If those present can maintain the willingness to take action that was shown last week in Santa Marta, the climate could improve considerably. The Colombian coastal city hosted the first international summit on phasing out fossil fuels from Friday to Wednesday. The 57 countries present together represent a third of global greenhouse gas emissions from the use of fossil fuels.
The participants were cheerful about the atmosphere and the design of the meeting and many climate organizations that traveled along were also pleased – very different from the previous UN climate summits. “Santa Marta was a breath of fresh air, the wind seems to be finally turning,” said Shiva Gounden, head of the Greenpeace delegation present in a comment on its website.
The use of fossil fuels is responsible for the vast majority (75 percent) of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, at the UN climate summits in recent years, no objectives or deadlines have been included in the final declaration regarding the phasing out of fossil fuels, thanks to some notorious obstructors. Not only climate organizations and vulnerable countries that are already suffering from climate change find this shocking, many rich countries and even some oil and gas producing countries are also frustrated about this.
Although the largest emitters – China, the US, India, Russia – were not present in Santa Marta, other significant emitters were there, such as Germany, Canada, Mexico and Turkey. Those present also represent 20 percent of fossil fuel production – production countries Brazil, Norway and Nigeria were among others present. They are motivated to think about how they can stop using oil and gas, despite their major interests in ‘fossil’.
The first benefit is the existence of the summit itself, Colombian climate minister Irene Vélez Torres said at the beginning of the week. “Because only countries that want to move forward are present here, the discussion about fossil fuels can finally be substantively conducted.”
That is largely a discussion about finances. There was plenty of room for discussions about debt and ‘fossil subsidies’, among other things. For many poor countries, their debt burden is an important reason why the energy transition is difficult. Particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, many countries that produce fossil fuels are forced to expand production in order to pay off their debts.
Also read
A summit that should break the impasse over the end of oil and gas
Debt crisis
“There is a growing debt crisis in the Global South,” said Tzeporah Berman, chairman of the Fossil Fuel Treaty, an organization that is trying to broker a treaty to ban the expansion of oil and gas production. in return for The Guardian. “It is impossible for many countries to imagine a transition away from fossil fuels with so little financial leeway.”
The summit also discussed the guiding role that central banks can have. Can they cancel debts if the money thus released is invested in the energy transition? Under what conditions would such a debt-for-climate-swap could be a success? The idea for this is not new, but it appears that the discussion about it can be had more openly at a meeting where money does not immediately have to be put on the table.
The difficulty in obtaining money for investments already significantly slows down the progress of the energy transition in rich countries, and this applies even more so to poor countries. A lot of money is needed, especially at the start of transition projects. With fossil fuels, you have to pay for each new load of fuel, while a wind farm costs a lot of money when it is built: once it is there, the wind is free. The large investments at the start mean that the level of interest rates that central banks set has a great influence on obtaining financing.
In Santa Marta, ‘fossil subsidies’ and legislation and regulations that hinder the energy transition were also discussed. Countries must find ways to “shut off the financial oxygen to fossil fuels,” said Nick Robins in return for The Guardianthe head of finance at the World Resources Institute think tank and chairman of the meeting with top executives and bankers from the financial sector that preceded the official summit.
But no concrete money was promised. At the UN climate summit, heated negotiations about amounts to be released are often held until the last minute. That was not the purpose of this summit, it was about exploring possibilities. In the final document published on Thursday the top, the ‘co-host takeaways’, does include that further work will be done on the “financial architecture” that should drive the energy transition.
Phasing out fossil fuels
A second important agreement in the ‘takeaways’ is that countries will work on roadmaps stating how and when they will phase out the use of fossil fuels. Colombia was already making plans and France also surprisingly announced in Santa Marta that it had already drawn up a road map with deadlines for itself. The country wants to phase out coal in the energy sector by 2030. It wants to stop using oil by 2045, and stop using natural gas by 2050.
We want to be the Saudi Arabia of electricity for Europe
“Now that the energy transition has begun, we realize that we want to be an electrical superpower,” said Benoit Faraco, the French climate envoy at the presentation of the French road map. “We want to be the Saudi Arabia of electricity for Europe, selling green electrons to the UK, Ireland, Germany and other countries.” For France, nuclear energy also falls under green energy. The Netherlands does not yet have a road map, but the House of Representatives decided in 2019 that coal-fired power stations will close by 2030 at the latest.
Science played a major role in Santa Marta. The first day of the conference saw the establishment of a scientific panel on the energy transition announced. A lot of research is being done worldwide into components of the energy transition, but there was not yet an institute that brings together the insights and provides advice. The panel should become a variant of the UN’s influential scientific climate panel, the IPCC. Unfortunately, the new Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition, or SPGET, cannot be abbreviated that way.
It is painful but true that higher costs and import dependence often prove to be more important drivers for countries to take action than the climate. Because of course the war in Iran and the resulting fuel crisis were also frequently discussed in Santa Marta.
European Commissioner for Climate Wopke Hoekstra, also present at the summit, called the crisis a reality check. “We are losing half a billion euros a day in Europe as long as this war continues. Climate action was already a very good reason for this transition, but now we also have commercial reasons for it, and reasons of independence.”
Colombian President Gustavo Petro gave a powerful speech on the third day of the conference. “The world is threatened by a suicidal capitalist model that is leading to war, fascism and the potential extermination of humanity,” he said to a packed audience, dressed casually in jeans and a white shirt. He accused the fossil fuel industry of hindering the transition to green energy. “The question must be asked whether capitalism can really adapt to an energy model without fossil fuels.”
Dutch role
Talking among like-minded people is fun and it feels good, but the question is whether this will make a difference. As long as the major emitters do not support the phasing out of fossil fuels, the climate will continue to warm.
The Netherlands, co-organizer of the summit, emphasized through Minister Stientje van Veldhoven (Climate and Green Growth, D66) the positive role that this summit can nevertheless have, for example by influencing the annual UN climate summit. “We want to be an accelerator,” Van Veldhoven said at the closing meeting. “We want to feed the results here to the UN, we are also talking about this with the chairmen who are organizing the UN climate summit at the end of this year.” She told the audience that all present should do their best to further spread what was discussed in Santa Marta, so that the group of ‘well-wishers’ grows in the coming years.
The powerful, wealthy countries have the purchasing power to secure a spot aboard the Ark
A leading group that entices others to participate can work well. Agreement in the international community has been hard to find in recent years, writes the World Wildlife Fund in a hopeful response over the top, and those present in Santa Mara are certainly trying to break the impasse with this new model. “Instead of waiting, this coalition has set a clear direction. This has also proven successful in the past in the field of nuclear weapons and landmines: processes start with small groups and grow over time.”
A second edition of the fuel summit has already been announced. Next year, Tuvalu and Ireland will host the meeting, which will take place in the island nation. Tuvalu wants to be close to the ball to keep the pace going. That is even more important for the archipelago than for many wealthy attendees. “The powerful, rich countries have the purchasing power to get a place on board the Ark,” said Maina Talia, Tuvalu’s climate minister when announcing the new presidency. “Countries like Tuvalu, with very limited capacity, must continue to swim outside the Ark.”
If Talia has her way, the stakes on the second edition will be raised. “Existing international climate frameworks have failed to tackle fossil fuels. New legal instruments – with clear accountability – are now essential.”
Be concrete, is also the call from various climate organizations. “The conversation needs to change in Tuvalu,” says Gounden of Greenpeace. “We cannot just show more ambition, we have to provide evidence of actual implementation. Santa Marta provided the impetus, but Tuvalu must be the place where we translate that impetus into practice.”
Also read
Tuvalu could disappear into the sea this century, and is already becoming unliveable. What happens to the residents?
