Watch her speech and Q&A:

Read her speech:

Thank you, Sir Brian, for your kind introduction.  

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, dear friends 

It is an honour to be with you here delivering this lecture on reclaiming our common future. 

I am speaking tonight as a member of the Elders, the group of independent global leaders founded by Nelson Mandela, who work for peace, justice, human rights and a sustainable planet.  

Mandela’s vision for the Elders was rooted in the South African concept of shared humanity known as “Ubuntu”, which can roughly be translated as “I am, because we are”.  

This struck a chord with me when I joined the group as a founding member in 2007, because of its resonance with the principles of sustainable development, which I had started working on over three decades before. 

The idea of “reclaiming our common future”, and the collective action needed to do so, is one of personal and political significance to me. My own long career in public life tells me that effective multilateral cooperation is not only possible, it is essential.  

The convictions that drove my work in the 1980s on what became known as the Brundtland Commission remain pertinent today. But the array of threats requiring a multilateral response has evolved, and the connections between them have become even more apparent.  

Today, our world is confronted by a series of intersecting existential threats, including the climate and nature crisis, pandemics, nuclear weapons and unregulated Artificial Intelligence. No country can tackle even one of these threats alone, let alone all of them.  

In particular, I would like to highlight three links that are more obvious today than they were in the 1980s, between climate and health, climate and conflict, and climate and technology.   

The links between climate change and global health are clear: more deaths from extreme heat and air pollution linked to fossil fuels; ecosystems and agricultural networks damaged by temperature and sea-level rises; and an accelerating emergence of infectious diseases due to environmental degradation.  

COVID-19 showed that human, animal, and planetary health are inseparable. More than 75% of emerging diseases originate in animals, while deforestation and biodiversity loss have multiplied the risks of zoonotic spillover. 

There is also a growing nexus between climate change and conflict, linked to resource shortage, increased migration and geopolitical rivalry to control particularly valuable natural resources. Of the 15 countries most vulnerable to climate change, 13 are struggling with violent conflicts.  

Of course vulnerable countries can also contribute to reducing climate change, through both the forests that grow there and the minerals found in the ground. But in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the battle for critical minerals used in the energy transition has left a horrendous toll of civilian casualties, conflict-related sexual violence and other human rights violations.  

There are other, newer threats linking climate change and technology that I worry are not yet sufficiently on the radar of governments, such as the rapidly growing energy use of Artificial Intelligence.  

The International Energy Agency estimates that one prompt in AI software like ChatGPT is ten times more resource-intensive than a simple internet search.  

Tech firms are building huge data centres to power AI. Data centres will consume more electricity than the whole of Japan by 2030, the majority of it powered by coal.  

The benefits of AI could be universal, but the profits will not be shared as widely as the costs.  

Such a model of unfettered consumption is the opposite of sustainable development. This is why I believe we urgently need global cooperation to ensure that AI is developed in a fair way to benefit all humanity, not just a narrow set of vested interests.   

The case for multilateral cooperation has never been greater, but the institutions charged with delivering it are under increasing strain. They need to be defended more vigorously to counteract the growing forces of populism, nationalism and short-term self-interest.  

Next month’s COP30 climate conference in Belém is a critical test of global leadership. Multilateral cooperation on climate change is working, but not fast enough.  

The latest incomplete round of national plans for reducing emissions will still leave us close to 3 degrees celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. The EU’s ambition remains to be seen, while China’s is too modest, and the USA is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement altogether.  

A green backlash is catching on in some parts of the world.  

Recently we have seen the collapse of plans for a new shipping levy at the International Maritime Organization here in London, which could have incentivised emissions reductions in this crucial sector, due to the objections of the USA and Saudi Arabia.  

Meanwhile the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, meeting in Lima this week, is under attack by people who oppose the very principle that climate policy should be informed by climate science.  

Belém needs to be a moment of pushback against such wrecking tactics, where leaders stand in solidarity and shared purpose to take the ambitious climate action that is in the interests of all of us, our children and our grandchildren. Next month’s G20 summit in South Africa is another opportunity for progress on the energy transition and climate justice, with countries from north and south working together, not in opposition. 

The primary responsibility to defend the multilateral architecture on which our collective security depends falls on national governments. But, speaking as someone who has served as both a Prime Minister and Director-General of the World Health Organization, I have always believed that we need a “whole of society” approach, including academia, civil society, youth and trade unions, to generate collective action and hold political leaders accountable.  

This may seem daunting in today’s geopolitical context. Yet I know from history and my own experience that at previous moments of polarisation, it is still possible to develop constructive ways to pursue common goals.  

Some of the greatest achievements of multilateralism, such as eliminating smallpox and restoring the ozone layer, happened at times of heightened tension. 

There is never any excuse for fatalism – what is needed is political will! 

This was the situation I found myself in 42 years ago, when the UN Commission I chaired on Environment and Development started its work in 1983.  

The Cold War was still underway, Europe was still divided by the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall, South Africa was still an apartheid state, and many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America were still brutal dictatorships.  

When I accepted the invitation by the then UN Secretary-General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, I was all too aware that the Commission would be undertaking its efforts in a context of ideological conflict and distrust. 

Our task was to explore how we could have both an environment that would sustain future generations, and shared economic development and prosperity. We insisted on an inclusive approach including dialogue with civil society and trade unions, even in countries like Brazil that were not democratic at the time.  

Our final report, “Our Common Future”, was launched here in London in 1987.  

Its recommendations fed into the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, and have informed progress in the decades since, including the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals.  

Reading “Our Common Future” again today, I find that many of our conclusions and recommendations are still applicable to contemporary challenges.  

But a decade on from 2015, it is clear that we are dangerously off track from meeting at least 80% of the SDGs. 

And we are exceeding the planet's boundaries and approaching tipping points from which there is no way back. 

There can be no excuse for fatalism or buck-passing. If we look at the historical evidence, it is clear that international climate cooperation remains indispensable.  

Over the past thirty years, UN-convened climate multilateralism has brought down the projected global temperature rise from 5 degrees celsius to below 3 degrees.  

Agreement to the Loss and Damage fund at COP27 in Egypt was a major financing achievement and a political commitment to solidarity. 

Still, the science demands that we go faster, as do the voices of the people living on the frontlines of extreme weather events, particularly in developing countries.  

If we are serious about “reclaiming our common future”, the locus of action cannot only be the conference rooms of intergovernmental negotiations. Many parts of civil society and the public realm have a role to play, from grassroots activists to the institutions of the judiciary. 

A positive example here is the Advisory Opinion issued in July by the International Court of Justice, stating that nations can be held legally accountable for not cutting their greenhouse gas emissions. This followed a case brought by young students in the Pacific, for whom rising temperatures and seawater pose an existential threat to their land and livelihoods. 

This “David versus Goliath” victory is an inspiring example of youth leadership. What began as a student-led initiative in the Pacific has become a global reckoning, which should lead to a new era of legal power for people and communities experiencing climate change.   

The ruling has put governments on notice: it is now much clearer than ever before what states must do in response to the climate crisis, and this greater legal clarity should encourage stronger climate action in all our interests. 

The legal, moral and political case for urgent collective climate action has never been stronger. 

The hard work comes, especially for those of us who live and work in democracies, in selling this case to voters at a time when public services and finances are stretched, and cynical populists are peddling easy solutions, offering up scapegoats and casting doubt on science.  

The scale and severity of the threats we face require our politicians to lead with ambition, honesty, and pragmatism. Policies need to be rooted in scientific research, drawing on the invaluable work of bodies like the Grantham Institute.  

However, we are now living in an age of disinformation, where false narratives deny the climate science, and conspiracy theories about vaccines are putting lives at risk. 

We have seen this during the COVID pandemic, when large volumes of inaccurate information circulated on social media. What the WHO called an infodemic is continuing to affect vaccine uptake and trust in science and healthcare.  

I am alarmed by the irresponsible rhetoric of members of the US Administration on vaccine safety and effectiveness. I urge leaders to rebut these false claims forcefully and frequently. 

It is the responsibility of leaders to uphold scientific integrity and prioritise truth, not succumb to political opportunism. This applies to the climate crisis, AI, nuclear weapons and other existential threats. 

The experience of COVID offers salutary lessons on not only how states can cooperate in the face of a common threat and build a social consensus around collective action, but also how best to prepare for future pandemics. Those pandemics will come. 

COVID exposed and exacerbated systemic inequalities between and within nations. If there is one threat that illustrates how inextricably intertwined our lives are in one common future, it is the prospect of a global pandemic worse than COVID. None of us is safe from that threat until we all are. 

What we need – and what many of us have been calling for long before COVID  – is a holistic approach to pandemic preparedness, prevention and response that sits within the broader sustainable development agenda.  

This is essential to us reclaiming and safeguarding our common future, learning the lessons from the past and applying them into the policy-making process. 

Multilateralism must evolve from parallel tracks to integrated coalitions across health, climate, development, security, conflict prevention and technology. The intersections between these threats are only going to grow in the years ahead.  

But to truly develop the long-view leadership needed to reclaim our common future and deliver on the promises of the sustainable development agenda, we need to address a fundamental and unavoidable fact: women are too often excluded.  

To be perfectly honest with you, at the age of 86 I had hoped I would no longer need to make the very obvious point: there can be no common future without gender equality.  

Asserting and defending women’s rights has been a focus throughout my political career.  

Fifty years ago, during International Women’s Year in 1975, I had just entered government for the first time. Many of my male colleagues hardly knew how to deal with me.  

In 1995, as Norway’s Prime Minister, I addressed the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. I spoke of the moral and economic imperative to end gender apartheid. I believed—too optimistically— that we would have come further by now.  

I did not foresee the intensity of opposition that would come, not only through the rolling back of women’s rights in areas such as reproductive health, but also in the political arena.  

Even today, there are countries where not a single woman sits in the highest decision-making bodies.   

This is why I firmly believe that when the UN selects its next Secretary-General next year, it is time for a woman to be chosen.   

This would send a long-overdue message that women’s leadership is essential to solving the world’s most pressing challenges.  

The Elders have coined the term “long-view leadership” to describe the mindset needed from heads of state and government, whether women or men, to confront the challenges of the twenty-first century.  

Long-view leadership means showing the determination to resolve intractable problems not just manage them, the wisdom to make decisions based on scientific evidence and reason, and the humility to listen to all those affected. Long-view leaders must have the moral strength to address both current concerns and long-term risks, often at the expense of vested interests. 

Crucially, long-view leadership must be intergenerational, giving space and respect to the views and needs of young people who will inherit the world we leave behind us.  

Throughout my life, I have been inspired by courageous young people I meet around the world – peace activists in Palestine and Israel, community medics in India, climate advocates in the USA, even students at Imperial College - all fighting for peace, justice, human rights and a sustainable planet. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, a belief in our shared humanity and the pursuit of sustainable development are all the more noble when we find ourselves in an age of division like today.  

We cannot wait for that division to end. We must seek to end it, by demonstrating what can be achieved by working together, even if not all participate.  

Those who are opposed to finding global solutions to global challenges cannot be allowed to hold up the rest of the world. If some governments choose the path of isolation, others must press ahead without them, while leaving the door open for future engagement. 

The principles I set out in Our Common Future 38 years ago remain relevant today. But they need to be adapted to a world where climate change has accelerated faster than we could have anticipated, where conflicts and health risks are increasing not diminishing, where new technologies may cause more problems than they solve. 

To make progress on these issues requires not just countries working together multilaterally, but experts and policy-makers working together across disciplines.  

The answers are not always obvious. But as the pioneering scientist Marie Curie said: "I was taught that the way of progress was neither swift nor easy." 

Nevertheless, with determination, creativity and courage, I am convinced that we will get there in the end.  

Because what unites us is greater than what divides us.  

That is our common future. 

Thank you.