Ms. Baerbock, at COP30 there was agreement on adaptation, but no consensus on a roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels. Is that enough to save the world from global warming?
The most important message is that, despite all the global turbulence, there is no turning back on climate action. We have the solutions to the climate crisis, all over the world. Not only do the vast majority of countries agree that the future is based on clean energy, but especially the global financial players. Renewable energies accounted for 90% of global power expansion last year. And the host country Brazil has made it clear that taking action on climate change, rainforest conservation and economic development can certainly go hand in hand if the political will is there. At the same time, of course, even a climate conference cannot ignore the global situation. That is why, in terms of giving additional commitments, countries could only agree on the lowest common denominator in Belém. In view of the dramatic effects of the climate crisis all over the world, this is anything but a cause for celebration.
You were briefly at the conference yourself. What was your task as President of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly?
To make it clear how closely climate action is linked to the three pillars of the UN, namely peace and security, sustainable development and human rights: The climate crisis is the greatest security threat of this century. I came to Belém virtually straight from the World Social Summit in Doha, where the world’s heads of state and government committed themselves to achieving, among other things, the eradication of poverty and hunger by 2030. However, this can only be achieved if we break the vicious circle in which the effects of the climate crisis, such as droughts, floods and devastating hurricanes, completely destroy livelihoods in many regions from one day to the next and thus further exacerbate poverty and hunger.
Belém also marks the tenth anniversary of the Paris Agreement. And emissions are still rising. How successful is the agreement?
From a diplomatic perspective, a small miracle has happened since the Paris Climate Agreement was signed in 2015. Because ten years is nothing in international politics. While today at the UN we no longer even discuss whether climate action is important, because we are implementing it, ten years ago it was completely different with the Paris Agreement, where I was a young member of parliament. The expression “renewable energies” only appeared once in the text; anyone who talked about phasing out coal, as I did, was laughed at.
How do you view COPs from your new position?
We see two simultaneous yet contradictory developments. The good thing is that the world has decided to phase out fossil fuels. At the same time, we can feel every day and in the most brutal way that we are far too slow when it comes to taking action on protecting the climate. Today, COPs are less purely environmental and climate conferences and more innovation and business meetings. And worldwide, financial markets have made up long their minds: In 2024, USD 2 trillion was invested in clean energy, 800 billion more than in fossil fuels, which also had to be subsidized compared to solar. Some may deny the climate crisis. But there is no turning back. Because no investor likes stranded assets.
The UN is under massive pressure at the moment: financial worries, a debate on reform, the search for a new Secretary-General. What role does climate policy play in these changes?
It plays a major role, because climate policy is now security policy, energy policy, economic policy and also social policy — in other words, it affects all areas, especially much-needed reforms of the UN system. There is no question that the UN must become more efficient and more agile. In 80 years, a great many substructures have been formed. We need to reduce duplication and make better use of synergies. The issue of climate finance is a powerful driver for these reforms, because there is no doubt that without a reform of the international financial architecture, international development banks, the World Bank and the IMF, we will never be able to raise the necessary climate funds. At the same time, these investments also support sustainability goals. When villages in the Sahel are electrified for the first time by solar systems, this naturally also has a massively positive impact on the water supply or schools.
COP host Brazil has proposed setting up a Climate Security Council alongside the UN Security Council in future. What is your position on this?
As President of the General Assembly, I represent all member states and Brazil’s proposal has not yet been discussed in depth. But we certainly need a discussion on how we can scale up and dovetail climate solutions worldwide, which are all there. Be it the protection of the rainforest, where women work sustainably, solar energy as the cheapest source of energy in Africa or new climate funds. Belém was the COP of implementation. The hosts therefore rightly reminded us that global implementation can no longer wait for the last movers, but that an alliance of pioneers is needed again. It is up to member states and not me as President to define exactly what that looks like or what that means. That is outside the remit of my role.
The UN General Assembly is increasingly seeking an active role in climate policy. The impetus for the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, which this year committed states to effective climate action under international law, came from its midst. Now states such as Vanuatu are pushing for the Assembly to take a public position on this decision in December or January. What would the consequences be?
Countries such as small island states, in particular, for whom their very survival is at stake, have already signaled that they also want to bring the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion to the General Assembly. A resolution, for example, would then be a political as well as a legal obligation. However, this would of course once again require majorities. However, unlike in the COP process, where everything is based on unanimity, decisions in the General Assembly can also be made by majority vote.
Is it not dangerous to plan major reforms in such an unstable situation at the UN? It could lead to drastic cuts and setbacks.
It is the other way around, in fact. The UN is under enormous pressure — politically and financially. If we do not carry out reforms, the UN will collapse. That will weaken the UN, which some are hoping for. Those who want to strengthen international law and global cooperation must therefore join forces, modernize the UN, and yes, fight hard in these difficult times to ensure that reforms are not abused.
Countries always consider their strategic interests when making COP decisions. In your experience, how does the climate crisis also influence geopolitics?
You cannot be naive about geostrategy. Of course, climate policy is also about global power politics. These days, climate conferences are also used to negotiate the markets of the future. It is about making huge investments in energy plants, storage facilities and sometimes the entire energy grids of smaller countries. The stronger climate partnerships are, the stronger economic relations between countries are; and the stronger the dependencies, influence or, in a positive sense, bilateral relations. Germany itself has benefited from this for decades. An active development policy opens doors for companies in regions where they would otherwise not be able to take advantage of opportunities. If you withdraw from climate and development policy, you also lose out in the medium term in economic and geopolitical terms. Because others will immediately fill these gaps.
This can be clearly seen in China, which is filling the gap left by the US’ withdrawal from climate negotiations.
Clearly, China is not only investing in renewable energies in its own country, but also to a large extent worldwide, often in combination with investments in extracting raw materials. Naturally, this is driven not only by climate policy concerns but also by geopolitical considerations. Gulf states, which continue to rely on fossil fuels, are also showing increasing interest in investing in renewables outside their own countries. And smaller countries, especially island states, are dependent on these investments in clean energy, as they are often unable to provide the start-up finance themselves, even though it is the cheaper option for them in the long term.
A lot of money is being directed into defense spending around the world, which is not available for climate policy. Is security policy cannibalizing climate efforts?
Climate policy is also security policy. The effects of the climate crisis, such as drought and water shortages, are significant drivers of instability and crises. The United States Department of War warned of this years ago. In many cases, the consequences do not manifest themselves immediately but instead unfold over many years. The terrorist organization Boko Haram, for example, recruited young men for years in villages around the vast expanse of Lake Chad, who could no longer earn an income as fishermen due to the massive loss of water from the lake. The combination of conflict, climate crisis and poverty is also exacerbating the humanitarian situation and forcing millions to flee their homes worldwide. In order to address this nexus strategically, I brought climate foreign policy into the Foreign Ministry when I was German Foreign Minister, initiated a major study with the German Federal Intelligence Service and the Bundeswehr University, among others, and the “climate and security” nexus is embedded in NATO’s strategy.
Are you not worried that this debate will lead to a militarization of climate policy?
No. The same applies here as with UN reform: the greatest danger of doing good is that people stop doing the right thing out of fear.
A new bloc rivalry is emerging in the realm of climate geopolitics: The fossil bloc with Russia, the USA and petrostates against the “renewables” bloc of the EU and China. What impact is this having?
My credo is to see an opportunity in every crisis, otherwise you there is no point being active in international politics in such turbulent times. The shift in geopolitical centers of power is a fact. And the old division of blocs not only brought us justice and peace. The new forms of multilateralism are, above all, cross-regional cooperation between very different countries. Many other UN processes can learn from the climate sector. In recent years, progress has always been made here when small island states, the active countries of Latin America, the EU, Canada, New Zealand and Australia and African states have joined forces with climate pioneers from Asia, along the lines of: we may not agree on everything, but we know that progress in climate policy is in our own absolute interest. Now, we also see these cross-regional alliances of between 140 and 160 countries in other processes such as the defense of the UN Charter, support for Ukraine or humanitarian aid for Gaza.
It is often said that the climate issue is one of the few areas in which countries that are otherwise adversaries cooperate. But does the formation of a fossil fuel bloc versus a renewables bloc show that the UN is also divided on the climate issue?
We have to accept the world as it is. It is anything but perfect, but still beautiful, and that is why it is worth fighting for every day. And there is no alternative to the UN, even if it needs reform. Its basic understanding is that every country, no matter how small or large, has an equal voice. And no, the UN is not divided on the climate. Yes, the United States is once again no longer a member, but 195 countries that signed the Paris Agreement minus one equals 194 and not zero or two times 97. Even if there is another handful of countries that take a critical view of things at COPs, there has always been a group of around 160 countries that have had enough conviction and have exerted enough pressure for us to reach a final declaration. We must neither allow ourselves to be talked into division nor lose ourselves in the minutiae.
What does that mean in concrete terms?
We do not need to argue about the last tenth of a degree of warming, we need to set the course now for the global financial system to steer investment towards clean energy and achieving sustainability goals. New partnerships between the public and private sectors are needed to climate-proof the huge infrastructure funds for grids, schools and hospitals. There is no lack of money, we have enough money worldwide. It just needs to be channeled in the right direction.
But money is always a hotly contested issue in climate negotiations.
We decided in Baku to mobilize a total of USD 1.3 trillion in investments by 2035 in order to contain the climate crisis. These are unprecedented dimensions. At the same time, the proportion of debt of countries in the Global South is at a similar level, preventing them from investing in growth, climate action and social goals such as education and health. If we look at the discussions about debt restructuring — such as those in relation to Debt-for-Climate Swaps (DFCS) now being conducted by the World Bank and also within the IMF — the sums sound very different. What is more, all of us are now very much aware that reconstruction after the disaster will be many times more expensive than mitigating it in the first place.