There is no shortage of numbers when world leaders meet for climate summits. It is always about tonnes, degrees of heat or percentages. Preferably all at once. This year it is further complicated because the countries will be talking about money. It is the first time since the summit in Copenhagen in 2009. Even the Paris Agreement does not have concrete commitments for funding. Economics is a language politicians understand and their voters speak fluently. Regardless of world language or rare indigenous language. The climate issue costs. Conversion is hugely expensive. Emissions cuts have a cost side. All possible climate targets, ambitions and promises also have an economic consequence. The backdrop is telling enough: In 2009, it was agreed to collect USD 100 billion annually from the countries of the world by 2020. The goal was perhaps reached in 2022. Now there are calls for a tenfold increase in the sum for the years to come. It’s staggeringly much more than a goal that hasn’t been met. At a time when world leaders know that even if cars float in the streets of Spain or forest fire records burn up in Brazil, climate commitment is weaker. Many details So why spend public money and political capital on climate action right now? The question can just as easily be turned on its head. What is the value of all supranational roadmaps, commitments and objectives if there is no money involved? In the language of politics, you cannot put power behind demands, without money being involved. Without power, demands and objectives are just non-binding visions. The oil state of Azerbaijan is Photo: Reuters Poor countries must have confidence that rich countries will spend money on climate change. Businesses must be able to believe that investment decisions for decades at a time are not made under political unpredictability. Such a major change in everything from energy production, transport and consumption habits that the climate issue calls for, does not happen by itself. The discussion is also demanding. Who will pay, how much? As a loan or direct contribution? Within how many years? Who will be able to receive the money? On what conditions and for what purposes? There are plenty of details where various devils can hide. That is why it is extra demanding. Getting rich countries to address the climate issue in the face of expensive time and increased defense spending is no easy matter. The dealers in Baku understand that, of course. The tug-of-war over spending will therefore in all likelihood not be decided before overtime, if they manage to agree at all. From before, the trust poor countries have in rich countries hangs in the balance. Nevertheless, the pursuit of monetary commitments is important for the further reputation and impact of the climate issue. This is why this year’s somewhat subdued climate summit is important. Although more top politicians than the Norwegians have other things to worry about. The Norwegian position is that more money needs to be on the table, in a numerical order of magnitude that makes it likely to meet the Paris Agreement’s long-term temperature target. Norway wants to make demands on emerging economies. 2024 is set to be the warmest year ever. Photo: Copernicus Climate Change Service /ECMWF The Norwegian dilemma In deep forests or idyllic Pacific islands or in the Spanish countryside, climate change is a matter of human life. In the inhumanly dry air in the gray exhibition center in Baku, it is important to keep alive the idea that different interests can agree on the common good in the service of the climate. By February next year, all the world’s countries must again report updated targets on climate cuts as a follow-up to the Paris Agreement and the way forward towards 2035. Brazil, which is hosting the climate summit next year, will be early and announces a new target figure from the stage in Baku already this week . Norway is not ready to do that. Norwegian substitute: Climate Minister Tore O. Sandvik heads the Norwegian delegation in Baku. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister are staying at home. Photo: Kristoffer Hansen / Ministry of Climate and the Environment Some would say that the rich, polluted economies should see it as a special obligation to be both early and clear in their climate commitments. In good time before next year’s general election and the climate summit, Norway must show its cards in any case. Before the hour of truth both nationally and internationally, one can only register that what can be called the Norwegian dilemma characterizes the entire globe’s approach to the climate debate: It is easier and more comfortable to talk about starting new things. Wind power, solar panels or carbon storage, you are welcome! All that will hurt to get rid of? Like oil extraction, coal-fired power plants or old industrial workplaces? Hush! No need to panic. The countries have already agreed to triple renewable investments and to double the energy transition. The former is pleasant to throw money at, the latter is very demanding. The rainforest in Brazil has been ravaged by a record number of forest fires so far this year. Photo: AP The climate summit in Baku will, like last year’s in Dubai, highlight that there is a difference between the countries that primarily want to talk about climate adaptation, support for loss and damage – while others want to talk about concrete emission cuts. Only when everyone realizes that everyone has to think about both parts at the same time, will the climate work move forward. Figuratively speaking, many people have a knife at their throats as the years after the Paris Agreement pass. That is why the question of how much money we have and what we should spend it on is so important. For all countries it is about the money. For some, it is also about life. Published 12.11.2024, at 08.52
ttn-69
Money or life – Speech
