Can elections be won with ambitious climate action? What costs and what pace can the general population be expected to shoulder? With the accelerating climate crisis, these questions are becoming increasingly important.
The elections in Turkey are also climate elections. The country’s emissions are rising rapidly and are now higher than those of France or the UK. But for Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the frontrunner in the runoff election at the end of May, growth trumps climate action. Selin Ugurtas reports on the climate plans of the incumbent president and the opposition parties.
In the US, Biden’s billion-dollar bazooka known as the Inflation Reduction Act is expected to turn the tide on climate and appease climate skeptics in Republican states. Biden’s former climate advisor, Gina McCarthy, explains in an interview if a future Republican president could scale back Biden’s climate goals and why the country is often hesitant to act on the international stage.
The USA has not yet been able to agree on a national emissions trading system or a uniform carbon price. Senators from both major parties are now considering introducing a carbon border adjustment. But the plans could fall through due to the country’s political divide – and because voters and industry reject a “CO2 price,” as Umair Irfan reports from Washington.
In the first round of Turkey’s presidential and parliamentary elections on Sunday, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan came in first with over 49 percent of the votes. Erdoğan will very likely be able to extend his 20-year rule in the runoff election on May 28. His climate policy has not been very ambitious so far. A victory for his opponent Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu would promise more ambitious climate policies.
As a Mediterranean country, Turkey is highly vulnerable to climate change, and this is becoming increasingly visible: massive wildfires traumatized the public in 2021, only to be followed by flash floods that killed 97 people in the same month. More recently, in the wake of the deadly earthquakes in the country’s southeast, torrential rains triggered floods that claimed the lives of 19 people.
Such devastating disasters caused the Turkish public to be increasingly wary of climate change. A public opinion poll being held since 2018 demonstrates that the percentage of people concerned by climate change is high (83 percent), and steadily increasing.
A recent report by the Istanbul Policy Center analyzes the pledges of political parties and alliances, and argues that an opposition win could imply more progressive climate and energy policies.
The ruling AKP’s most striking promise – which is also part of the opposition’s plans – is setting up a carbon pricing mechanism. This move is vital for the Turkish economy in light of the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. However, the AKP falls short of offering anything new on mitigation or energy transition.
In contrast with the ruling party’s focus on development and growth, the opposition alliance highlights just transition. It vows to reach net zero by 2050, update Turkey’s NDC, and prepare a realistic emissions reduction plan. A pledge to phase out coal is part of this strategy.
On some issues, different opinions of alliance partners resulted in contradicting statements in the common agreement document, and it is hard to tell how things will play out. That said, various reports claim that the CHP – which has the most progressive energy plan – would retain the Energy Ministry if Kilicdaroglu were to win.
In its energy strategy document, the CHP pledges a 30 percent reduction in coal generation by 2030, vows not to build new coal plants, and describes natural gas as a bridge fuel. Still, the opposition aims to continue drilling for gas.
The opposition bloc also stresses it would liberalize energy markets and halt subsidies that disrupt the market’s supply and demand equilibrium. This is largely based on a criticism of the country’s Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EPDK) accused of being politicized and distorting the market against renewables.
Another major difference could be nuclear policies, as the opposition pledges to renegotiate the terms of the Akkuyu deal with Rosatom, and halt plans for two new nuclear power plants in Sinop and the western Thrace region. That said, the bloc isn’t completely opposed to nuclear, as it plans to establish a nuclear research center to develop local know-how and build small modular reactors.
Turkey’s energy policies are of critical importance as the energy sector accounts for some 85% of the country’s CO2 emissions. Currently, the country is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels. A large part of this is imported.
While some 84 percent of its primary energy supply is based on fossil fuels, around 70 percent of its energy supply is imported. This is a massive problem both in terms of energy security and the country’s widening current account deficit: Turkey’s energy imports stood at 80 billion USD last year, and it is growing increasingly dependent on Russia, not only for natural gas, but also for coal and nuclear.
Despite its stated goals, the government continues to subsidize coal and refrains from announcing a coal phase-out. On the contrary, Turkey’s long term National Energy Plan envisions an increase in coal capacity by 2.5GW over the next 12 years.
During his rule, Turkey acquired four drilling ships, all named after Ottoman sultans, and intends to continue its search for hydrocarbons in both the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean.
In addition to questions over safety, a major concern with the Akkuyu plant is further energy dependence on Russia. The 20 billion USD plant is built and owned by Russia’s nuclear energy firm Rosatom. The AKP has plans to build a second nuclear plant in the Black Sea province of Sinop.
After ratifying the deal, Turkey announced an updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) at COP27, which was widely criticized for not aiming at an absolute reduction from current emissions levels. Instead, it foresees a 30 percent rise in emissions by 2030, with 2038 set as the peak year.
The AKP also announced a net zero target for 2053, but the precision of this date owes more to the AKP’s willingness to pay tribute to the 600th anniversary of the conquest of Constantinople, than to meticulous planning. In fact, the lack of a serious roadmap on how Turkey will reach its goals, coupled with the AKP’s continued support for fossil fuels, brings to question just how serious the party is with regards to climate change.
Ms. McCarthy, the US is often highly ambitious on national climate action under Democratic presidents, as it is now under Joe Biden. Why is that different on the international stage?
Gina McCarthy: It is true that we are currently very aggressive and successful in climate action. But internationally, it’s always a challenge. Because Congress, which has to release the money, has not authorized it. Biden has recently promised one billion for the Green Climate Fund, but that is hardly the amount the President would like to have for it.
Congress also did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement was tailored so that its participation was not needed. Why has the US Parliament been opposed to climate action for decades?
I don’t have a simple answer to that. It wasn’t always this hard, but I also can’t explain why Congress doesn’t want to be part of a big solution to a big global problem. So the Biden Administration has to work with other countries to give them better funding. That’s going to be mostly about private investment.
Tax cuts in the US massively incentivize investment in green industries. What is the most important element to make the Inflation Reduction Act with almost 370 billion dollars successful?
It was so successful because after the pandemic, we were able to use it to stimulate the economy and create new jobs. That is very popular. In fact, most of the money goes to “red” states that are governed by Republicans. Because that is where we lost so many jobs and incomes in manufacturing. President Biden was smart enough to plan this for building a clean industry, but it’s also popular precisely because it creates jobs, lowers energy costs, provides clean air and health, and makes life better. 40 percent of IRA resources have to go to communities bypassed by investment. This is an opportunity to show the regions that they can benefit directly. It’s a lot of money over ten years and the beginning of the clean energy transition.
After all, this is how Biden safeguards his policy of green restructuring when the money flows primarily to Republican-ruled states. How much of this could a future Republican president undo?
I’m not sure the IRA was designed with the idea of getting it passed this way with Republicans. But when actual money goes to actual people in your voting district, it’s very hard to vote against it. There was no fight about it, even though many Republicans didn’t vote for it. It was good that we did the bipartisan infrastructure bill first: Everyone agrees when it comes to broadband, clean water or an efficient electricity grid, which we need for green energy. This IRA money will change the US. And signal to the world: Even if we fail to raise government money for international tasks, we can still be good actors and leaders.
How much damage has Trump done? You headed the EPA under him and he tore your Agency apart.
He tried, but the EPA is back. And more active than before. It’s getting a lot of money and hiring many people again. But it’s been four years that I haven’t enjoyed.
President Biden, under whom you served as climate advisor, often uses the term “climate justice” – in the domestic sphere. But internationally, the term means greater US responsibility for climate action and finance. How do you handle this contradiction?
That is not Biden’s contradiction. The challenge is to get the money from Congress for the international area. But there are opportunities for private investment, in Africa and Asia. The Global South needs investment. On climate justice: I wish I could say we are on the right track on loss and damage, but we are not. I hope that we will make progress on private investment.
But the private sector needs a business model for this. It is good, for example, in the energy sector, but difficult for adaptation. There is no money to be made there.
Yes, the private sector does not give donations, it wants returns on its investments. But there are many opportunities for this, if the investments are in line with the climate goals of the countries. Business models for adaptation, for example, used to exist with carbon credits and offsets, but this market is very difficult right now. We have to rethink that. But investors recognize that these countries want and need to grow.
How much has the Russian attack on Ukraine changed the situation?
Since the war, we have realized: It’s not just about climate, it’s about national security. We should have a vested interest in the stability of the Global South. The only way to do that is to build infrastructure and the safety net that countries need. We cannot leave them behind and think everything is ok. We now know that one country and one decision can really destabilize other countries. It is clear that clean energy makes the system more stable, but it requires big investments. And the war makes it clear: Dependence on fossil fuels does not bring stability. It is not a way to meet our needs.
And yet, the US is the world’s largest oil producer.
We have been producing oil for a long time, and the challenge for the government is to roll that back. With every new fossil development, we must look at how we minimize that and can pull out of those investments. We tried to do that, but there was no legal way. The courts have prevented it. These are old laws, but they still apply. So we realized: To make this work, we must build clean energy to the point where it leaves fossil fuels far behind. If fossil fuels don’t win on the market, they will be reduced. That’s the best option we had to achieve our goals.
The most efficient way would be a general carbon price. Will we see that in the USA in the next decade?
This is currently being debated. But you need the Congress for that, too. And how am I supposed to know what is happening there?
The pressure from the EU is apparently starting to have an effect: Now, politicians in the USA are also drawing up plans for a system similar to the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). But it is still uncertain whether such a mechanism would be enforceable in the US.
The idea of protecting domestic production from foreign competition finds resonance in the US with both major parties:
However, Democrats in Congress have been trying to price imported carbon emissions since 2009. At the time, it was part of a proposal for US-wide emissions trading. “The US is no stranger to the idea of carbon offsets at the border,” Aaron Cosbey of the International Institute for Sustainable Development told Table.Media. “Every time there’s been a legislative proposal for a carbon price, there’s always been some kind of accompanying carbon offset at the border. Of course, none of these measures have been successful.”
A carbon border adjustment imposes taxes on imported goods such as metals, fuels and finished products, depending on how much greenhouse gases are generated in their production. The aim is to prevent “dirty” imports, create fair competition and give exporters an incentive to reduce their emissions as well.
The difference between the Democratic and Republican strategies is whether they want to supplement them with a domestic carbon price. “Without a carbon price at the border, there is no carbon offset,” Cosbey said. The US does not have a nationwide carbon price, and Republicans are happy with that. But levies on imports without a domestic CO2 price could lead to accusations of unfair trade practices before the WTO.
Democrats, on the other hand, subtly set carbon prices in their proposals by setting emissions benchmarks for specific product categories that become stricter over time. They do not call this a “tax” because the term is politically toxic in the US.
Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse plans to again introduce a version of his legislation in the current session, he told Table.Media in an email. “I am optimistic that there is a way to get a bipartisan carbon cap and trade agreement through the Senate,” he wrote. “Colleagues on both sides of the political spectrum agree that the US needs a CBAM to reduce carbon emissions globally and support clean American manufacturers competing with big polluters in China, India and elsewhere.”
The US is already seeing the first trade barriers to “dirty” imports: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 stipulates that clean energy materials and products must be procured domestically and may not be imported. The Act also provides for subsidies and loans to support US manufacturers.
With all these CBAM proposals, many details still need to be worked out in the US as well: How to calculate the emissions included in a product? How high will the tax be set? How to defend against accusations of protectionism at the World Trade Organization?
The biggest challenge to the plans, however, is the political divide in the US: Climate policy is divided along party lines. For decades, efforts in Congress to introduce a carbon price or emissions trading have failed. Could it be different for a border adjustment mechanism?
Signals for bipartisan climate action through trade policy are mixed. One important signal for a possible coalition is that a Republican senator is drafting their own CBAM proposal. Some Republican members of Congress also voted for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal of 2021, which provides 350 billion dollars for environmental restoration, building EV charging stations, and transmission lines for renewables. However, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was only passed with Democratic votes. At 369 billion dollars for initiatives such as using more wind and solar energy, promoting EVs and building green industries, it is the largest climate policy initiative in US history.
Nevertheless, mainly “red” states with Republican majorities benefit from the investments. Similarly, regional and national advantages could also prevail for a CBAM – in other words, advantages for the US industry could outweigh the supposed disadvantages of a CBAM. Such was the case in late 2022 when the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on eliminating ozone-depleting substances was adopted. Because it favors US companies, both Republicans and Democrats voted to ratify it. Umair Irfan, Washington
The warning came in early May. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published an update with a clear message: It is highly probable that the weather phenomenon “El Niño” will start in the fall at the latest, and it is necessary to prepare for it.
“The world should prepare for the development of El Niño, which is often associated with increased heat, drought or rainfall in different parts of the world,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. On the one hand, the phenomenon could bring positive effects – such as a respite from the drought in the Horn of Africa and other effects of the La Niña weather phenomenon, which will end with the occurrence of El Niño. “But could also trigger more extreme weather and climate events,” Taalas said.
However, experts cannot predict the exact consequences of El Niño: “El Niño affects global temperatures, increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events and also increasing the likelihood that they will occur with high intensity,” says Samantha Burgess, Deputy Director of the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S). “However, we cannot predict when and where they will occur.” That is why it is difficult to prepare for concrete consequences, she adds.
El Niño typically leads to a high amount of rain in South America, the southern part of the USA, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia. At the same time, the phenomenon is partly responsible for droughts in Australia, Indonesia and Southern Asia. It can also cause hurricanes in the Pacific Ocean. In the past, these consequences were floods, forest fires and crop failures. Regions along and around the Pacific Ocean are usually most affected, particularly South America, Australia and Southeast Asia. According to Burgess, the further it gets from that center, the harder it is to make accurate predictions about the effects.
She believes there needs to be close cooperation between policymakers, research institutions and weather monitoring services to respond as quickly and as effectively as possible. “The earlier you react, the more people you can save.” According to Kristina Fröhlich, examples of preventive action could include adjusting the water balance in agriculture, or building up food stocks for specific regions in advance. Fröhlich is in charge of seasonal climate forecasts at the German Weather Service (DWD).
Together with “La Niña,” El Niño belongs to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). It describes a complex interplay between winds, water temperature in the Pacific Ocean and weather. “Due to the huge ocean surface that warms up during an El Niño event in the tropical Pacific and releases this heat into the atmosphere, the global mean temperature of the Earth also increases,” says Kristina Fröhlich.
ENSO is a factor in some years being warmer and others colder: In the past three years, for example, “La Niña” had resulted in relatively moderate temperatures. Currently, the world is in a neutral transition phase. Later this year, “El Niño” could bring hot temperatures. “Because El Niño will only develop in the coming weeks or months,” it is likely that we will not observe the strongest effects of the event before 2024, says Samantha Burgess.
The WMO analyzes that by September at the latest, the chance of El Niño beginning is 80 percent. The US Climate Prediction Center (CPC) speaks of an El Niño event once the sea surface temperature in a particular region of the tropical Pacific has been at least 0.5 degrees above the climate mean for more than half a year. “So far, our data do not indicate that this will be a particularly strong El Niño event,” Kristina Fröhlich says. However, she adds, predictions about the event’s strength remain uncertain. In 1998 and 2016, there was a so-called “Super El Niño” event with particularly strong warming. Burgess does not believe we will have more certainty about the intensity of the upcoming El Niño event before the end of the year. Currently, the precursors of El Niño can be observed. Burgess points to the increased sea surface temperature of Ecuador and Peru.
El Niño and its effects are becoming increasingly dangerous because they overlap with the effects of climate change: The higher temperatures brought by El Niño coincide with global average temperatures, which are already about 1.15 degrees higher than in the pre-industrial era. “During the event, it is very difficult to analyze which extreme weather events are caused by El Niño and which are the result of climate change,” Fröhlich says. “However, we can assume a reciprocal amplification.” Samantha Burgess gets even more specific: “Due to El Niño, we may temporarily exceed the 1.5-degree limit this year or next year,” she says.
Many oil and gas countries dream of continuing the use of fossil fuels and capturing and storing the resulting CO2 or using it for industrial purposes. Japan, the host of the G7 summit starting on May 19, is also relying on carbon capture (utilization) and storage (CCUS) – including in the energy sector and not just for hard-to-avoid emissions such as in the cement or steel industry. And COP28 President Sultan Al Jaber is counting on the technology to allow him to continue extracting fossil fuels. He just wants to “get out of emissions.”
Data from the Global CCS Institute shows: Although many CCS projects have been in development for years, CCS plant capacity remains consistently low. Many planned projects are not economically viable.
So far, only 30 CCS projects are in commercial operation worldwide. And even if all planned projects are realized in the coming years, these CCS plants will only be able to capture less than one percent of the carbon emissions generated worldwide in 2022. So is this technology a dead end? It is still too early for definitive conclusions. Due to higher carbon prices and cost reductions through mass production of components, CCS could play a larger role in the future – but only for a fraction of current emissions. nib
The other day, Özden Terli, weather presenter for the German public television channel ZDF, stood next to a 3D animation of an elephant, which he used as an example to explain how climate change could lead to species extinction. Such animations fascinate him, but he only realized later how appropriate the imagery was: “Never mind, we’ve named the elephant in the room enough,” says Terli.
For the meteorologist, the proverbial elephant in the room is the climate crisis: On the one hand, in weather reports, where climate-related extreme weather events make it more and more dishonest to ignore climate change. And on the other hand, in politics, which committed itself to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees by signing the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015.
“What we do in the weather report is actually science communication,” Terli emphasizes. To him, that means factually pointing out facts, even if those facts don’t please every political camp.
Terli was born in Cologne in 1971 and has been interested in science and politically engaged since childhood. He explains that this also has to do with his background: as a child of Turkish immigrants, he has always been sensitive to racism. The Chornobyl nuclear accident in the 1980s also profoundly impacted him; he still remembers that he and his classmates were not allowed to go out to the schoolyard then. “That was a turning point for me, where I wanted to know more and got really into physics.”
However, Terli’s interest in meteorology and the climate crisis was awakened a few years later when he read about a conference on the subject in the teletext. He decided to drop out of his telecommunications engineering studies, obtain his A level, and study meteorology at FU Berlin. “I told myself: either I take the risk now or I’ll be unhappy.”
After completing his studies, Terli made his part-time job at wetter.com his main profession in 2007, and in 2013 he finally joined ZDF. He says he has “full freedom” there, but also faces right-wing shitstorms because he addresses the climate crisis: “They try to silence me and discredit me.” However, Terli fiercely fights back: “Sometimes it gets heated on Twitter.”
Especially since the climate catastrophe ultimately benefits no one: “It’s a lose-lose situation,” says Terli. It would be better if we all worked together. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Parts of politics often raise a “new issue” instead of pursuing consistent climate policy. The meteorologist refers to debates about speed limits or the e-fuels debate now threatening the ban on combustion engines in the EU. Terli sees such actions as “de facto climate denial” and emphasizes that mainly the politicians are falling behind. “The people and industry are already much further ahead.” Martin Renz
Can elections be won with ambitious climate action? What costs and what pace can the general population be expected to shoulder? With the accelerating climate crisis, these questions are becoming increasingly important.
The elections in Turkey are also climate elections. The country’s emissions are rising rapidly and are now higher than those of France or the UK. But for Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the frontrunner in the runoff election at the end of May, growth trumps climate action. Selin Ugurtas reports on the climate plans of the incumbent president and the opposition parties.
In the US, Biden’s billion-dollar bazooka known as the Inflation Reduction Act is expected to turn the tide on climate and appease climate skeptics in Republican states. Biden’s former climate advisor, Gina McCarthy, explains in an interview if a future Republican president could scale back Biden’s climate goals and why the country is often hesitant to act on the international stage.
The USA has not yet been able to agree on a national emissions trading system or a uniform carbon price. Senators from both major parties are now considering introducing a carbon border adjustment. But the plans could fall through due to the country’s political divide – and because voters and industry reject a “CO2 price,” as Umair Irfan reports from Washington.
In the first round of Turkey’s presidential and parliamentary elections on Sunday, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan came in first with over 49 percent of the votes. Erdoğan will very likely be able to extend his 20-year rule in the runoff election on May 28. His climate policy has not been very ambitious so far. A victory for his opponent Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu would promise more ambitious climate policies.
As a Mediterranean country, Turkey is highly vulnerable to climate change, and this is becoming increasingly visible: massive wildfires traumatized the public in 2021, only to be followed by flash floods that killed 97 people in the same month. More recently, in the wake of the deadly earthquakes in the country’s southeast, torrential rains triggered floods that claimed the lives of 19 people.
Such devastating disasters caused the Turkish public to be increasingly wary of climate change. A public opinion poll being held since 2018 demonstrates that the percentage of people concerned by climate change is high (83 percent), and steadily increasing.
A recent report by the Istanbul Policy Center analyzes the pledges of political parties and alliances, and argues that an opposition win could imply more progressive climate and energy policies.
The ruling AKP’s most striking promise – which is also part of the opposition’s plans – is setting up a carbon pricing mechanism. This move is vital for the Turkish economy in light of the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. However, the AKP falls short of offering anything new on mitigation or energy transition.
In contrast with the ruling party’s focus on development and growth, the opposition alliance highlights just transition. It vows to reach net zero by 2050, update Turkey’s NDC, and prepare a realistic emissions reduction plan. A pledge to phase out coal is part of this strategy.
On some issues, different opinions of alliance partners resulted in contradicting statements in the common agreement document, and it is hard to tell how things will play out. That said, various reports claim that the CHP – which has the most progressive energy plan – would retain the Energy Ministry if Kilicdaroglu were to win.
In its energy strategy document, the CHP pledges a 30 percent reduction in coal generation by 2030, vows not to build new coal plants, and describes natural gas as a bridge fuel. Still, the opposition aims to continue drilling for gas.
The opposition bloc also stresses it would liberalize energy markets and halt subsidies that disrupt the market’s supply and demand equilibrium. This is largely based on a criticism of the country’s Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EPDK) accused of being politicized and distorting the market against renewables.
Another major difference could be nuclear policies, as the opposition pledges to renegotiate the terms of the Akkuyu deal with Rosatom, and halt plans for two new nuclear power plants in Sinop and the western Thrace region. That said, the bloc isn’t completely opposed to nuclear, as it plans to establish a nuclear research center to develop local know-how and build small modular reactors.
Turkey’s energy policies are of critical importance as the energy sector accounts for some 85% of the country’s CO2 emissions. Currently, the country is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels. A large part of this is imported.
While some 84 percent of its primary energy supply is based on fossil fuels, around 70 percent of its energy supply is imported. This is a massive problem both in terms of energy security and the country’s widening current account deficit: Turkey’s energy imports stood at 80 billion USD last year, and it is growing increasingly dependent on Russia, not only for natural gas, but also for coal and nuclear.
Despite its stated goals, the government continues to subsidize coal and refrains from announcing a coal phase-out. On the contrary, Turkey’s long term National Energy Plan envisions an increase in coal capacity by 2.5GW over the next 12 years.
During his rule, Turkey acquired four drilling ships, all named after Ottoman sultans, and intends to continue its search for hydrocarbons in both the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean.
In addition to questions over safety, a major concern with the Akkuyu plant is further energy dependence on Russia. The 20 billion USD plant is built and owned by Russia’s nuclear energy firm Rosatom. The AKP has plans to build a second nuclear plant in the Black Sea province of Sinop.
After ratifying the deal, Turkey announced an updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) at COP27, which was widely criticized for not aiming at an absolute reduction from current emissions levels. Instead, it foresees a 30 percent rise in emissions by 2030, with 2038 set as the peak year.
The AKP also announced a net zero target for 2053, but the precision of this date owes more to the AKP’s willingness to pay tribute to the 600th anniversary of the conquest of Constantinople, than to meticulous planning. In fact, the lack of a serious roadmap on how Turkey will reach its goals, coupled with the AKP’s continued support for fossil fuels, brings to question just how serious the party is with regards to climate change.
Ms. McCarthy, the US is often highly ambitious on national climate action under Democratic presidents, as it is now under Joe Biden. Why is that different on the international stage?
Gina McCarthy: It is true that we are currently very aggressive and successful in climate action. But internationally, it’s always a challenge. Because Congress, which has to release the money, has not authorized it. Biden has recently promised one billion for the Green Climate Fund, but that is hardly the amount the President would like to have for it.
Congress also did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement was tailored so that its participation was not needed. Why has the US Parliament been opposed to climate action for decades?
I don’t have a simple answer to that. It wasn’t always this hard, but I also can’t explain why Congress doesn’t want to be part of a big solution to a big global problem. So the Biden Administration has to work with other countries to give them better funding. That’s going to be mostly about private investment.
Tax cuts in the US massively incentivize investment in green industries. What is the most important element to make the Inflation Reduction Act with almost 370 billion dollars successful?
It was so successful because after the pandemic, we were able to use it to stimulate the economy and create new jobs. That is very popular. In fact, most of the money goes to “red” states that are governed by Republicans. Because that is where we lost so many jobs and incomes in manufacturing. President Biden was smart enough to plan this for building a clean industry, but it’s also popular precisely because it creates jobs, lowers energy costs, provides clean air and health, and makes life better. 40 percent of IRA resources have to go to communities bypassed by investment. This is an opportunity to show the regions that they can benefit directly. It’s a lot of money over ten years and the beginning of the clean energy transition.
After all, this is how Biden safeguards his policy of green restructuring when the money flows primarily to Republican-ruled states. How much of this could a future Republican president undo?
I’m not sure the IRA was designed with the idea of getting it passed this way with Republicans. But when actual money goes to actual people in your voting district, it’s very hard to vote against it. There was no fight about it, even though many Republicans didn’t vote for it. It was good that we did the bipartisan infrastructure bill first: Everyone agrees when it comes to broadband, clean water or an efficient electricity grid, which we need for green energy. This IRA money will change the US. And signal to the world: Even if we fail to raise government money for international tasks, we can still be good actors and leaders.
How much damage has Trump done? You headed the EPA under him and he tore your Agency apart.
He tried, but the EPA is back. And more active than before. It’s getting a lot of money and hiring many people again. But it’s been four years that I haven’t enjoyed.
President Biden, under whom you served as climate advisor, often uses the term “climate justice” – in the domestic sphere. But internationally, the term means greater US responsibility for climate action and finance. How do you handle this contradiction?
That is not Biden’s contradiction. The challenge is to get the money from Congress for the international area. But there are opportunities for private investment, in Africa and Asia. The Global South needs investment. On climate justice: I wish I could say we are on the right track on loss and damage, but we are not. I hope that we will make progress on private investment.
But the private sector needs a business model for this. It is good, for example, in the energy sector, but difficult for adaptation. There is no money to be made there.
Yes, the private sector does not give donations, it wants returns on its investments. But there are many opportunities for this, if the investments are in line with the climate goals of the countries. Business models for adaptation, for example, used to exist with carbon credits and offsets, but this market is very difficult right now. We have to rethink that. But investors recognize that these countries want and need to grow.
How much has the Russian attack on Ukraine changed the situation?
Since the war, we have realized: It’s not just about climate, it’s about national security. We should have a vested interest in the stability of the Global South. The only way to do that is to build infrastructure and the safety net that countries need. We cannot leave them behind and think everything is ok. We now know that one country and one decision can really destabilize other countries. It is clear that clean energy makes the system more stable, but it requires big investments. And the war makes it clear: Dependence on fossil fuels does not bring stability. It is not a way to meet our needs.
And yet, the US is the world’s largest oil producer.
We have been producing oil for a long time, and the challenge for the government is to roll that back. With every new fossil development, we must look at how we minimize that and can pull out of those investments. We tried to do that, but there was no legal way. The courts have prevented it. These are old laws, but they still apply. So we realized: To make this work, we must build clean energy to the point where it leaves fossil fuels far behind. If fossil fuels don’t win on the market, they will be reduced. That’s the best option we had to achieve our goals.
The most efficient way would be a general carbon price. Will we see that in the USA in the next decade?
This is currently being debated. But you need the Congress for that, too. And how am I supposed to know what is happening there?
The pressure from the EU is apparently starting to have an effect: Now, politicians in the USA are also drawing up plans for a system similar to the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). But it is still uncertain whether such a mechanism would be enforceable in the US.
The idea of protecting domestic production from foreign competition finds resonance in the US with both major parties:
However, Democrats in Congress have been trying to price imported carbon emissions since 2009. At the time, it was part of a proposal for US-wide emissions trading. “The US is no stranger to the idea of carbon offsets at the border,” Aaron Cosbey of the International Institute for Sustainable Development told Table.Media. “Every time there’s been a legislative proposal for a carbon price, there’s always been some kind of accompanying carbon offset at the border. Of course, none of these measures have been successful.”
A carbon border adjustment imposes taxes on imported goods such as metals, fuels and finished products, depending on how much greenhouse gases are generated in their production. The aim is to prevent “dirty” imports, create fair competition and give exporters an incentive to reduce their emissions as well.
The difference between the Democratic and Republican strategies is whether they want to supplement them with a domestic carbon price. “Without a carbon price at the border, there is no carbon offset,” Cosbey said. The US does not have a nationwide carbon price, and Republicans are happy with that. But levies on imports without a domestic CO2 price could lead to accusations of unfair trade practices before the WTO.
Democrats, on the other hand, subtly set carbon prices in their proposals by setting emissions benchmarks for specific product categories that become stricter over time. They do not call this a “tax” because the term is politically toxic in the US.
Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse plans to again introduce a version of his legislation in the current session, he told Table.Media in an email. “I am optimistic that there is a way to get a bipartisan carbon cap and trade agreement through the Senate,” he wrote. “Colleagues on both sides of the political spectrum agree that the US needs a CBAM to reduce carbon emissions globally and support clean American manufacturers competing with big polluters in China, India and elsewhere.”
The US is already seeing the first trade barriers to “dirty” imports: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 stipulates that clean energy materials and products must be procured domestically and may not be imported. The Act also provides for subsidies and loans to support US manufacturers.
With all these CBAM proposals, many details still need to be worked out in the US as well: How to calculate the emissions included in a product? How high will the tax be set? How to defend against accusations of protectionism at the World Trade Organization?
The biggest challenge to the plans, however, is the political divide in the US: Climate policy is divided along party lines. For decades, efforts in Congress to introduce a carbon price or emissions trading have failed. Could it be different for a border adjustment mechanism?
Signals for bipartisan climate action through trade policy are mixed. One important signal for a possible coalition is that a Republican senator is drafting their own CBAM proposal. Some Republican members of Congress also voted for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal of 2021, which provides 350 billion dollars for environmental restoration, building EV charging stations, and transmission lines for renewables. However, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was only passed with Democratic votes. At 369 billion dollars for initiatives such as using more wind and solar energy, promoting EVs and building green industries, it is the largest climate policy initiative in US history.
Nevertheless, mainly “red” states with Republican majorities benefit from the investments. Similarly, regional and national advantages could also prevail for a CBAM – in other words, advantages for the US industry could outweigh the supposed disadvantages of a CBAM. Such was the case in late 2022 when the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on eliminating ozone-depleting substances was adopted. Because it favors US companies, both Republicans and Democrats voted to ratify it. Umair Irfan, Washington
The warning came in early May. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published an update with a clear message: It is highly probable that the weather phenomenon “El Niño” will start in the fall at the latest, and it is necessary to prepare for it.
“The world should prepare for the development of El Niño, which is often associated with increased heat, drought or rainfall in different parts of the world,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. On the one hand, the phenomenon could bring positive effects – such as a respite from the drought in the Horn of Africa and other effects of the La Niña weather phenomenon, which will end with the occurrence of El Niño. “But could also trigger more extreme weather and climate events,” Taalas said.
However, experts cannot predict the exact consequences of El Niño: “El Niño affects global temperatures, increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events and also increasing the likelihood that they will occur with high intensity,” says Samantha Burgess, Deputy Director of the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S). “However, we cannot predict when and where they will occur.” That is why it is difficult to prepare for concrete consequences, she adds.
El Niño typically leads to a high amount of rain in South America, the southern part of the USA, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia. At the same time, the phenomenon is partly responsible for droughts in Australia, Indonesia and Southern Asia. It can also cause hurricanes in the Pacific Ocean. In the past, these consequences were floods, forest fires and crop failures. Regions along and around the Pacific Ocean are usually most affected, particularly South America, Australia and Southeast Asia. According to Burgess, the further it gets from that center, the harder it is to make accurate predictions about the effects.
She believes there needs to be close cooperation between policymakers, research institutions and weather monitoring services to respond as quickly and as effectively as possible. “The earlier you react, the more people you can save.” According to Kristina Fröhlich, examples of preventive action could include adjusting the water balance in agriculture, or building up food stocks for specific regions in advance. Fröhlich is in charge of seasonal climate forecasts at the German Weather Service (DWD).
Together with “La Niña,” El Niño belongs to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). It describes a complex interplay between winds, water temperature in the Pacific Ocean and weather. “Due to the huge ocean surface that warms up during an El Niño event in the tropical Pacific and releases this heat into the atmosphere, the global mean temperature of the Earth also increases,” says Kristina Fröhlich.
ENSO is a factor in some years being warmer and others colder: In the past three years, for example, “La Niña” had resulted in relatively moderate temperatures. Currently, the world is in a neutral transition phase. Later this year, “El Niño” could bring hot temperatures. “Because El Niño will only develop in the coming weeks or months,” it is likely that we will not observe the strongest effects of the event before 2024, says Samantha Burgess.
The WMO analyzes that by September at the latest, the chance of El Niño beginning is 80 percent. The US Climate Prediction Center (CPC) speaks of an El Niño event once the sea surface temperature in a particular region of the tropical Pacific has been at least 0.5 degrees above the climate mean for more than half a year. “So far, our data do not indicate that this will be a particularly strong El Niño event,” Kristina Fröhlich says. However, she adds, predictions about the event’s strength remain uncertain. In 1998 and 2016, there was a so-called “Super El Niño” event with particularly strong warming. Burgess does not believe we will have more certainty about the intensity of the upcoming El Niño event before the end of the year. Currently, the precursors of El Niño can be observed. Burgess points to the increased sea surface temperature of Ecuador and Peru.
El Niño and its effects are becoming increasingly dangerous because they overlap with the effects of climate change: The higher temperatures brought by El Niño coincide with global average temperatures, which are already about 1.15 degrees higher than in the pre-industrial era. “During the event, it is very difficult to analyze which extreme weather events are caused by El Niño and which are the result of climate change,” Fröhlich says. “However, we can assume a reciprocal amplification.” Samantha Burgess gets even more specific: “Due to El Niño, we may temporarily exceed the 1.5-degree limit this year or next year,” she says.
Many oil and gas countries dream of continuing the use of fossil fuels and capturing and storing the resulting CO2 or using it for industrial purposes. Japan, the host of the G7 summit starting on May 19, is also relying on carbon capture (utilization) and storage (CCUS) – including in the energy sector and not just for hard-to-avoid emissions such as in the cement or steel industry. And COP28 President Sultan Al Jaber is counting on the technology to allow him to continue extracting fossil fuels. He just wants to “get out of emissions.”
Data from the Global CCS Institute shows: Although many CCS projects have been in development for years, CCS plant capacity remains consistently low. Many planned projects are not economically viable.
So far, only 30 CCS projects are in commercial operation worldwide. And even if all planned projects are realized in the coming years, these CCS plants will only be able to capture less than one percent of the carbon emissions generated worldwide in 2022. So is this technology a dead end? It is still too early for definitive conclusions. Due to higher carbon prices and cost reductions through mass production of components, CCS could play a larger role in the future – but only for a fraction of current emissions. nib
The other day, Özden Terli, weather presenter for the German public television channel ZDF, stood next to a 3D animation of an elephant, which he used as an example to explain how climate change could lead to species extinction. Such animations fascinate him, but he only realized later how appropriate the imagery was: “Never mind, we’ve named the elephant in the room enough,” says Terli.
For the meteorologist, the proverbial elephant in the room is the climate crisis: On the one hand, in weather reports, where climate-related extreme weather events make it more and more dishonest to ignore climate change. And on the other hand, in politics, which committed itself to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees by signing the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015.
“What we do in the weather report is actually science communication,” Terli emphasizes. To him, that means factually pointing out facts, even if those facts don’t please every political camp.
Terli was born in Cologne in 1971 and has been interested in science and politically engaged since childhood. He explains that this also has to do with his background: as a child of Turkish immigrants, he has always been sensitive to racism. The Chornobyl nuclear accident in the 1980s also profoundly impacted him; he still remembers that he and his classmates were not allowed to go out to the schoolyard then. “That was a turning point for me, where I wanted to know more and got really into physics.”
However, Terli’s interest in meteorology and the climate crisis was awakened a few years later when he read about a conference on the subject in the teletext. He decided to drop out of his telecommunications engineering studies, obtain his A level, and study meteorology at FU Berlin. “I told myself: either I take the risk now or I’ll be unhappy.”
After completing his studies, Terli made his part-time job at wetter.com his main profession in 2007, and in 2013 he finally joined ZDF. He says he has “full freedom” there, but also faces right-wing shitstorms because he addresses the climate crisis: “They try to silence me and discredit me.” However, Terli fiercely fights back: “Sometimes it gets heated on Twitter.”
Especially since the climate catastrophe ultimately benefits no one: “It’s a lose-lose situation,” says Terli. It would be better if we all worked together. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Parts of politics often raise a “new issue” instead of pursuing consistent climate policy. The meteorologist refers to debates about speed limits or the e-fuels debate now threatening the ban on combustion engines in the EU. Terli sees such actions as “de facto climate denial” and emphasizes that mainly the politicians are falling behind. “The people and industry are already much further ahead.” Martin Renz
