Samsom, head of cabinet and right-hand man of EU negotiator Timmermans, has been following the UN climate summits since they started in 1995. MEP Eickhout has been there since 2000. De Volkskrant interviewed them after the failed summit in Copenhagen (2009) and is now doing so again.
Is this the result you came to Glasgow for?
Samsom: ‘If you assume mediocre expectations: yes. You always hope for more. But then everything has to go well and experience at climate summits shows that that is usually not the case. International diplomacy rarely leads to great leaps forward. The climate summit in Paris was an exception, the one in Copenhagen was clearly at the bottom. The outcome of climate summits can be divided into three categories: low, medium and high. You have to avoid landing in low, because we need more and more high scenarios. That didn’t work out in Glasgow.’
Eickhout: ‘No, but the outcome is more positive than Copenhagen. Then there was a very brief peak of attention for climate. All the greats came, talked about it and then it was dumped again as quickly as possible. That is no longer the case. Climate is at the top of the political agenda, politicians no longer get away with ignoring climate change when they return home. Glasgow did not bring the big breakthrough that was needed, but it has built up pressure for the climate summit in Egypt next year.’
Could a different outcome have been possible?
Eickhout: ‘I think so. Glasgow again became the classic battle between rich and poor countries. And then things go wrong at climate summits. Paris was a success because Europe formed a coalition with the less developed countries, a coalition that the United States and China eventually joined. That has not happened in the past two weeks. That gave China the chance to keep ambitions low. Europe stood alone and then you never win the battle.
‘The debate was too much about climate neutrality in 2050, 2060 and 2070. While we know that action is required in the coming years to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees. That climate ambition in this crucial decade has been postponed by one year. The optimist will say: we acknowledge that this action is necessary. True, but another year is lost. And that’s quite a lot for the eight years remaining this decade.’
Samsom: ‘As I said: only if everything had gone well, if a number of large CO2 emitters had put their new reduction plans on the table before the climate summit, would we have moved further towards 1.5 degrees in Glasgow. Then there are China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, their plans are not specific enough. The good thing is that we have agreed that they should do that next year and that those plans are then monitored annually. That is crucial progress.’
Who hit the brakes the hardest?
Samsom: ‘The big emitters and the emerging economies. So Brazil, South Africa, India, China. In 1992 it was agreed that these countries would have to deliver less ambitious climate plans and not contribute to the climate support for the poorest countries. As a result, China and Malawi are in the same category. This is becoming increasingly difficult, the world looked really different in 1992. This outdated dichotomy means that rich countries do not come to the fore, they say: we do not want to pay for everything. If China invests hundreds of billions of dollars around the world to gain influence, it can also contribute to climate finance in Africa.’
Eickhout: ‘China. But Saudi Arabia, other oil-producing countries, Brazil and India also stepped on the brakes. The most effect was China’s unwillingness. That made the climate summit very difficult.’
Should the EU have done more in Glasgow?
Eickhout: ‘We’ve been too busy with America. It’s all nice and nice that the US is back after Trump, but Washington will always be an unreliable party on climate. So stop this obsession with the US and create coalitions with the least developed countries. They suffer from climate change to which they themselves hardly contribute. Europe should have included this injustice in the climate battle in its strategy. That means more money for those countries, but also technological aid, the giving away of patents. If Europe does that, it will get allies, so that China can no longer use the poorest countries for its unambitious climate cart.’
Samsom: ‘You can always do more, that’s an open door, but just walk through it. Europe has by far the most ambitious climate target. Also by far the most detailed and substantiated. In terms of financial aid, the EU is contributing more than its share, also after 2025. And EU negotiator Timmermans played a crucial role in drafting the final agreement in Glasgow. If you leave that to the US and China, you will end up nowhere or at a very low level.’
And what next?
Samsom: ‘The next climate summit in Egypt. The success of a summit can be measured in two ways: what has been achieved and how firm are the agreements about what still needs to be achieved. For Glasgow, the first part is mediocre. But the second is pretty good with the conclusions about additional carbon plans and financing. The ball is on the spot for the COP27.’
Eickhout: ‘As chair of the next climate summit, Egypt will follow the African Union’s agenda: more focused on money and justice than on stricter CO2 reduction. While Europe considers the latter important. That is why the EU would do well to invest less in relations with the world’s greats and more in small African countries. Biden will have his head in America’s midterm elections next year.”
–
