Interview Alok Sharma, Chairman of the Glasgow Climate Summit: "Leaders have to raise the bar"
COP26 begins Climate 'war' is fought in Glasgow
Laurence Tubiana (Oran, 1951) is considered the "architect" of the Paris Agreement, signed by 196 countries in 2015. The French economist and former ambassador for climate change in her country now looks out at COP26 in Glasgow with understandable concern over how complex the task will be, in an international context very different from the one that the consensus allowed six years ago.
In her role as president of the European Climate Foundation, Tubiana answered EL MUNDO's questions during her visit to the La Toja Forum.
Everything indicates that Glasgow will not be exactly Paris, no, it will not be Paris for several reasons. The geopolitical context has changed a lot. The nationalism that has been imposed in several countries does not allow to have a positive horizon. Multilateralism has taken a back seat, as we also saw with vaccine nationalism. We don't have that "momentum" or momentum that the historic agreement allowed six years ago. We are facing a much less exciting thing, which is how we do so that all that is fulfilled. We thought about the mechanism in Paris, now it's up to the countries to do their job. And isn't there a risk of a Copenhagen fiasco? I don't think so. We cannot afford a failure like Copenhagen. I believe that Glasgow is going to fall in the middle in the end. The challenge is not the same. The problem is the implementation,But there are already some good signs on the horizon. For example, the goal of "carbon neutrality" that has already been digested by many countries and integrated into the plans. To what extent can the complicated political situation in the UK also influence? Doesn't the government of Boris Johnson already have too much on its plate? It's a difficult period for the UK because it has a lot to define: Brexit, its new relationship with the EU, its relationship with the US, the idea of the "Great Global Britain ". The current moment is not good for strong bilateral relations, which was to be expected from this presidency. There has been strong criticism of the organization and the little specific weight that the British Government has given to the summit, compared to what the French Government did in Paris.I prefer not to comment on the organizational issue. What advice would you personally give to the president of COP26, Alok Sharma? We have been in contact with him, and one of the advice we have given him is to talk to everyone, especially the countries that do not have a voice, and not only with developed countries. In Paris, the level of ambition was set by the small countries, and not by the big ones. It was thanks to pressure from vulnerable countries that it succeeded in introducing the "pursuing efforts" clause to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. The debate centered in the end between two degrees and 1.5, but there were countries that even proposed 2.5 degrees, which would have been intolerable. Vulnerable countries do not have the economic weight, but they do have the moral weight,And that can change the mind of developed countries, which are the ones that have to take the final step. What would be an acceptable result for COP26? I believe that the measure of success in Glasgow has to be honesty. We are at a point in the process in which it cannot continue to be disguised. We have to recognize that we have not been up to the task these six years and we must raise the bar, with more ambition and with decisions that cannot be postponed any longer. I know that for people in Galicia or in the Basque Country who have lived off coal all their lives, it will be difficult to make the ecological transition, as it will be for the countries of Eastern Europe. But we must continue to move forward with clear goals, such as the decision to ban the sale of combustion cars that some countries have set in 2030 or even earlier.That was unthinkable in Paris. Isn't the foreseeable absences of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin a bad omen? What can be agreed if China, the world's largest emitter of CO2, does not send its leader to the top? It is not ideal, of course, but we have to take other factors into consideration. China is way ahead of Russia when it comes to taking the climate crisis seriously. The announcement of the halt to financing coal projects abroad in September of this was a transformative signal, as was President Xi's announcement of reaching carbon neutrality by 2060. So the absences of The two leaders cannot be interpreted in the same way, although a paradigm shift is also beginning to be seen in Russia, now that climate change is affecting them,and despite its great dependence on the export of fossil fuels. Ultimately, the national commitments of large economies are more important than who is in the room. Can the slowdown caused by Covid serve as a point of reflection or inflection in the long run? Despite the parenthesis that the Covid caused by the confinements, the reality of the emissions is relentless. The fall was temporary and we have returned the way we used to. The IPCC report this summer could not make it clearer: humanity has entered a "red alert". According to the UN, the current trajectory would place us in an increase in emissions of 16% in 2030, when the objective to meet Paris would be a reduction of 45% on that date. We are not doing what we should.There has to be tacit recognition in Glasgow and a purpose for amendment. In Paris, Saudi Arabia played the role of "bad guy" in the film. In Glasgow, the wayward countries are much more notorious, such as Brazil and Australia.What do we do with them? In addition to Brazil and Australia, I would also include Mexico, a country that was very brave with its ambitions and that little by little it was leaving behind their plans to practically withdraw support for renewables. These countries were emboldened by the attitude of the Trump Administration, which paralyzed everything and gave license to do what they are doing. Where are these countries going? They don't even know it themselves. The best the international community could do is isolate them, marginalize them in trade agreements,make them see that they will pay a price if they are not in solidarity with the global effort. You often speak of South Africa as a counterpoint ... Yes, I believe that South Africa is an example of good practice. It is a country that went ahead more than five years ago with its climate action plan, with the participation of the unions. It is also a country determined to leave behind its dependence on coal and to attract foreign investors to finance its transition, and in that sense it could also be a great practical example for other countries taking the same path. The second great challenge for Glasgow was precisely that of of international financing. This was supposed to be the time to break the $ 100 billion mark. Reaching $ 100 billion a year is the biggest measure of confidence among negotiators.We did not reach that goal last year as intended, and it is important to get there as soon as possible. What we also need are consistent examples from countries like South Africa and India, giving credibility to the green transition thanks to international funding. Another issue that will necessarily be discussed in Glasgow, and which was not discussed in Paris, is the link between aid to emerging countries with the debt issue. Some of the most indebted countries are also those most affected by the climate crisis. It is a sad reality that we must take into account, and what can we expect from the United States and the European Union at this point? Having the United States again in the forefront of climate diplomacy is essential and has been very well received. .But the American Administration has a lot to do to make up lost ground. In the fundamental issue of financing, it has been very important that it doubled its commitments to 11,400 million dollars in 2024 and thus close the gap that existed with Europe. On the other hand, I have confidence in the EU plan, but if it does not fit in with national commitments and contributions, it will hardly work. The plan cannot be defined by Brussels, each country must do its part. How can the debate on the energy crisis affect the Glasgow summit? There are many ways of saying "this cannot be done", and the energy crisis it can be used as a pretext to delay action on the weather.There is a temptation to blame renewables for what is happening and continue to defend dependence on fossil fuels in the name of "energy security." I am concerned that people are led to believe that ambitious climate goals may be to their own detriment. The populist press in the UK is spreading that message every day. What conclusion can we finally draw from the recent leak to the BBC about how countries like Australia, Saudi Arabia or Brazil lobbied to "downgrade" UN reports on the climate change? is not really surprising. We are looking at a reflection of how the climate negotiations work and what the approximation of certain countries really is in the transition to a "zero emissions" economy.The bottom line is that the UN Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) process is very solid and does not affect the final result in any case. The more they undergo scrutiny, the stronger the conclusions will be. Scientists have already done their work, now it's up to the leaders.
According to the criteria of The Trust Project
Know more
Environment
Science and Health
science
Climate change
EnvironmentChina wants to lead a new global pact to protect biodiversity
Climate crisis Economic losses due to heat waves in Europe will multiply by five in 2060
Climate crisis: A dozen countries pressured the UN to "downgrade" its reports on climate change
See links of interest
The Palm
Last News
What
Holidays 2021
2022 business calendar
Master Investigation Journalism
Time change
Christmas Lottery 2021
Loteria del Niño 2022
Lardero
Eintracht Frankfurt - RB Leipzig
Tottenham Hotspur - Manchester United
Valencia CF - Villarreal
Estoril Praia - Benfica
Lyon - Lens