The climate crisis forces itself to the center of debates in the new year. Germany experiences a severe flood, World Economic Forum experts see extreme weather events as the biggest threat in the coming years, and climate scientists warn that we are not adequately prepared.
Despite these terrible reports and its own budget crisis, the German government is making massive cuts to climate action in the new national budget, as Malte Kreutzfeld and Bernhard Pötter report. This affects, for example, international climate financing, natural climate action and foreign aid programs of the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action.
In today’s interview, flood expert Daniel Bachmann explains why Germany needs to prepare better for extreme weather and what it can learn from the Netherlands. From the United States, Umair Irfan reports on how climate action is dividing the camps in the presidential primaries. And we introduce the next COP President, Mukhtar Babayev. Azerbaijan’s environment minister is yet another oil and gas executive at the helm of the climate conference.
Despite the crisis mood, there is also a small glimmer of hope: In 2023, emissions in the US fell for the first time in two years – despite a growing economy.
Nearly four weeks ago, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Economy Minister Robert Habeck and Finance Minister Christian Lindner stepped before the press and announced an agreement on the Climate and Transformation Fund and the 2024 national budget. However, for a long time, it remained unclear where exactly these expenditures would be cut. Now, it is mostly certain: The government is also making cuts to large parts of German climate policy.
The only thing that was initially certain was which of the funding programs financed by the Climate and Transformation Fund would be cut:
It is now clear that other important areas of climate policy, such as the Natural Climate Protection Action Program, will also suffer severe cutbacks. Last summer, an initial 4 billion euros until 2026 was announced for this program – the core of what remains of climate policy in Steffi Lemke’s Federal Ministry for the Environment. An extension to 2027 and the integration of funds from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture for forest conservation totaling 525 million euros turned the overall budget into around 5 billion euros.
It is intended to fund projects such as the rewetting of moors and climate-friendly forest reorganization, as well as the creation of floodplains to prevent flooding. This would create “incentives and offers to restore ecosystems and make them more resilient,” Lemke explained. “This is a real paradigm shift towards the restoration of nature and is good news for climate action, for nature, for animals, plants and natural habitats.”
This good news will only be partially implemented: According to the Ministry of the Environment, 30 percent of the funds, i.e., 1.5 billion, will be cut. That is 350 million for 2024 alone, according to the adjustment proposal for the Budget Committee sent out by the Ministry of Finance on Wednesday. Protest against this plan is restrained. Although the cuts are “technically painful,” the Ministry of the Environment stated, they are “within a justifiable budgetary framework.”
The budget decisions are likely also to impact international climate funding. This is because the budget for international projects will be cut by 800 million euros in the 2024 budget. Most of this affects the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), which must shoulder an additional 400 million euros. These have been split across many different programs in the adjustment proposal; At 176 million euros, the largest cuts will be made to bilateral cooperation, which is handled by the German state-owned investment and development bank KfW. According to the ministry, it has not yet been decided where the individual cuts will be made. That will be decided in the coming months when the plans with partner countries are finalized. As the demand for climate aid is high there, these cuts could also affect climate projects.
Officially, Germany continues to stand by its promises for international climate financing. As recently as COP28 in Dubai, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that his government would continue to provide the promised 6 billion euros annually. However, it is unclear where the money will come from. Compared to 2023, the BMZ budget is actually shrinking by almost one billion euros. “The cuts are very painful and will be felt in many areas,” a ministry spokesperson told Table.Media. “The consequences for the 6 billion climate financing target cannot yet be predicted and depends not only on the development budget but also on budget decisions in the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Federal Foreign Office.”
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) and the Federal Foreign Office each must reduce their spending by an additional 200 million. At the BMWK, this is at least partly at the expense of climate action: The plan is to cut the entire 200 million for “Investments to protect the climate and biodiversity abroad,” which means only 735 million euros will be available this year instead of 935 million. The Foreign Office will have to cut 200 million euros in humanitarian aid measures abroad; 2.2 of the original 2.4 billion euros for this task remain in the ministry’s budget.
Mr. Bachmann, the flood levels in Germany are dropping again. Does this mean that the danger of an even greater disaster has been averted?
The biggest danger is over for now. The weather looks good: No further precipitation is predicted for the coming days and the water levels will continue to fall. The frost is good for the dykes, the ground is rock hard.
Climate change means that extreme rainfall in Germany is becoming more frequent and flooding more likely. How well did the flood prevention work this time?
Overall, the damage remained relatively low. In many places, the water levels were not that high – except in Lower Saxony and southern Saxony-Anhalt. Basements did fill up in some places, or the water reached the first floor. Of course, this can hit individual families very hard. There have been a few regional hotspots where the situation was critical at times, but all in all, we got away lightly.
Does this mean that the flood regions were adequately prepared for the emergency? Or was it just luck that the water stopped rising just in time?
Both. We were lucky that the water rose rather slowly this winter due to the topography in the affected areas – unlike in the Ahr Valley in 2021 when the flood came very quickly. As a result, it was possible to predict quite well this time how the flood situation would develop locally, and civil protection had enough time to react.
What else worked well?
The dams were managed quite well. In the Harz Mountains, they did run so full in places that they had to discharge. But they also absorbed a considerable amount of the flood water – especially for Lower Saxony.
Have there been things that didn’t go so well?
Because the flood remained in the area for so long, the dykes ended up being very soaked. It turned out that many river dykes in Germany – especially on medium-sized and small rivers – are not in the best condition. Today, the standard is to build three-zone dykes: At the front, where the water runs up, the dyke must be sealed with clay, for example. Behind this comes the so-called supporting body, which absorbs the forces. This is followed by a layer into which the water can seep. But on small rivers, which were particularly affected by the current floods, the dykes are often just simple earth walls. They urgently need to be overhauled. There are also trees on some dykes that don’t belong there at all.
Why?
Imagine a completely soaked dyke in a storm. At some point, the ground can no longer support the roots of a tree. The tree falls and tears a hole in the top of the dyke. Dykes are structures that have a function to fulfill, and trees have no place on them.
How can we adapt our water management to climate change in the long term?
Overall, we need a smart mix of infrastructure – dykes, water pipes, reservoirs – and nature-based solutions. In agriculture, for example, it was long a matter of course to divert water away from the field as quickly as possible. So we drained, drained, drained. But this is precisely what we are now moving away from. If the soil can absorb a significant amount of precipitation and does not immediately rerelease it via ditches, streams, or rivers, this helps to prevent flooding – but it is also a protection against future drought, the other extreme weather events that we have to prepare for due to climate change. So we need to keep more water in the countryside than before. In cities, it is more about unsealing areas.
But at some point, even the most absorbent sponge landscape is saturated with water. What happens then?
Then you need dykes and dams. However, I believe that one of the most effective flood protection measures is spatial planning. It is still allowed to build in the floodplains of rivers. The Elbe River, for example, has lost more than 80 percent of its former floodplains. No wonder it now runs into residential areas when its level rises. So the rivers need to be given more space again. In some places, a start has already been made.
What still needs to change to improve the balance between the two extremes of drought and flooding?
That will be a challenge. Berlin is already discussing diverting water from the Elbe to the Spree to meet the capital’s future water needs. Who gets how much water from where? There will be conflicts over this. In addition, water management as a whole will become more difficult. One example of this is the dams. Their purpose is not only to protect against flooding but also to ensure the supply of drinking water to large regions. Sometimes, they generate electricity using hydropower, or they are popular landmarks. The current flood situation has shown how difficult it can be to reconcile all of this.
In what way?
The dams in the Harz Mountains were already fairly full before the extreme rainfall began in December. As a result, some of them could not hold much additional water and their operators were heavily criticized. But the drinking water supply depends on these dams right up to Bremen. If they hadn’t been so full and it hadn’t rained so much this winter, drinking water would have become scarce next summer – and the operators would have faced even more criticism.
You say that money needs to be spent to adapt Germany’s water management to climate change. Is that compatible with the debt brake?
Personally, I think it’s not just about money. We will also have to deal with the shortage of skilled workers. We currently notice at the universities that the number of students in our fields is not necessarily increasing. Excessive red tape is another inhibiting factor. Conflicts of interest have to be reconciled, and that also takes time.
Before joining the university, you worked as a consulting engineer for a Dutch non-profit organization in water, soil and infrastructure. What can Germany learn from the Netherlands in terms of water management?
They have a Delta Commissioner who is tasked with flood prevention. The office is basically independent of politics, similar to the European Central Bank’s monetary policy, and is endowed with financial resources for several years. That seems very sensible to me.
What I find most important, however, is the completely different attitude I encountered there. Germany tends to react to disasters, but the Netherlands has a proactive approach to flood protection – Germany can still learn a lot from that. Of course, the incentive in the Netherlands is much greater, as a third of the country is below sea level. This area is very densely populated and there is a lot of high-tech industry there. If it were to be flooded, it would really be a national disaster. Still, I would like us in Germany to take much more proactive precautions instead of waiting and seeing.
In the 2024 election year, climate change will become an important issue in the United States: President Joe Biden has made climate policy a centerpiece of his term in office. The Republicans, on the other hand, continue to refuse to take the issue seriously and want to revoke Biden’s plans. However, global warming could put itself on the agenda in 2024.
Because this election comes after many parts of the US have seen the highest temperatures on record, unprecedented rainfall, severe droughts and apocalyptic wildfires. These extremes have affected food production, pushed the power grid to its limits and contributed to hundreds of deaths. And even more intense heat is expected for 2024.
However, whether the issue becomes central depends on which side you are on. The President can boast of a number of achievements, including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), bills that have led to the largest investments to combat climate change in US history. The money is now being channeled into projects such as the construction of battery plants and the installation of EV charging stations. However, some of these initiatives have run into problems, such as slow approval processes.
Biden emphasizes his successes in his election campaign: His rhetoric focuses more on jobs and the economic benefits of the transition to clean energy than on the benefits for the environment. “When I hear ‘climate,’ I think jobs,” Biden said last year during a visit to a wind turbine factory. Employment continues to grow in the United States, with clean energy jobs accounting for the largest share.
The President plans to pass regulations this year, including new CO2 emission restrictions for cars and trucks as well as for power plants. However, the federal authorities have fallen behind schedule and missed deadlines. As a result, there is a risk that these points will not be completed before the election.
The Republicans, on the other hand, continue to refuse to deal with climate change at all. At a debate last year, none of the Republican presidential candidates on stage raised their hands when asked if humans are causing climate change.
So when Biden faces the Republican candidate, they will likely only use climate change as a way to differentiate themselves on economic policy – if the issue comes up at all. Republicans say they remain committed to reversing Biden’s climate program. However, they have also been happy to take credit for climate bills they voted against.
Will climate change influence the decisions of US voters? Perhaps indirectly. Because, as with many issues, there is a gap between stated preference (“I want to eat healthier”) and revealed preference (“I ordered extra fries today”).
In the US, most voters tell pollsters they support curbing climate change and more investment in clean energy. A survey conducted last year by Pew Research found that two-thirds of respondents favored using wind and solar power over coal, oil and natural gas. However, one of the biggest factors influencing the President’s approval rating is the price of gasoline. Biden has happily taken credit for falling gasoline prices.
Pew found that addressing climate change is the lowest priority for voters of all other campaign issues, ranking 17th out of 21 issues. “Improving energy supplies” ranked 11th and the environment 14th. Furthermore, the gap between voters of the different parties is widening on this issue: According to the survey, 78 percent of Democratic-leaning voters believe that climate change is a significant threat to the country. In contrast, only 23 percent of Republicans share this opinion.
However, climate change could also force its way onto the agenda if 2024 is just as extreme as 2023. During last year’s heat waves, the US power grid could barely meet peak summer demand for energy. The country had to spend more than 90 billion dollars on climate and weather disasters last year and could pay even more in the coming months. Rising disaster damage has led some insurance companies to pull out of states like California and Florida altogether when it comes to real estate.
This plunged property development, businesses and disaster relief into crisis. While climate change as a standalone issue will not sway many voters, how politicians respond to power outages, wildfires, flooding and economic disruption could influence voting decisions.
But the White House and Parliament are not the only places where action on climate change is being debated. The US awaits important court decisions: Such as how much the government can regulate the energy sector – or whether children can sue the government for responding too slowly to climate change.
Although Washington is unlikely to pass any climate bills in 2024, something stirs in the states: The US states of Washington and California are preparing legislation concerning greenhouse gas trading and emissions disclosure for private companies. As a prominent climate activist, Jay Inslee, Governor of the State of Washington, has already run against Biden. And California Governor Gavin Newsom has practically openly announced that he intends to take Biden’s place in 2028. Umair Irfan, Washington
2023 broke many temperature records. Last year saw the warmest recorded average temperatures on the Earth’s surface (since 1850): On average, the planet had a temperature of 14.98 degrees Celsius. This was 0.17 degrees more than in 2016, the warmest year on record, according to the latest report from the EU Copernicus program on climate change.
This means temperatures were 1.48 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels – the ominous mark of 1.5 degrees warming was almost reached. The chart clearly shows the jump from 2022 to 2023, which can be explained by the fact that the previous three years were dominated by the global La Niña phenomenon, which lowered temperatures. In 2023, on the other hand, El Niño began, resulting in higher temperatures – although “other factors also appear to play a role,” as the climate service reported. This probably refers to the equally historic record high in CO2 emissions and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. bpo
Last week, Mukhtar Babayev was appointed president-designate of the UN Climate Change Conference in Baku in November. The 55-year-old environment minister of Azerbaijan looks back on a long career in the oil and gas industry. He is a relatively unknown quantity in international climate policy. The fact that a former oil and gas executive will once again lead the climate talks has sparked much criticism.
Babayev did represent his country at last year’s COP in Dubai. But he has only been Environment Minister since 2018. Babayev did not participate in COP26 and COP27. As COP President, it is his job to lead the negotiations and work out compromises. This requires a close network of diplomatic relations and negotiating skills – something Babayev has yet to demonstrate.
At the climate conference in Dubai, he said that “as the impacts of climate change become increasingly evident, we acknowledge the necessity to unite our efforts, catalyze global cooperation and ensure that our actions are aligned with the gravity of the situation.”
But Azerbaijan’s national climate target (NDC), which was renewed in 2023, is not all that ambitious. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2050. The share of renewables in installed energy capacity is to increase from 16.5 percent (2022) to 30 percent by the end of the decade.
At the same time, the country is expanding its oil and gas production. Production is set to increase by over a third over the next decade. The majority of gas exports go to Europe. The EU obtains seven percent of its pipeline imports from Azerbaijan. The country plans to double its exports to the European market by 2027, as Reuters reports. Azerbaijan’s dependence on fossil fuels is very high. The oil and gas industry already accounts for 92.5 percent of the country’s export revenue and just under 50 percent of GDP.
Babayev comes from Baku and studied political science in Moscow and foreign economic relations in Azerbaijan. After the country gained independence in 1992, he quickly joined the state-owned oil and gas company Socar, where he worked for 26 years. In 2007, he became head of the company’s newly founded environmental department. Until 2010, his task was to reduce the environmental impact of extraction and, for example, to clean up soil contamination after decades of extraction. The goals of his department were partly at odds with Socar’s strategy of massively expanding production.
At the first Socar conference on cleaning up contaminated soil in 2008, Babayev warned “that the steep drop in prices could have a negative impact on future actions,” as Wikileaks quotes from US embassy cables. In general, little is known about Babayev due to Azerbaijan’s lack of freedom of the press. Before COP28, his name did not even appear in the archives of international media such as Bloomberg, the New York Times and the Financial Times.
Babayev’s nomination, which still has to be formally confirmed by the COP plenary at the start of COP29, has attracted much criticism. “Azerbaijan appointing another lifelong oil man to lead … pushes us closer to the abyss,” Collin Rees from Oil Change International told AFP. “We now have a former oil executive from an authoritarian petrostate in charge of the world’s response to the [climate] crisis that fossil fuel firms created,” said Alice Harrison, Fossil Fuels Campaign Leader at Global Witness.
However, there are other reactions. COP29 will not be as “nerve-wracking” as COP28, former negotiator Kaveh Guilanpour told the BBC. “Diplomatically, finance will be difficult but I think the job of the presidency overall will be easier in the sense that it’s just less complicated,” Guilanpour said. Climate journalist Ed King wrote on Twitter that it is “worth giving Babayev and his team a chance before piling in.” Only very few countries fulfill all criteria, he said. However, Babayev’s past as an oil and gas manager, like his predecessor Sultan Al Jaber, means he will be under particular scrutiny. Nico Beckert
The climate crisis forces itself to the center of debates in the new year. Germany experiences a severe flood, World Economic Forum experts see extreme weather events as the biggest threat in the coming years, and climate scientists warn that we are not adequately prepared.
Despite these terrible reports and its own budget crisis, the German government is making massive cuts to climate action in the new national budget, as Malte Kreutzfeld and Bernhard Pötter report. This affects, for example, international climate financing, natural climate action and foreign aid programs of the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action.
In today’s interview, flood expert Daniel Bachmann explains why Germany needs to prepare better for extreme weather and what it can learn from the Netherlands. From the United States, Umair Irfan reports on how climate action is dividing the camps in the presidential primaries. And we introduce the next COP President, Mukhtar Babayev. Azerbaijan’s environment minister is yet another oil and gas executive at the helm of the climate conference.
Despite the crisis mood, there is also a small glimmer of hope: In 2023, emissions in the US fell for the first time in two years – despite a growing economy.
Nearly four weeks ago, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Economy Minister Robert Habeck and Finance Minister Christian Lindner stepped before the press and announced an agreement on the Climate and Transformation Fund and the 2024 national budget. However, for a long time, it remained unclear where exactly these expenditures would be cut. Now, it is mostly certain: The government is also making cuts to large parts of German climate policy.
The only thing that was initially certain was which of the funding programs financed by the Climate and Transformation Fund would be cut:
It is now clear that other important areas of climate policy, such as the Natural Climate Protection Action Program, will also suffer severe cutbacks. Last summer, an initial 4 billion euros until 2026 was announced for this program – the core of what remains of climate policy in Steffi Lemke’s Federal Ministry for the Environment. An extension to 2027 and the integration of funds from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture for forest conservation totaling 525 million euros turned the overall budget into around 5 billion euros.
It is intended to fund projects such as the rewetting of moors and climate-friendly forest reorganization, as well as the creation of floodplains to prevent flooding. This would create “incentives and offers to restore ecosystems and make them more resilient,” Lemke explained. “This is a real paradigm shift towards the restoration of nature and is good news for climate action, for nature, for animals, plants and natural habitats.”
This good news will only be partially implemented: According to the Ministry of the Environment, 30 percent of the funds, i.e., 1.5 billion, will be cut. That is 350 million for 2024 alone, according to the adjustment proposal for the Budget Committee sent out by the Ministry of Finance on Wednesday. Protest against this plan is restrained. Although the cuts are “technically painful,” the Ministry of the Environment stated, they are “within a justifiable budgetary framework.”
The budget decisions are likely also to impact international climate funding. This is because the budget for international projects will be cut by 800 million euros in the 2024 budget. Most of this affects the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), which must shoulder an additional 400 million euros. These have been split across many different programs in the adjustment proposal; At 176 million euros, the largest cuts will be made to bilateral cooperation, which is handled by the German state-owned investment and development bank KfW. According to the ministry, it has not yet been decided where the individual cuts will be made. That will be decided in the coming months when the plans with partner countries are finalized. As the demand for climate aid is high there, these cuts could also affect climate projects.
Officially, Germany continues to stand by its promises for international climate financing. As recently as COP28 in Dubai, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that his government would continue to provide the promised 6 billion euros annually. However, it is unclear where the money will come from. Compared to 2023, the BMZ budget is actually shrinking by almost one billion euros. “The cuts are very painful and will be felt in many areas,” a ministry spokesperson told Table.Media. “The consequences for the 6 billion climate financing target cannot yet be predicted and depends not only on the development budget but also on budget decisions in the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Federal Foreign Office.”
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) and the Federal Foreign Office each must reduce their spending by an additional 200 million. At the BMWK, this is at least partly at the expense of climate action: The plan is to cut the entire 200 million for “Investments to protect the climate and biodiversity abroad,” which means only 735 million euros will be available this year instead of 935 million. The Foreign Office will have to cut 200 million euros in humanitarian aid measures abroad; 2.2 of the original 2.4 billion euros for this task remain in the ministry’s budget.
Mr. Bachmann, the flood levels in Germany are dropping again. Does this mean that the danger of an even greater disaster has been averted?
The biggest danger is over for now. The weather looks good: No further precipitation is predicted for the coming days and the water levels will continue to fall. The frost is good for the dykes, the ground is rock hard.
Climate change means that extreme rainfall in Germany is becoming more frequent and flooding more likely. How well did the flood prevention work this time?
Overall, the damage remained relatively low. In many places, the water levels were not that high – except in Lower Saxony and southern Saxony-Anhalt. Basements did fill up in some places, or the water reached the first floor. Of course, this can hit individual families very hard. There have been a few regional hotspots where the situation was critical at times, but all in all, we got away lightly.
Does this mean that the flood regions were adequately prepared for the emergency? Or was it just luck that the water stopped rising just in time?
Both. We were lucky that the water rose rather slowly this winter due to the topography in the affected areas – unlike in the Ahr Valley in 2021 when the flood came very quickly. As a result, it was possible to predict quite well this time how the flood situation would develop locally, and civil protection had enough time to react.
What else worked well?
The dams were managed quite well. In the Harz Mountains, they did run so full in places that they had to discharge. But they also absorbed a considerable amount of the flood water – especially for Lower Saxony.
Have there been things that didn’t go so well?
Because the flood remained in the area for so long, the dykes ended up being very soaked. It turned out that many river dykes in Germany – especially on medium-sized and small rivers – are not in the best condition. Today, the standard is to build three-zone dykes: At the front, where the water runs up, the dyke must be sealed with clay, for example. Behind this comes the so-called supporting body, which absorbs the forces. This is followed by a layer into which the water can seep. But on small rivers, which were particularly affected by the current floods, the dykes are often just simple earth walls. They urgently need to be overhauled. There are also trees on some dykes that don’t belong there at all.
Why?
Imagine a completely soaked dyke in a storm. At some point, the ground can no longer support the roots of a tree. The tree falls and tears a hole in the top of the dyke. Dykes are structures that have a function to fulfill, and trees have no place on them.
How can we adapt our water management to climate change in the long term?
Overall, we need a smart mix of infrastructure – dykes, water pipes, reservoirs – and nature-based solutions. In agriculture, for example, it was long a matter of course to divert water away from the field as quickly as possible. So we drained, drained, drained. But this is precisely what we are now moving away from. If the soil can absorb a significant amount of precipitation and does not immediately rerelease it via ditches, streams, or rivers, this helps to prevent flooding – but it is also a protection against future drought, the other extreme weather events that we have to prepare for due to climate change. So we need to keep more water in the countryside than before. In cities, it is more about unsealing areas.
But at some point, even the most absorbent sponge landscape is saturated with water. What happens then?
Then you need dykes and dams. However, I believe that one of the most effective flood protection measures is spatial planning. It is still allowed to build in the floodplains of rivers. The Elbe River, for example, has lost more than 80 percent of its former floodplains. No wonder it now runs into residential areas when its level rises. So the rivers need to be given more space again. In some places, a start has already been made.
What still needs to change to improve the balance between the two extremes of drought and flooding?
That will be a challenge. Berlin is already discussing diverting water from the Elbe to the Spree to meet the capital’s future water needs. Who gets how much water from where? There will be conflicts over this. In addition, water management as a whole will become more difficult. One example of this is the dams. Their purpose is not only to protect against flooding but also to ensure the supply of drinking water to large regions. Sometimes, they generate electricity using hydropower, or they are popular landmarks. The current flood situation has shown how difficult it can be to reconcile all of this.
In what way?
The dams in the Harz Mountains were already fairly full before the extreme rainfall began in December. As a result, some of them could not hold much additional water and their operators were heavily criticized. But the drinking water supply depends on these dams right up to Bremen. If they hadn’t been so full and it hadn’t rained so much this winter, drinking water would have become scarce next summer – and the operators would have faced even more criticism.
You say that money needs to be spent to adapt Germany’s water management to climate change. Is that compatible with the debt brake?
Personally, I think it’s not just about money. We will also have to deal with the shortage of skilled workers. We currently notice at the universities that the number of students in our fields is not necessarily increasing. Excessive red tape is another inhibiting factor. Conflicts of interest have to be reconciled, and that also takes time.
Before joining the university, you worked as a consulting engineer for a Dutch non-profit organization in water, soil and infrastructure. What can Germany learn from the Netherlands in terms of water management?
They have a Delta Commissioner who is tasked with flood prevention. The office is basically independent of politics, similar to the European Central Bank’s monetary policy, and is endowed with financial resources for several years. That seems very sensible to me.
What I find most important, however, is the completely different attitude I encountered there. Germany tends to react to disasters, but the Netherlands has a proactive approach to flood protection – Germany can still learn a lot from that. Of course, the incentive in the Netherlands is much greater, as a third of the country is below sea level. This area is very densely populated and there is a lot of high-tech industry there. If it were to be flooded, it would really be a national disaster. Still, I would like us in Germany to take much more proactive precautions instead of waiting and seeing.
In the 2024 election year, climate change will become an important issue in the United States: President Joe Biden has made climate policy a centerpiece of his term in office. The Republicans, on the other hand, continue to refuse to take the issue seriously and want to revoke Biden’s plans. However, global warming could put itself on the agenda in 2024.
Because this election comes after many parts of the US have seen the highest temperatures on record, unprecedented rainfall, severe droughts and apocalyptic wildfires. These extremes have affected food production, pushed the power grid to its limits and contributed to hundreds of deaths. And even more intense heat is expected for 2024.
However, whether the issue becomes central depends on which side you are on. The President can boast of a number of achievements, including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), bills that have led to the largest investments to combat climate change in US history. The money is now being channeled into projects such as the construction of battery plants and the installation of EV charging stations. However, some of these initiatives have run into problems, such as slow approval processes.
Biden emphasizes his successes in his election campaign: His rhetoric focuses more on jobs and the economic benefits of the transition to clean energy than on the benefits for the environment. “When I hear ‘climate,’ I think jobs,” Biden said last year during a visit to a wind turbine factory. Employment continues to grow in the United States, with clean energy jobs accounting for the largest share.
The President plans to pass regulations this year, including new CO2 emission restrictions for cars and trucks as well as for power plants. However, the federal authorities have fallen behind schedule and missed deadlines. As a result, there is a risk that these points will not be completed before the election.
The Republicans, on the other hand, continue to refuse to deal with climate change at all. At a debate last year, none of the Republican presidential candidates on stage raised their hands when asked if humans are causing climate change.
So when Biden faces the Republican candidate, they will likely only use climate change as a way to differentiate themselves on economic policy – if the issue comes up at all. Republicans say they remain committed to reversing Biden’s climate program. However, they have also been happy to take credit for climate bills they voted against.
Will climate change influence the decisions of US voters? Perhaps indirectly. Because, as with many issues, there is a gap between stated preference (“I want to eat healthier”) and revealed preference (“I ordered extra fries today”).
In the US, most voters tell pollsters they support curbing climate change and more investment in clean energy. A survey conducted last year by Pew Research found that two-thirds of respondents favored using wind and solar power over coal, oil and natural gas. However, one of the biggest factors influencing the President’s approval rating is the price of gasoline. Biden has happily taken credit for falling gasoline prices.
Pew found that addressing climate change is the lowest priority for voters of all other campaign issues, ranking 17th out of 21 issues. “Improving energy supplies” ranked 11th and the environment 14th. Furthermore, the gap between voters of the different parties is widening on this issue: According to the survey, 78 percent of Democratic-leaning voters believe that climate change is a significant threat to the country. In contrast, only 23 percent of Republicans share this opinion.
However, climate change could also force its way onto the agenda if 2024 is just as extreme as 2023. During last year’s heat waves, the US power grid could barely meet peak summer demand for energy. The country had to spend more than 90 billion dollars on climate and weather disasters last year and could pay even more in the coming months. Rising disaster damage has led some insurance companies to pull out of states like California and Florida altogether when it comes to real estate.
This plunged property development, businesses and disaster relief into crisis. While climate change as a standalone issue will not sway many voters, how politicians respond to power outages, wildfires, flooding and economic disruption could influence voting decisions.
But the White House and Parliament are not the only places where action on climate change is being debated. The US awaits important court decisions: Such as how much the government can regulate the energy sector – or whether children can sue the government for responding too slowly to climate change.
Although Washington is unlikely to pass any climate bills in 2024, something stirs in the states: The US states of Washington and California are preparing legislation concerning greenhouse gas trading and emissions disclosure for private companies. As a prominent climate activist, Jay Inslee, Governor of the State of Washington, has already run against Biden. And California Governor Gavin Newsom has practically openly announced that he intends to take Biden’s place in 2028. Umair Irfan, Washington
2023 broke many temperature records. Last year saw the warmest recorded average temperatures on the Earth’s surface (since 1850): On average, the planet had a temperature of 14.98 degrees Celsius. This was 0.17 degrees more than in 2016, the warmest year on record, according to the latest report from the EU Copernicus program on climate change.
This means temperatures were 1.48 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels – the ominous mark of 1.5 degrees warming was almost reached. The chart clearly shows the jump from 2022 to 2023, which can be explained by the fact that the previous three years were dominated by the global La Niña phenomenon, which lowered temperatures. In 2023, on the other hand, El Niño began, resulting in higher temperatures – although “other factors also appear to play a role,” as the climate service reported. This probably refers to the equally historic record high in CO2 emissions and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. bpo
Last week, Mukhtar Babayev was appointed president-designate of the UN Climate Change Conference in Baku in November. The 55-year-old environment minister of Azerbaijan looks back on a long career in the oil and gas industry. He is a relatively unknown quantity in international climate policy. The fact that a former oil and gas executive will once again lead the climate talks has sparked much criticism.
Babayev did represent his country at last year’s COP in Dubai. But he has only been Environment Minister since 2018. Babayev did not participate in COP26 and COP27. As COP President, it is his job to lead the negotiations and work out compromises. This requires a close network of diplomatic relations and negotiating skills – something Babayev has yet to demonstrate.
At the climate conference in Dubai, he said that “as the impacts of climate change become increasingly evident, we acknowledge the necessity to unite our efforts, catalyze global cooperation and ensure that our actions are aligned with the gravity of the situation.”
But Azerbaijan’s national climate target (NDC), which was renewed in 2023, is not all that ambitious. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2050. The share of renewables in installed energy capacity is to increase from 16.5 percent (2022) to 30 percent by the end of the decade.
At the same time, the country is expanding its oil and gas production. Production is set to increase by over a third over the next decade. The majority of gas exports go to Europe. The EU obtains seven percent of its pipeline imports from Azerbaijan. The country plans to double its exports to the European market by 2027, as Reuters reports. Azerbaijan’s dependence on fossil fuels is very high. The oil and gas industry already accounts for 92.5 percent of the country’s export revenue and just under 50 percent of GDP.
Babayev comes from Baku and studied political science in Moscow and foreign economic relations in Azerbaijan. After the country gained independence in 1992, he quickly joined the state-owned oil and gas company Socar, where he worked for 26 years. In 2007, he became head of the company’s newly founded environmental department. Until 2010, his task was to reduce the environmental impact of extraction and, for example, to clean up soil contamination after decades of extraction. The goals of his department were partly at odds with Socar’s strategy of massively expanding production.
At the first Socar conference on cleaning up contaminated soil in 2008, Babayev warned “that the steep drop in prices could have a negative impact on future actions,” as Wikileaks quotes from US embassy cables. In general, little is known about Babayev due to Azerbaijan’s lack of freedom of the press. Before COP28, his name did not even appear in the archives of international media such as Bloomberg, the New York Times and the Financial Times.
Babayev’s nomination, which still has to be formally confirmed by the COP plenary at the start of COP29, has attracted much criticism. “Azerbaijan appointing another lifelong oil man to lead … pushes us closer to the abyss,” Collin Rees from Oil Change International told AFP. “We now have a former oil executive from an authoritarian petrostate in charge of the world’s response to the [climate] crisis that fossil fuel firms created,” said Alice Harrison, Fossil Fuels Campaign Leader at Global Witness.
However, there are other reactions. COP29 will not be as “nerve-wracking” as COP28, former negotiator Kaveh Guilanpour told the BBC. “Diplomatically, finance will be difficult but I think the job of the presidency overall will be easier in the sense that it’s just less complicated,” Guilanpour said. Climate journalist Ed King wrote on Twitter that it is “worth giving Babayev and his team a chance before piling in.” Only very few countries fulfill all criteria, he said. However, Babayev’s past as an oil and gas manager, like his predecessor Sultan Al Jaber, means he will be under particular scrutiny. Nico Beckert
