Increasing Global Climate Ambition – How to get Lower-Income Countries and Fossil Fuel Exporters on Board?

The first keynote was delivered by Adam Sieminski, president of the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC) in Riyadh. He warned against demonizing fossil fuels in inter­national cli­mate negotiations. In low-income countries and emerging economies in particular, he argued, access to modern electricity has a higher priority. Thus, when talking about climate policy in these regions there is a risk of getting lost in debates about climate justice and of reaching a dead-end. Also, there are no concepts for many sectors on how to do without fossil fuels. However, Saudi Arabia, as the world's largest oil producer, has recognized the need for action and is pursuing the concept of the Circular Carbon Economy (CCE), which Sieminski presented. It aims for net-zero emissions instead of zero fossil use. At the recent summit meeting on climate protection called by U.S. President Biden, the U.S., Canada, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Norway joined forces to form the "Net-zero Producers Forum". Among other things, they want to promote the CCE approach.

Sieminski emphasized that regardless of the highly diverse contexts in emerging and developing countries, capital is needed everywhere to tackle the energy transition and achieve both clean energy access for all (SDG 7) and climate protection (SDG 13). Political, regulatory, administrative, and organizational capacities are key factors for successfully mobilizing capital and investing in clean energy projects

Laurence Tubiana: International solidarity is needed to overcome the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic and to raise climate policy ambitions!

The discussion showed how important it is to look beyond the borders of the European Union. When considering the Green Deal, there also needs to be a greater focus on the impact on other regions. Europe should move from a climate diplomacy to a Green Deal diplomacy that emphasizes that the shift to a Green Economy is worthwhile, and that such a transition also contributes to other SDGs. The EU should integrate climate policy in eco­nomic and social de­vel­op­ment policy.

The panel unanimously agreed on the crucial role of climate finance for raising the am­bi­tions. Currently, the available funds are still insufficient. In addition, there is uncertainty about whether the capacity to absorb the funds in these countries exists at all. In­vest­ments were highlighted as the key factor for the transition: Most investments will have to come from private sources, but the capital costs are still very high because of the high risk premiums. The panel concluded that much remains to be done to ensure that rich countries in the Global North support such investments.

The discussion encouraged a change of perspective: If one removes the EU Green Deal lens, it becomes apparent that the planned Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) can have negative effects on countries in the Global South and that alternative measures would be better from their point of view. Solutions from the scientific community were also put to the test in terms of practical feasibility: compensation payments for resource owners for leaving their fossil resources in the ground have proven to be politically unfeasible. This gives the scientific community the task of developing alternative approaches, such as payments that are conditional.

There was disagreement about risk management on the path to carbon neutrality: the priorities Adam Sieminski set for weighting the CCE’s 4Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle, remove) to reach carbon neutrality were contentious. Opposing views came from the other panelists and the online audience, who participated actively via chat: they wanted to prioritize reducing emissions more strongly. The discussion at the Forum thus illustrated the main issues and different positions in international climate policy clearly.