“Even if the minimum has been reached, there is something.”
The COP29 Climate Summit has just concluded. In the end, even after the deadline, they have managed to close the debate on financing, with industrialized countries contributing $300 billion to address the climate emergency. It wasn’t just a knot, though. Elisa Sainz de Murieta Zugadi, a researcher at the UPV/EHU and BC3, has followed all the circumstances of the conference with great care.
What is your general conclusion on COP29? The last-minute agreement has been considered by many to be inadequate.
It is true that the progress made has been less than necessary. This does not mean, however, that the conference has been of no use. Every year, at the end of the conference, I have to listen to them and it is quite disappointing. This is the only forum that unites all countries, and there is a need for all, because everyone has to reduce emissions, especially those with the highest emissions. I am therefore concerned about the delegitimization of the Conference.
Even if the minimum is reached, there is something. it’s a little over $300 billion, compared to $1.3 billion, but it’s three times what it was up to now. In addition, it should be noted that the geopolitical situation is very complicated: Trump’s victory, the war between Ukraine and Russia, the Israeli attacks... It is not a tender situation to make decisions.
Apart from that, was there any other discussion?
There were other decisions. Last year, at the Dubai summit, it was agreed to take the transition away from fossil fuels, for which it was decided to launch a dialogue. There have been extraordinarily large debates and no consensus has been reached; that remains for the next summit. It’s not surprising, because Saudi Arabia and other countries are completely dependent on fossil fuels, so their priority is to delay decisions as much as possible
The role of Saudi Arabia in this conference seems to have been particularly complicated. Azerbaijan, which had held the presidency, should in fact send draft documents simultaneously to all countries. Saudi Arabia, however, has previously received the drafts. There appear to have been obvious diplomatic mistakes, which generate mistrust and anger in the rest of the countries.
It doesn’t help in making decisions.
It's been complex. The most important focus this year has been funding, as at next year’s summit in Brazil, everyone has to present their renewed goals.
The Paris Convention agreed that by the end of the century, the temperature rise should be below 2°C and, if possible, limited to 1.5°C. In order to achieve this by the end of the century, they were about to renew their commitments every five years, which must also be increased. This is what the Brazilian summit is about to do, but, of course, developing countries want to know what resources they will have to carry out their goals. If they do not have the resources, they will not be able to update their goals as they wish.
This year’s decision therefore determines the next year’s objectives.
That's what it is. And it is very complex: 192 countries, each with its own socio-economic situation, different development situation, different customs, different cultures, different priorities... It’s not easy to get them all to agree.
As a result, there is a serious climate crisis on the table. We are seeing an increasing number of impacts that are particularly pronounced in vulnerable, developing countries.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that to maintain the 1.5°C target, global emissions worldwide must fall by 45% by 2030. But by 2024, emissions have risen. It seems that, according to some experts, they can hit the barrier in 2025, but the situation is not optimistic. So here’s the conflict: we know we need to be bolder, we need stricter targets, but of course it’s all geopolitical.
And by bringing them here, for example, to the UAE, what are we doing and what are our commitments?
We, as an industrialized people, have a debt. Even if the contribution of the Basque Country is very small, we should address our responsibility, because we have a responsibility.
I think we're making an effort, and the data shows it. Ihobe draws up its greenhouse gas inventory every year and shows a reduction in emissions compared to 1990. But we also have room to increase that.
Above all, there are two sectors that generate the most emissions. One is energy and the second is transport. The industry is the third, but in the last 20 to 30 years its emissions have been decreasing. But in energy, and especially in the case of transport, emissions have been increasing. It is important to think about how we will approach this issue. This is a very topical issue if we consider how the transformation of the transport sector can affect our industry. Look at the problem that Volkswagen is having in the German. We must also keep the issue of a just transition.
We still have a lot of homework...
That's what it is. And I would stress here, from a scientific point of view, that those of us who work in the economics of climate change have known for a long time, and we have shown in studies, that it is much cheaper to face climate change than to receive and respond to its impacts.
What happens is that, although the impacts are becoming more and more frequent, they are a thing of the future. We have to cut the cuts today. Managing this conflict of time is not easy, but we certainly have to deal with it. And in this transition I would like to stress that in January of this year the Law on the Energy Transition and Climate Change was approved in the Basque Parliament, and I think it is a very good example where different parties came together to give an answer to this issue.
Buletina
Bidali zure helbide elektronikoa eta jaso asteroko buletina zure sarrera-ontzian
Teknopolis
