the good news is that there is ample room for mitigation. There are things we can
do to lower those carbon emissions from the agricultural sector, from the, you know, livestock and food production.
Among those, as we’ve heard, is more, you know, careful methods of planting and agriculture, no till agriculture, growing a potentially different
cultivars, feeding livestock different food. Different food sources can actually lower carbon emission, methane emissions, for example, from cows
and ruminates.
So, there is a lot of room to decrease those carbon emissions, which collectively are a little less than 25 percent, that means that this isn’t
the bulk of the problem. The bulk of the problem remains the burning of our fossil fuels for energy and transportation, but this is a significant
piece of the pie. We need to focus on it and there is ample opportunity for reducing those carbon emissions in a very win-win sense, limiting
deforestation, more productive agricultural methods that will feed more people can also help us sequester carbon so it doesn’t build up so quickly
in the atmosphere.
AMANPOUR: So, then tell me, because you have contributed to other IPCC, you know, reports. Tell me what the significance is, in your view, of this
latest report. We know that the first one which came out warned that we had until 2030 to get our act together as a world to meet that, you know,
1.52-degree critical temperature rise. What is this one telling us specifically?
MANN: Yes. So, these reports, this special report, for example, on land that occurs between the major IPCC reports, like the one that was published
last year, are important because they focus on specific topics which are of vital importance. In this case, this report focuses on land. That’s where
7.5 billion and growing people live. It’s where we live. And climate change is already having adverse impacts on that land.
It is, for example, leading to a loss of coastal sort of land because of sea level rise and more devastating tropical storms that are inundating our
coastlines. Because of the warming of the planet, a large part of the tropics is starting to become unlivably hot. And we have seen rampant
wildfires in Eurasia and the U.S. that, of course, are a threat to our infrastructure.
So, we have these problems, these growing problems associated with climate change that threaten the amount of land that we have at a time when we have
a growing global population, again, of 7.5 billion and growing. And, as we’ve already alluded to, the warming is having an impact, for example, on
our ability to raise crops and livestock and feed that 7.5 billion and growing people. All of these things are intertwined. All of these
challenges are intertwined.
AMANPOUR: Can I just ask you, then, you know, again, let’s just go back to the farmer in Iowa who talked about how you don’t really even need more
retraining. Like maybe other sectors of the economy might, but here, you can make these and implement these changes without a massive overhaul.
But a lot of the overhaul that is necessary, according to the report, does require a lot of government resource and a lot of, I mean, re-education and
making an awareness raising of how you change your habits, the use of machinery, the intensivity of the farming, et cetera, and just the wilding
that the farmer was talking about. Tell us the challenges to the overhaul of the land production and use.
MANN: Yes. This gets at the heart of the problem, which is that any real solution, any comprehensive solution to the climate crisis is going to have
to involve both individual behavior and collective and systemic change.
There are many things that individuals that we can do in our everyday lives, including changing our dietary patterns, changing our diets that can
lower our own personal carbon footprint. And in many cases, that makes us healthier, it saves us money, it makes us feel better. So, this is low
hanging fruit, these are things that we oath to do.
But at the same time, we need incentives, government incentives, policies, for example, to help shift us away from our reliance on fossil fuels to
renewable energy, and that can take the form of a price on carbon or explicit subsidies for renewable energy, that’s critical because, again,
the burning of fossil fuels is more than two-thirds of the problem.
But we can also have policies that help farmers and help the agricultural industry adopt practices that are more carbon friendly, that help us draw
down that carbon from the atmosphere, which is an important part of the solution, while actually increasing agricultural productivity.
We can’t do that without governmental incentives that sort of point us in the right direction, that shifts collective behavior in the right
direction. And how do we achieve those policies? Well, we have to make sure that we elect politicians who will vote in our interests, who will act
in our interest rather than the part of polluting interests who too often fund their campaigns and have them in their hip pockets.
AMANPOUR: So, Michael Mann, I thought in that regard, the farmer at the end of Bill Weir’s report was quite poignant. Because on the one hand, you
know, he didn’t want to talk about the politics. He didn’t want to admit or recognize that humans, you know, have an involvement in the climate.
He’s talking about deregulation.
But then he says, “But look, you know, we’re doing the right thing and it’s important we do the right thing. It helps.” So, he’s kind of conflicted
between what’s the right way to farm, what’s the right way to look at his land and what are the right politics around it.
So, let’s just talk, because this report does focus mostly on land and not so much on the fossil fuels, which we’ve all heard of so much already. The
whole business of consumption. So, the farmers will say, “Well, OK. Fine. You tell us to plant more whole foods, more grains, you know, plant-based
foods, cut back on the cattle, cut back on the sheep, but what if demand doesn’t change?”
And let’s just remind people what demand is about. According to IPCC, food calories per capita has increased by a third, changes in consumption
patents contribute to 2 billion overweight adults, an estimated 821 million people are still undernourished, though. 25 to 30 percent of total food
produce is lost or wasted. So, there are a lot of changes that need to be made, not just going, you know, more into plant-based and whole foods.
MANN: No, that’s absolutely right. And again, it gets back to the heart of the matter. There are obviously things we can do in our everyday lives,
being less wasteful of food and eating food that is less harmful to the environment, that is less carbon-intensive and shifting away from meat is
an important way of doing that if it fits, you know, within the constraints of your lifestyle.
That having been said, once again, we need incentives, educational efforts, government, you know, funded and supported outreach in the form of public
service announcements and programs to inform people about the choices they make and how they can make healthier choices. And we come up once again
against some pretty entrenched interests, for example, the — you know, the fast-food industry.
Of course, there are other challenges when it comes to our efforts to sort of transition to healthier diets, less, you know, again, meat and fat
intensive diets. That’s part of the problem. But to change that, we need changes, we need shifts in human behavior, and those shifts won’t happen on
their own. They do require coordinated efforts through educational programs, by governmental and non-governmental entities.
AMANPOUR: Do you — before I — I want to play a little clip of an interview I had with director, James Cameron, and his wife, Susie, and
they’ve come up with a book called “OMD,” essentially, One Meal a Day, and it’s about being plant-based. But before I do that, I want to ask you, is
there a comparable shift in human behavior and habits that has occurred in the past with government help and public service announcements and all the
rest of it that has worked? Because that’s what everybody says. I mean, how are we going to shift human behavior in such a dramatic way?
MANN: Yes. Well, we have seen efforts of this sort succeed in the past when it comes to global environmental problems like ozone depletion and
acid rain. Ultimately, these problems arose from practices that do occur at the individual scale. In the case of ozone depletion, it was spray cans
and old, leaky refrigerators, refrigerators that used chlorofluorocarbons or freons, these chemicals that ultimately get into the stratosphere and
destroy it.
So, it was individual behavior that was putting those chemicals into the atmosphere. And yet, what we saw was that a market-oriented program to
place incentives that move industry away from using those ozone-depleting chemicals, ultimately, did lead to the solution of the problem. We’ve seen
massive recovery now of the ozone hole around Antarctica because of those systemic changes that ultimately simply provided better choices to
individuals and consumers, choices that don’t damage the planet.
AMANPOUR: I think that’s really an optimistic and important reminder, that actually these things can work and can work in a way that’s not just been
beneficial to the planet but beneficial to individuals as well and doesn’t cost them much.
Here is what though, on the plant and food and land issue that we’re talking, particularly with this report, the director, James Cameron, and
his wife told to me a while ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUZY CAMERON, AUTHOR, “OMD: CHANGE THE WORLD BY CHANGING ONE MEAL A DAY”: What you’re putting on your plate actually makes a huge difference towards
not only climate change, but your health as well.
AMANPOUR: And I guess —
JAMES CAMERON, FILM MAKER: And the health of the planet. I’m —
AMANPOUR: Yes. Go ahead.
J. CAMERON: Yes. Just the health of the planet. I mean, the quickest and easiest way for an individual to be — to feel empowered and to make a
difference and to be able to look at their face in the mirror in the morning and think I’m making a difference, I’m doing something positive not
just for myself, my own health and my family’s health, but the health of the planet is to change how we eat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You know, so, again, how does one shift populations? But you sort of indicated. Interestingly, in the report that we heard from Bill
Weir, you know, the farmers say that the harsher the climate gets, the worst it is for them and for their land and for their ability to make it
economically.
So, just wondering, we’ve had the hottest July on record here in Europe. You’ve got wildfires, a massive, massive amount in Siberia. Even President
Putin is talking about having to direct, you know, the state towards figuring out what to do. But, of course, their economy kind of depends on
fossil fuels.
And so, I guess, how long do you think we have and how — you know, the ship of state, it says, it’s so difficult to turn around. How much effort
and time is it going to take to just deal with land issue?
MANN: Yes. And it’s important to realize that while there are economies that still rely on fossil fuels, the health of the planet relies on us
getting off fossil fuels. And that is, of course, of far greater importance. We won’t have an economy to talk about if we don’t have a
livable planet.
So, you know, James Cameron makes some important points here. One of — you know, there is an agency — there are things we can do in our everyday
lives that do help solve this problem. And by the way, they put us on a path. As we engage in these actions, we become more invested in solving
this problem and more likely, to participate in collective efforts, putting pressure on policymakers, doing all those other things we can do to make
sure that there is the systemic change that we need, that moves us away from fossil fuels, that moves us away from a carbon-intensive food
system.
There are all of these things that we can do in our everyday lives, and changing your diet is one of the simplest things to do. I’ve chosen not to
eat meat for a number of reasons, and I feel good about that choice, I feel healthier for having made that choice. But I don’t want to mandate other
people’s choices.
What I want to do is to provide them with the information necessary for them to make informed choices about their own individual actions and more
importantly, to get them on the path of engagement where they participate in the broader collective action necessary for this dramatic systemic
change that we need, by the way, as you alluded to, over really just a decade. We need to bring those carbon emissions down by a factor of 50
percent and then down to near zero. 50 percent by 2030 and near zero by 2050 if we are to revert the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.
AMANPOUR: OK.
MANN: A little bit of good news there. The preliminary numbers are in for 2019. Obviously, 2019 isn’t f finished yet and there are lots of things
that can happen. But based on the preliminary numbers, we’re seeing a significant drop in more than a percent in carbon emissions this year.
AMANPOUR: Wow.
MANN: Another hint that maybe we’re starting to bend that curve downward. And we need to bend it down rapidly. But the first step is to bring those
emissions to a plateau and start that decline —
AMANPOUR: That’s great.
MANN: — towards 2030 and 2050, where we need to be.
AMANPOUR: That is very, very good news. And particularly, what you say, individuals can make a difference and we’re obviously seeing it amongst
young people who put this issue of climate and the environment at the very top of their political agenda. Michael Mann, thank you very much indeed.
Now, from one existential threat to the next, we look at the heating tensions between two major U.S. allies and nuclear armed nations, India and
Pakistan. It all kicked off Monday when the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, announced that he was removing Kashmir’s special status from
the Indian constitution, putting its autonomy in peril.
In an address to the nation today, the Indian prime minister doubled down, saying that his actions would free Kashmir of terrorism. In a nutshell,
Kashmir is a contentious piece of land split mostly between India and Pakistan and they have fought three wars over it already.
The Pakistani government is responding so far by suspending trade with its neighbor and downgrading international relations. As this tense standoff
develops, we have asked for Indian officials to join us but they have so far declined.
And I’m joined now by Pakistan’s ambassador to the United Nations, Maleeha Lodhi.
Ambassador Lodhi, thank you for joining us.
MALEEHA LODHI, PAKISTANI AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: How serious is this in the view of your government? And I don’t just mean politically for your government, but regionally, and what might
it do given the tension between your two nations.
LODHI: Christiane, let’s first get the facts straight. How was this crisis triggered? It was triggered by an illegal annexation by the Indian
government off the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which is an internationally recognized dispute. In fact, where I sit at the United Nations, it is a
dispute that has firmly on the U.N. Security Council agenda because there are series of U.N. Security Council resolutions that have called on India
to allow the people of Jammu and Kashmir to freely determine their destiny through a (INAUDIBLE).
So, the crisis is triggered by an illegal and an illegitimate action by India. And let’s just get the rest of the facts straight. The facts are
that there is a blanket curfew in occupied Jammu and Kashmir. People there are locked up, it’s called a lockdown, which has entered its 4th day. But
actually, this has been a prolonged lockdown. These people have been deprived of their liberty for 70 years or more. Now, they’re going to be
deprived of their identity because action by the Indian government. What does it actually do? What it does is to also allow the Indian government
to bring about demographic changes in Jammu and Kashmir.
And therefore, to really threaten the identity of the Kashmiri people. As far as my government is concerned and my prime minister and my country is
concerned, we reject this move, we heard what Prime Minister Modi said just a few hours ago, and it was dishonest, deceitful and disingenuous
justification of their action which has no basis in law and it certainly flouts in flagrant violation Security Council resolution.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, Ambassador, let me ask you then —
LODHI: And there is no —
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you because those are very, very, you know, tough words that you’re using. You are the U.N. ambassador. You just reminded
us all how this is enshrined in international law given the dispute that should be resolved according to the international community. So, what is
the United Nations and the Security Council going to do about this? Are they taking it up?
LODHI: Well, I have been in meetings with top U.N. officials and I have reminded them of their responsibility. Pakistan is going to go
to the Security Council. It is going to remind the Security Council and its members, indeed, all of the United Nations, of its responsibility. And
what is that responsibility? That responsibility is to ensure.
And let me cite, Christiane, for your viewers, an important resolution. It’s called Resolution 38 of the Security Council. And the paragraph 2 of
that resolution says, “A country does not have the right to materially change the situation in Jammu and Kashmir,” and that’s precisely what the
Indian government has done.
So, my country wants a peaceful settlement of this issue, we’ve always called for the negotiated settlement, which is in accordance with Security
Council resolutions and in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
Let’s not forget, the issue is about people. It’s about people who have been deprived of their right to live the way that they want to, to be
governed the way they want to. And today, even pro-Indian politicians in Jammu and Kashmir have been locked up. So, if Prime Minister Narendra Modi
says that this is in the interest of the Jammu and Kashmiri people, the question he has to answer is, why do you have to lock up the entire State
of Jammu and Kashmir? You know why? Because no Kashmiri will accept what the Indian government has done.
AMANPOUR: So, we —
LODHI: And we don’t accept what the Indian government has done. We reject it and we’ll go to the Council and we’ll make all these points at the
Council and we will insist that the Council implement its own resolutions.
Because I think the choice right now is, do you want to live in a rules- based world where international law is supreme or do we want to live in a world which is ruled by the law of the jungle? And this is what India has
done. It has flouted international Law and it has flouted Security Council resolutions.
AMANPOUR: You know, you mention lockdown and lockup. I mean, we’ve heard reports that opposition, politicians in Jammu and Kashmir have been
arrested. And as you say, landlines are down, the Internet is down, mobile phone is down. Very, very difficult to get an idea of exactly what’s
happening on the ground there.
But I do want to ask you, because the world knows that this piece of disputed land has been the cause of three wars between your nations. And
today, your army chief, the Pakistani army chief said that country would do all that’s necessary, go to any extent to support Kashmiris. And then the
foreign minister said that Pakistan is not looking to respond militarily. So, can I hear it from you? Do you think that there’s going to be a
military solution to this, or do you still have diplomatic intensions?
LODHI: No. I mean, we have said very clearly that all diplomatic and political options are on the table. Pakistan has no interest and no desire
to escalate the situation. This is an escalation that was triggered by an illegal and illegitimate act, and we would like the international community
now to stand up for principle, for law, for justice and to address the plight of the Kashmiri people.
As I keep saying, Christiane, this is about people in that state, in an occupied state and an occupation that has been brutal. India has moved
additional troops into occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Why? Obviously, to suppress the voice of the Kashmiri people. But one day the curfew will
have to end. One day these restrictions will have to go. And then the Indian government will hear the voice of the Kashmiri people and that voice
will be to get out of Kashmir, to leave Kashmir and to reverse this illegal annexation.
AMANPOUR: Well, that’s also — you know, gives rise to all sorts of worries because if they do protest, as most people believe they will and
some have suggested they will, if and when this curfew is raised, that also could trigger a response.
So, let me ask you, because, obviously, President Trump has met Prime Minister Modi of India several times, and he also just hosted Prime
Minister Imran Khan, your prime minister, at the White House. And when they were talking, President Trump said Prime Minister Modi had mentioned
maybe he — you know, mediating in this.
Let me just play what President Trump said.
We don’t have that soundbite. OK. But he did actually say that he would try to resolve it if, indeed, he was asked to do so. So, my question to
you is, what is the prime minister, Imran Khan’s reaction to an offer by President Trump? Is it a real offer? Would you welcome that?
LODHI: Well, Prime Minister Imran Khan has already tweeted, in fact, immediately after this crisis began with the Indian action that it is time
that President Trump now makes good on this offer, that he welcomes this offer, and Pakistan is always open to mediation.
Look, Pakistan has stood for peace. Pakistan has stood for the negotiated settlement.
We would like to address the plight of the Kashmiri people. And we don’t think that the plight of the Kashmiri people is addressed by these
unilateral measures where they are locked up, where everything is taken away from them. And then the argument is made that this is being done in
their interest.
I think that is laughable. It’s ridiculous. It’s absurd. And it would really be laughable if it wasn’t such a serious matter. But the India
narrative right now and the justification is really, really — it just doesn’t wash.
The people of Kashmir want to run their own life in a way that is acceptable to them, and that is what Security Council Resolutions call for.
So this ultimately is a question of principle, of law, of morality, and justice for the people over 75 years have lived in darkness.
AMANPOUR: Why do you think? I mean you’ve been following this very closely. You’ve been a diplomat for your country for many, many years.
Why do you think this move has happened now? There are some who believe that it’s one of the first — it’s like fulfilling a campaign promise.
That’s what Prime Minister Modi said he would do. The first time around, he said he would bring an economic miracle to India and take back Kashmir.
Why do you think he’s doing this now?
LODHI: Well, I think, Christiane, timing is something that only the India government can address for you. But certainly my prime minister in an
address that he made to parliament made it very clear that he saw — and we do see this action by the Indian government to be very much part of the
BJP’s ideology under Prime Minister Modi which is to impose Hindu rule all over India and take away whatever dimensions of secularism that ever
existed in India.
In Jammu and Kashmir, this is very much part of an ideology which seeks to turn a Muslim-majority state into one where Kashmiris are turned into a
minority ultimately because of the demographic changes that India wants to bring in Jammu and Kashmir.
So I think it is being determined by an ideology, which is fascist, which is vicious, and which vests on the supremacy of one faith over others. And
this is most unfortunate.
We again condemn this. And we ask that India return to the negotiating table, that it rescinds these steps because it will find that there will
not be a single Kashmiri that will ever accept what India has done.
AMANPOUR: And obviously, as I’ve said and I’ll say it again, we try to get a reaction to this so that we can ask the Indian officials precisely why
they’re doing this right now. And we’ll continue to try to get their response to this really important move.
But, of course, India over many years has accused Pakistan of destabilizing moves. It has accused Pakistan of fueling terrorism, has accused Kashmir
being used as a hotbed for Pakistani activity in that regard.
And now the Indian defense minister says that the new status, that they’re now calling it a new status, would end the discrimination faced by the
people of Kashmir over the past 70 years. How do you answer their accusations to your government?
LODHI: Well, I think they need to first answer to themselves what they have done to Jammu and Kashmir. Why has there been resistance for 70
years? Why has there been a freedom struggle?
I mean they focus on one aspect of what has been happening in Jammu and Kashmir. But the question that they have to answer is why is it that they
have failed to win Kashmiri hearts and minds?
And the reason for that is very simple. No nation, no people, no one accepts foreign occupation and that is how every Kashmiri sees India’s
presence.
They have over 500,000 troops in Jammu and Kashmir. Why? What are they doing there and why can’t their 500,000 plus troops ensure security in
Jammu and Kashmir?
So I think these disingenuous ways of trying to change the subject, change the narrative, is not going to work. What has happened in Jammu and
Kashmir is there for the whole world to see.
India has acted in violation of the law, and India needs to return, not just to the negotiating table with Pakistan and to talk about a peaceful
settlement which is based on Security Council resolutions. India needs to also come to the Security Council and answer why it has failed
to implement Security Council resolution —
AMANPOUR: OK.
LODHI: — which call for a free and open plebiscite for the people of Kashmir.
AMANPOUR: Talking about a free and open plebiscite for Kashmir, let’s just move on to Afghanistan which is on your other border and where, as you
know, the Taliban is engaged in so-called peace talks with the United States and have said that potentially in two weeks or a couple of weeks,
they might be ready to announce the premise of the peace deal.
This is incredibly important for the region, for your government, for the government of Afghanistan, for the United States which has troops there.
What is the status of those talks, as far as you know, and does this move complicate it in any way at all?
LODHI: Let me take the second half of your question first, Christiane. Of course, the two issues are completely distinct, separate.
One has nothing to do with the other, Kashmir is different. Afghanistan is different.
But at the same time, India’s move and the timing of this move raises the question of whether it has done this also to destabilize the promising
peace process in Afghanistan because it is obviously not in India’s interest to see peace return to Afghanistan.
So that is a question for them to answer why they have moved at a time when clearly such a move has a destabilizing impact on the entire region because
the region is on edge right now. The Kashmiri people are on edge.
As for the peace talks in Afghanistan, we, of course, have always maintained the last 18, 19 years that the only path to peace in Afghanistan
was through a negotiated settlement. And we are pleased to see that these talks are progressing extremely well.
And, of course, you know, if there is a country that has more to benefit from peace in Afghanistan other than Afghanistan itself, it is Pakistan.
So we welcome this and we hope that this will continue to make the progress so that we see peace at least on the western side of our border.
But India needs to answer this question, why now?
AMANPOUR: Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi, thank you very much. And we still hope to ask the Indian government, why now?
Now, whether in politics or science or any other field, one thing is for sure, we need more women now. From “Thelma & Louise” to “A League of Their
Own,” the Oscar-winning actress Geena Davis made her name with her strong female characters.
But it didn’t take her long to realize that she was the exception and not the rule. She starts her own organization, the Geena Davis Institute, on
gender in media to keep track of the imbalance.
Now, with Director Donahue, she’s taking her message to the masses with the film, “This Changes Everything” which they have been discussing with our
Michel Martin.
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Geena Davis, Tom Donahue, thank you so much for talking to us.
TOM DONAHUE: Thank you.
GEENA DAVIS, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, “THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING”: Thank you.
MARTIN: So the title of the film, we start with that, “This Changes Everything.” This is something that you say in the film. So Geena, will
you just tell us what the title is referring to?
DAVIS: Right. Well, it meant a little ironically. What happened was when I was in “Thelma & Louise”, after “Thelma & Louise” came out, a lot of the
press was talking about, this is going to change everything.
There are going to be so many more movies with women starring and everything. And I’m like, yay, I can’t wait. Didn’t seem to happen. And
then maybe five years later, another movie comes out with a female star.
Now, this changes everything. And it hasn’t changed in all that time. The numbers have obviously not improved for decades.
MARTIN: Every person that I’ve spoken with who have seen the film is just shocked by it.
DAVIS: Right.
MARTIN: And they just can’t believe that it is what it is.
DONAHUE: They tend to deny the problem after seeing the film.
DAVIS: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Well, Tom, talk a little about what the problem is if you would.
DONAHUE: Sure. Well, we call the film “This Changes Everything,” because it’s about kind of why that doesn’t happen. Why don’t things change?
When, for instance, in 2017 I think, female-led films made 38 percent more money at the Box Office than male-led films. And a lot of men would say to
me when I was making the film, “Well, the problem is you just follow the money.”
If women films made more money, of course, there would be more women films. That’s the problem. And women’s films do make more money and have, I
think, over the last three years.
AMANPOUR: Let me just give some of the statistics that you cite in the film. You say in almost 100 years, only one woman has won an academy award
for best director.
Of the top 100 grossing films of 2017, male-lead characters received twice as much screen time as female leads. In 2018, 92 percent of the directors
of the top 250 domestic releases were men. And this is according to the Center for the Study of Women and Television and Film in San Diego State
University.
So Geena, I think some people might hear that and go, “Oh, that’s too bad” but why? Bring me my tiny violin. Like why do I care?
DAVIS: Oh, why?
MARTIN: So why do we care?
DAVIS: No one can look at it that way.
MARTIN: They can.
DONAHUE: They will.
DAVIS: They do. And this is in every sector of society, it’s the same story. It’s just very elevated because it’s in the entertainment
world.
But we’re not hearing women’s voices or seeing the stories told through the female gaze when there are so few female directors. Profoundly,
embarrassing few.
And then on screen really is impactful, because as much as it can create a negative impact, it has the power to create incredibly positive changes
like we’re talking in the movie about the CSI effect where there were so many shows — so many female forensic scientists on T.V. that women are now
dominating that field because we just saw it on T.V.
MARTIN: In fact, there is a clip in the film where you talk about the fact that representation in actually entertainment can actually matter in the
real world. So let me just play that clip. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MERIDA: That’s my mother.
DAVIS: Images are so powerful that it will impact real life. In 2012, my archery coach noticed that when both “Brave” and “The Hunger Games” came
out, suddenly the percentage of girls taking up archery shot up 105 percent, higher than adult men.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARTIN: I think it was Maya Angelou who said you can’t be what you can’t see.
DAVIS: Right.
MARTIN: And you’re saying that entertainment really does matter. Tom, do you want to add to that?
DONAHUE: Yes. So I started making this movie. Originally, it was about workplace discrimination in Hollywood but I thought to myself, who is going
to want to see this movie outside of the people in Hollywood.
So I — that’s when I learned about the work of Geena in her institute and how important onscreen representation was.
MARTIN: Talk to me about the Geena Davis Institute which you founded years ago. And you say in the film that you were watching something with your
daughter.
DAVIS: Right.
MARTIN: Why do you think that was the click moment for you?
DAVIS: I think I noticed it because I’ve been in like A League of Their Own and I became very aware of how few inspirational female characters
there are in regular adult fare. And — but I just assumed kids’ media would be gender-balanced, and wholesome, and good for you, and all that.
And I was horrified. For the first thing I showed her, there were profoundly more male characters than female, and it was aimed at two-year-
olds.
And so I thought, this is an enormous problem if we are training kids from the beginning that girls are second-class citizens. What are we doing?
This is the 21st century. We should be showing kids that boys and girls share the same bicycle. So it was so horrifying to me that we would be
doing this to kids that I decided I had to try to do something.
MARTIN: Did you think it was as bad as it is?
DONAHUE: I started the film a year before I actually asked Geena to come on board. So I did. It really started for me at the end of 2014 with the
Sony hack and finding out about the disparity in pay between Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper in American Hustle.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENNIFER LAWRENCE: It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal —
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DONAHUE: And then Patricia Arquette got up at the Oscars and demanded equal pay. That — so it was already a conversation that started to happen
when I start developing the film with my producing partner.
MARTIN: Why is a dude making this film —
DONAHUE: Yes —
MARTIN: — about women in Hollywood and the underrepresentation of women in Hollywood?
DONAHUE: It’s funny. I was a feminist since I was 10-years-old because I came from a very right-wing family. But it was television that showed me
there — it was another way, and it was a show called MASH.
And this guy on the show named Alan Alda, who I was learning everything about. And I learned that he was — he called himself a feminist. And for
me, the word feminist was a bad word in my house.
So here was my hero calling himself a feminist. So I learned through him about the equal rights amendment, about Gloria Steinem and Marlo Thomas and
that girl and I became a fan of Mary Tyler Moore.
So I learned about being a feminist through the activism of a man. And for me, it was no big deal to want to take the man until here and try to tell
this story. I felt it’s my duty as a feminist, male or otherwise.
And hopefully, young boys will see that a male-directed this and think I can do that too. I could do that too.
MARTIN: And you do make a point of saying in the film that 75 percent of the crew are women. And why does that matter?
Like I think a lot of people have become familiar with the whole question of representation on screen. So why does the behind the camera
representation matter so much?
DAVIS: First of all, for the simple fact of fairness, that women deserve to be in half of the positions, you know, and have leadership roles and
also be the grip and be on the crew and, you know, use their talents. Film schools are now half female.
And you wouldn’t know it because of how it turns out, four percent post his school. So there’s something really deep and systemic going on.
DONAHUE: But also, Reese Witherspoon says in the film that sometimes she would go on set and it would be 115 men and she would be the only woman.
So that’s why when it says 75 percent of women made this film, people actually clap at that line at the end.
MARTIN: To that point, here’s a scene from the film which speaks with that with Kimberly Pierce, the director, and Chloe Grace Moretz. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHLOE GRACE MORETZ: When I was 15, I did “Carrie.” That movie was directed by Kim Pierce who was my first female director but it was a
massively male crew.
KIMBERLY PIERCE, DIRECTOR, CARRIE: I was being talked to and treated and questioned constantly and indifferently.
MORETZ: The biggest part of the movie is when she gets her period for the first time in the shower. And she doesn’t know it’s her period because she
had never been taught that by her mother.
To have these conversations with men, you’re saying like, well, I don’t think you should depict it that way and I think you should depict it this
way. And Kim and I are sitting there going like, well, respectfully, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. That was the first time
where I was ever like, I guess, men don’t see us women equal in this industry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARTIN: How is that possible?
DONAHUE: Crazy story.
MARTIN: But Geena, this has to have happened to you throughout your career? Why hasn’t it changed before now?
DAVIS: I think partly, back when I started, I wasn’t thinking about that, even. I wasn’t thinking, this is so unfair. It was just like the way it
was, and, you know, being sexy and all that kind of stuff.
And, you know, being harassed and all kinds of things going on, being not listened to, talked down to, all that stuff. But as time went on and I
became more empowered, I started really noticing.
And I think that’s — but also part of it is that my peers and I felt like you cannot complain about any of this because they won’t hire you. They’ll
just get somebody else.
We were made to feel very dispensable. You’ll get much less salary because you guys don’t really matter and we’ll replace you if you have any
complaints.
So and it wasn’t really until after Me Too and all that happened that we all realized, this is different now. We can talk about it and everybody is
talking about it, you know.
MARTIN: You make the connection in the film that it’s not just about, you know, the job, it’s the conditions at the job, that it is directly
connected to these vicious examples of sexual harassment and abuse that women have experienced that have now come to the fore.
What is the connection? Can you talk about that?
DONAHUE: Sure. When you have 150 men on set and one woman, how is that woman protected? And there is also no human resources department that
these women can go to. There’s no one they can complain to.
MARTIN: Right.
DONAHUE: They can’t really complain to their agent or their manager because they’re just going to tell them just go with it, just be quiet.
Women are socialized to go along with the dominant patriarch. It’s always been that way.
MARTIN: In fact, there’s a clip for that. Can we play that?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELLEN POMPEO: All the parts that I had been auditioning for were the girlfriend or the wife, so I did notice immediately that, oh, I get to be
the lead role. I get to be a doctor. I get to have opinions, I get to be smart.
SANDRA OH: Shonda was able to make half of her cast not white.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Everyone, listen up, please.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was very lucky because “Grey’s Anatomy” was developed under the network presence. She had to fight really hard to get
them to put it on the air.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When I called to say we were going to greenlight it, the male executive on the other end of the line literally hung up on me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARTIN: Have you felt your career jeopardized by your unspokeness about this?
DAVIS: Oh, no, actually.
MARTIN: Really?
DAVIS: Not at all. And I think it’s because what I decided to do was I wanted the research so I could go directly to the creators and share it
with them in a private and very friendly way because I knew they didn’t know what they were doing.
I’m sure they knew that they were making fewer films with a female lead but they didn’t — they weren’t aware that the population of the films were
profoundly imbalanced, even the extras. And so that’s what I did and, in fact, it’s proven that they’re incredibly grateful and
horrified and embarrassed.
MARTIN: Really? Which is why none of them appeared in this film? Is that why because no studio heads appeared in this film because they’re so
embarrassed?
DONAHUE: Well, because they — even if it’s unconscious, they’re still embarrassed and I think their legal departments also said, don’t go on the
record about this. It’s not going to benefit you.
MARTIN: But there are a number of women who are interviewed in this film whose careers have been damaged by speaking out.
DAVIS: Well, that’s what I was saying about earlier, it is a different time now that you actually can talk about these things and not suffer
repercussions.
DONAHUE: Hopefully not. I think there’s some backlash.
DAVIS: Hopefully not. But that’s what we were worried about. Nobody complained about anything because you felt that it would damage your
career.
MARTIN: Do you think it’s because your initial focus was on kids’ television?
DAVIS: Yes. I think the big advantage was that people who make kids’ entertainment do it because they care about kids. And so it was something
they had no idea they were doing, and the data changed everything for them.
Suddenly, they could see what they were doing, and we’ve yet to leave any meeting where somebody doesn’t say, you just changed my project. So it’s
kind of working.
MARTIN: So you can see it with kids’ entertainment?
DAVIS: Right.
MARTIN: But what about for grown-ups?
DONAHUE: There hasn’t been a lot of change. There’s a lot of talk about change and there’s a lot more content being made but a lot of the diversity
that happens in content is happening at the lower pay levels.
DAVIS: Oh, yes.
DONAHUE: So the cheaper shows on Netflix and Hulu.
MARTIN: Well, you do interview one executive, the head of FX, John Landgraf. OK. Let me just play a clip from him in the film.
DONAHUE: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN LANDGRAF, HEAD, FX: I had this unconscious bias that we would have to be making sacrifices to hire people with less experience.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They don’t care that I’m black.
LANDGRAF: And maybe that the talent wouldn’t be there.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think they just don’t like me.
LANDGRAF: And I’m here to say it’s there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is nothing funny here.
LANDGRAF: The minute we open our door and we say, come express it here, the work got better.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Welcome.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hello, daddy.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: “Feud” is so, so good.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You directed an episode of it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I did. It will be on air.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It’s one of the best things that’s ever happened in my professional career. Anyone who then told me or told any other
journalist in the future, it’s too hard, no, it’s not. Look at what FX did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARTIN: You know one of the things that really fascinated me about the film is that you point out it wasn’t always this way.
DAVIS: Right, right.
MARTIN: In the age of silent films, women directed a lot of films.
DAVIS: Yes.
MARTIN: They had very prominent roles.
DAVIS: Oh, yes.
MARTIN: Studio Heads.
DAVIS: Studio Heads.
MARTIN: So what changed?
DONAHUE: Well, two things. The coming of sound meant they needed big capital investment. So they looked east to the banks to basically the
patriarchal systems in the east and so they created the studio system in the west. You putting men in charge basically driving women and people of
color out.
And then the second thing were unions. Unions did not allow women because putting women in the unions meant lower pay and lower prestige. So they
were driven out of the unions.
In the directors’ guild, there were only two women I think up until the 1960s who were members of the union.
MARTIN: So Geena, how do you stay in it though? I mean don’t you just want to throw your shoes at the screen? I mean you know.
DAVIS: Well, no, no. I’m an optimist.
As defeated as one feels when you don’t see a change happening, I really do think that it can and that it will. And I think the first thing to change
will be on screen. It’s the lowest hanging fruit possible.
Because the next movie somebody makes could be gender-balanced. They could say, what was I doing? I always say go through the script and change it.
What’s your first name? Female.
But — so I think that will change and I think it will impact society, that life will imitate art. We don’t have to wait for things to turn around in
real life. We can reflect the future now and it will make it happen.
MARTIN: Geena Davis, Tom Donahue, thank you so much for talking to us.
DONAHUE: Thank you for having us.
DAVIS: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And “This Changes Everything” is in select theaters and on- demand starting Friday.
That’s it for our program tonight.
Thanks for watching Amanpour and Company on PBS and join us again tomorrow.