Gabriel Blanco, IPCC scientist: "The war in Ukraine has been a huge delay in the transition to renewable energy"

After a week-long meeting in the Swiss Alps, U.N. climate change experts grouped at the IPCC on Monday presented the largest review of the current state of Earth's climate. The Argentine Gabriel Blanco is one of the 93 authors of the so-called IPCC Synthesis Report, in which they warn that if drastic and immediate measures are not taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the global temperature of the Earth could exceed 1.5 degrees in the decade of the 30s (compared to the one at the beginning of the industrial era). The goal of the international community is to prevent it from rising more than 1.5 or 2 degrees by the year 2100.

Professor and researcher at the Faculty of Engineering of the National University of the Center of the Province of Buenos Aires (UNICEN) in the areas of renewable energy, climate change and sustainability, Gabriel Blanco analyzes for EL MUNDO the report and the state of the fight against climate change.

The Synthesis Report covers results from the six major reports since 2018, including those of the Sixth Major Assessment Report which reviewed recent work but in the last two years a war has broken out that has caused an economic and energy crisis and followed the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic. To what extent, if any, has this been taken into account for its elaboration? I must say that the impacts of this war on the economy or the energy problem were not contemplated in the report but of course the impacts of the pandemic. Continuing with the war in Ukraine, how is it affecting emissions reduction targets? This question goes beyond the IPCC report because, as I said, it has not been analyzed, so my answer must be taken as a reading of mine based on other reports. And yes, the war is having a major impact because it has somehow disrupted the transition of many countries, especially in Europe, to energy systems based on renewable energy. That transformation they were making did not materialize. The interruption of the supply of gas and oil, especially gas from Russia to Central Europe, led to the modification of some plans and the urgent need to seek resources, oil and gas, elsewhere in the world, or to return in some cases to coal. Undoubtedly, it is a huge delay in the transformations that were slowly taking place. In his message on Monday, UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged the leaders of developed countries to bring forward the goal of zero emissions to 2040, precisely at a time when we are experiencing this serious energy crisis. Is it feasible to ask for this advance when it is precisely the priority for many countries to obtain energy? I understand that the Secretary-General is trying to mobilize world leaders to accelerate action, but in any case it is something that had to be asked of him. Returning to the report and relating it to the comment on whether carbon neutrality can be achieved in 2040, the report shows that it could be possible, I do not know if in 2040 but in the coming decades, in some productive sectors especially. But it also shows the need to start this transformation now and to mobilize the necessary financing for that. There are very important challenges to achieving that carbon neutrality in a world that is also very unequal, with many countries struggling for other urgent issues, so decision-making to solve the urgent sometimes prevents more long-term planning. A different understanding and a willingness to transform are needed. On the other hand, the misinformation that exists in many towns in different countries also means that any action in pursuit of a transformation, whether of the energy system or in food production, is taken badly by the population because it can have other impacts in the short term, and that makes everything much more complex. In the face of the energy crisis, some countries have once again considered nuclear as a source despite plans to decommission plants after the Fukushima accident. How do you see this turn, a return to nuclear energy or the European Union considering nuclear and gas green energy because, unlike fossil fuels, they hardly produce carbon dioxide emissions? Nuclear power can See yourself in a positive way on the side of emissions, but also has a number of issues to address related to environmental issues such as the management of nuclear waste, or the possibility of a serious nuclear accident, as we have already experienced a couple of times. But there are also issues linked to costs, it is one of the most expensive energy sources to produce electricity. And there are political issues on the table about the control of nuclear power plants, and the way of producing, which is very centralized. When it comes to calling natural gas green energy, things would have to be redefined. Natural gas remains a fossil fuel that generates carbon dioxide emissions that add to the problem. Then, we can talk about whether that emission is lower than that of coal or oil, but when natural gas is used, fossil emissions are generated. Everyone can give it the name they want but that is so, as the data and measurements show. For you, what is the most outstanding outcome of this IPCC synthesis report? On the one hand, the impacts that climate change is already having and future projections. It is really serious and worrying, and we are already talking about lives at stake, not only quality of life, because of the extreme weather events that we are experiencing and suffering in all parts of the world: droughts, floods or storms of enormous intensity, never seen before. Shocking phenomena that will worsen if nothing is done about it. And the other issue has to do with sea level rise, which can also end up wiping out coastal communities and populations around the world, in addition to melting glaciers, among other issues. But then the report, in another tone, talks about the advantages of trying to get out of all this, because getting out of climate change implies what the report calls co-benefits that have to do with a more sustainable development over time in all aspects: taking care of air and water quality, health, etc. And that window would open if we began to make the transformations that need to be made in the production of goods and services, including the production of food and energy. And you have to get funding so that the flows of money get where they need to go with the purposes they have to arrive. The report says that this is not simple but it is possible, and leaves the door open to that possibility. Spain is within the Mediterranean region, where the temperature has already risen 1.5-1.6 degrees, more than the global average. Tell me what we can expect in the coming years based on your reports. Some scientists warn that summers at 50 degrees will be common in Spain, is it an exaggeration? I do not have the precise data, it is difficult sometimes to project for a specific country because it is usually done by regions. What is predicted and projected for Europe is a complicated future if things do not change. A future where heat waves can be shocking, much more serious than we have now. The greenhouse effect worsens and the climate system starts to get out of control if it is no longer out of control. Spain suffered a large number of fires last summer, some practically impossible to control. One of the forecasts is that there will be more fires and more devastating due to climate change. There are two very interesting issues when it comes to adaptation to climate change. One is what is known as maladaptation, which consists of taking urgent bad measures to alleviate a problem, but in the medium and long term that measure ends up worsening the situation. For example, if we put equipment that consumes more energy to relieve ourselves from heat waves, in the long run we have a new problem linked to even greater energy consumption, and if it is based on fossil fuel consumption we aggravate the problem. Other examples are the use of water, or reforestation with species that do not correspond to the places where it is planted, exotic species that end up causing more problems than those they try to solve. And the other question has to do with the limits of adaptation because the impacts are already beginning to be of such magnitude, that adaptation begins to have limits, for example, to what extent we can adapt to sea level rise or tropical storms or floods. That concept is beginning to emerge and be analysed and described in this report. What is your assessment of what was achieved at the Egypt Climate Summit (COP27), where the maximum achievement was that fund of loss and damage? It is not part of the latest IPCC report and I offer it my personal view, because I have been part of that United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for many years representing my country, and now I am with other activities related to the Convention. And what you can see is that it is extremely inoperative or non-existent, I would say. What one can perceive, unfortunately, and again I repeat that this is my personal vision, is that it is becoming a forum that begins to justify inaction, it is becoming an excuse for both developed and developing countries, by not reaching agreements. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. When will we see a decline in that curve? Yes, emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases continue to grow at a slightly slower rate than in the previous decade, but they are increasing. As for when we will stop seeing it, that is precisely what it is about. This requires profound changes in the way of producing, in the use of oil and gas and coal, but it does not end there, that is to begin to transform the energy matrix but it does not end there in the sense that it requires deeper transformations in the patterns of consumption of goods and services such as food, in our way of understanding development. Because, ultimately, our consumption patterns are sustained by fossil fuels and if we intend to change fossil fuels we necessarily have to change our consumption patterns and understanding of what development and prosperity are. When we move forward in these transformations we will begin to see other emissions curves that go in a declining direction, and that path has not yet begun. China remains the main emitter of CO2. Your government has put in place a series of measures to stop being one, how do you value it? The numbers indicate that, although there is an incipient transformation, especially in its way of producing energy, the growth of the Chinese economy and per capita consumption mean that these improvements are not reflected in absolute values. One can improve in the amount of emissions generated by the energy system but if much more energy is consumed, the total valuel continues to grow. China also has a huge responsibility, present and future, and will also have to review its development modelIPCC scientists are sometimes labeled as catastrophic for their warnings about climate change, how do you take those criticisms or what would you say to people who think they exaggerate? There is everything, of course, it may be that some scientist looks at that part more closely. It is true that the projections are very worrying. Personally, I am not going down that path because it seems to me that pointing out the most tragic part does not help, rather I would say that it paralyzes. But it exists, we are seeing reality and the projections are tremendous in the event that we do nothing. I like to dwell on the challenges ahead, which are gigantic but at the same time fascinating. Because changing a way of developing an entire civilization that has been based on fossil fuels for 200 years seems to me a challenge that falls to our generation. I like that challenge, I understand how difficult it is, but I work every day to try to modify what is in my hands.

According to The Trust Project criteria

Learn more

• Environment
• Climate change