Enrique Viguera
Former Ambassador-at-Large for Energy Issues
Given that global temperatures have never been as high as they will be in 2023, there will be few who do not believe in climate change. Denialism has become an eccentricity because the scientific consensus is unassailable: climate change is a man-made phenomenon due primarily to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
If that is so, how can we try to maintain the objective of the earth’s temperature not rising more than 1.5ºC in the year 2100 with respect to pre-industrial levels – as decided at the COP21 Paris Summit – if this year 2023 has been not only the hottest year since records have been kept, but also the one that has seen the highest volume of polluting emissions and the highest production of fossil fuels? The UN would need to achieve a cut in current production of more than 43% by 2030, which seems clearly impossible given that fossil fuel production is already set to increase next year by an additional 2% over this year’s output. The International Energy Agency (IEA) believes that it will be several years before the peak in the volume of carbon dioxide emissions is reached.
We will therefore witness new floods, heat waves and fires of increasing intensity. The Arctic ice is melting, reducing the earth’s heat absorption and increasing global warming, ocean acidification and sea level rise. Ecological catastrophe in the coming years is therefore inevitable. It is inevitable. Unless …… truly curbs polluting emissions and eventually eliminates them altogether.
That is why the recent COP 28 in Dubai was politically relevant in that it was decided to “transition away from fossil fuels”. But this success should be qualified because the text of the agreement has not managed to include the word “elimination” or “reduction” of fossil fuels, nor is there a clear timetable for achieving this elimination – because this transition must be made (“in a fair, orderly and equitable manner”) taking into account the different starting points and the different circumstances of each country. But in any case, the message, unprecedented in official international texts, that the world’s energy system must be free of fossil fuels in the not too distant future is original. This formula, that of putting fossil fuels at the heart of the global warming problem, will surely become the basic and inspiring reference for future Climate Summits.
Another success of the Summit has been to specify two important objectives: the need to triple renewable energy capacity and to double average energy efficiency from the current 2% to 4% by 2030. The first is not an originality of COP28, because it was already agreed by the last G20 summit in New Delhi in September following an agreement between China and the USA. Now the commitment has been extended to 130 countries. China can achieve it, but the other countries, including the US and the EU, will not find it easy. Regarding the second goal, energy efficiency, although difficult, it is also feasible, if the reforms carried out in many countries in recent years, particularly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, are deepened.
The third key element of COP 28 was, in my view, the financial element, because in order to implement climate commitments, huge amounts of money are needed, especially to finance projects in the developing world. At COP 28, major new commitments were announced for the new financial instrument created at the Conference itself (the Loss and Damage Fund), as well as for other existing ones (Green Climate Fund, Least Developed Countries Fund and Special Climate Change Fund, Adaptation Fund etc.). Even the World Bank announced an increase of $9 billion per year to finance climate-related projects by 2024 and 2025. Finally, the world’s largest private climate fund (Allterra) will be launched, mobilising more than $250 million by 2030.
Will these contributions, in addition to the investments made by the States, be sufficient? These are significant amounts, but the IEA has pointed out that to be in line with the Paris Agreement, it will require more than $4.5 trillion (millions of millions) of investment in clean energy by 2030, compared to the $1.8 trillion currently invested.
Given the impossibility of reaching the huge volume of investment required, many advocate establishing a global emissions tax or creating an emissions trading scheme, similar to the one that exists in the EU. Again, this would be difficult, though not impossible, because perhaps in the face of a catastrophic situation a global consensus could be generated that would allow the mechanisms to be created with sufficient coercive pressure to ensure their efficient functioning.
However, the effect of these annual climate summits should not be sought in the short term, but rather in the medium and long term, which is how international political consensus and public opinion are progressively strengthened and consolidated with the deterioration of climate conditions and the fulfilment of scientific predictions. In 2025, at COP 30 in Brazil, when the new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) will be known, we will check again whether the estimates and commitments made voluntarily by the States are being met, whether we are on the right track, or whether it will be necessary, once again, to redouble our efforts.
© All rights reserved
