2024 will be remembered as the year in which —the candidate with the most anti-science and anti-environmental speech— in the United States despite his dark record. 2024 in all likelihood will not be remembered as the hottest year on the planet in millennia, even though it will close as the warmest year in millennia. But it will not go down in history for that simply because that terrible crown will not last long due to the advance of climate change that the burning of fossil fuels continues to fuel and that some experts warn is accelerating due to the loss of the planet’s capacity to absorb the enormous quantities of gases that humanity emits at a dizzying rate. In fact, .
But this crisis is not about temperatures that can only last a sigh; It is largely about mud and death, like those it has left in Spain, with more than 200 deaths. It also covers streets devastated by two consecutive hurricanes in America at the beginning of October. And the historic floods that flooded Central Europe two weeks earlier. This crisis is about extreme phenomena “that are becoming more frequent and intense” due to climate change and that are taking “our society out of the conditions” in which we had lived until now, warns the Potsdam Institute for Climate. Impact Research (PIK). “Photos like those that have appeared in newspapers around the world [de las inundaciones de España] They make climate damage very palpable,” he explains.
Even though these extreme events become more evident and numerous, , who already pulled his country out of the Paris Agreement in his first term, returns to the White House, something that many take for granted that he will do again. He also left. In short, he broke with everything that smacked of multilateralism. The climate fight, which brings together under the umbrella of the UN every year the representatives of the 200 countries of the world at summits to advance in the reduction of emissions and in trying to achieve some justice in the distribution of economic burdens, has been since for years the most multilateral of all forums.
Trump’s victory comes a few days before the start of the climate summit, COP29, which begins this Monday in the Azerbaijan capital, Baku. It must be agreed upon at the appointment. That is, how much money will be mobilized (either with credits or non-refundable aid) so that countries with fewer resources can wean themselves off of fuel and prepare for the worst effects of the climate. In 2009, at another summit, it was established that starting in 2020, 100 billion dollars should be mobilized. But now it must be increased. “Developed countries think in terms of billions, but in the developing world they talk about trillions,” say sources from the European Commission. The problem will not only be how much, but also who should benefit and, above all, who should put up the money. Until now it has only been developed countries, with the EU in the lead, but Brussels wants other actors, such as China, to also commit to this financing.
The EU also wanted to open a debate on the international financial architecture, for example by raising taxes on international shipping and aviation. But the development of this summit is complicated. To the handicap that already meant that the presidency of the COP, essential for the development of the negotiations, had fallen on this petrostate, is added the blow of the overwhelming results in the United States, a basic actor. The negotiating team of this country that goes to Baku is that of the Democratic Administration, and will be headed by . But it will not cease to be a lame ducka lame duck, the expression used in English to describe someone who is in office. And even more so with a Trump who has put the climate edifice built by Biden in the last four years in the spotlight and who already toppled more than 100 environmental regulations in his previous mandate.
This 2024 is very reminiscent of 2016 and the summit that was held then in Marrakech. toured the conference. The same doubt was in the minds of many activists, experts and negotiators as it is now: is it better for the United States to leave the Paris Agreement or to adopt a lethal obstructionist posture from within in a process that drags the burden that decisions must be made? ? Valvanera Ulargui, director of the Spanish Climate Change Office, offers her opinion: “We are not clear about the details of how the new Administration intends to behave on international issues related to climate, but in the event that the US were to give up again Turning our backs on the Paris Agreement, which would be very sad, the agreement has shown in recent years that it has been able to survive without the United States.”
The Marrakech summit closed with the assurance that the climate fight was “irreversible.” When asked if another similar text is possible in Baku, sources from the European Commission point out that the situation is different from that of eight years ago and we must “move carefully.” Indeed, the world is very different from that of 2016, for the good and the bad.
On the foreign level, the conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine complicate the multilateralism that Trump denies. Experts assume that the United States—currently the largest oil and gas exporter on the planet—cannot be counted on to help developing nations wean themselves off fuel or protect themselves from climate devastation. Another thing is what happens within your country.
The “scam” campaign
Trump’s favorite word in the campaign when talking about the environment has been “scam.” He has repeated it at every rally: global warming seems like it, as does the Green New Deal, that pact proposed by the left wing of the Democratic Party that he has renamed The great green scam. His crushing slogan “drill, baby, drill” (drill, baby, drill) was one of the phrases most applauded by his followers, enthusiastic about the idea of promoting oil and gas prospecting, the fracking and coal mining. They also celebrated hearing him dismiss concerns about rising sea levels with lies, despite the fact that the survival of vast portions of the American continent, in places like the Gulf of Mexico, depends on stopping warming.
Like almost everything that has to do with what exactly his return to the White House will result in, it is unknown. Will his Administration really be an existential threat to the planet considering his previous presidency? Or will the economic interests of those around him and Republican politicians stop him? Optimists have some reasons for hope: despite his rhetoric defending coal, it was during his term, in 2019, that renewables took the lead. overtaking to that fuel. Furthermore, emissions during Trump’s four years did not skyrocket in his country either.
Joe Biden’s team had promised to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030 (compared to the 50% recommendation that scientists have made to major economies). Trump has promised that he will immediately cancel the spending planned in the star legislation of the current Administration, which, under that unsexy name, hides the most ambitious climate regulation in the history of the United States. However, although it is a norm promoted by the Democrats, according to calculations The New York Times80% of the money spent so far has gone to Republican counties, whose politicians and businessmen do not want divestments. Whether Trump plans to listen to them or not also remains to be seen.
Abby Hopper, CEO of the US Solar Energy Industries Association (PV), the photovoltaic lobby, explains it this way: “I’m pretty optimistic about the IRA continuing because it’s proven to be working. The renaissance of the national industry in this country is closely linked to the policies of that legislation. “As you track where the investments are going, both in terms of investments in manufacturing, deployment and innovation, you see that they are going to the entire United States, regardless of whether it is a Republican or Democratic state.” Hopper emphasizes that the prospects for increased demand linked to the advancement of AI and data centers mean that it is not “a time to choose between technologies, but to add them.”
What is taken for granted is that Trump will favor, by eliminating restrictions on methane, the oil industry, a generous donor to his campaign. Also, it will give permission to new gas infrastructure. The fossil industry celebrated its victory Tuesday, just as environmental groups have vowed to stand up to it.
And then there is , one of the people who has contributed the most money to his re-election (130 million). Everything indicates that, in exchange for that rain of dollars, he will have an essential role in the Trump Administration. Part of his fortune is built on the electric car, which used to be another of the Republican’s favorite targets until, as Musk’s support grew, he changed his rhetoric about those vehicles. The richest man in the world defines himself as “pro-environment,” and at the time criticized Trump’s decision to abandon the Paris Agreement.
This week, after the Republican’s victory, although without mentioning it, the executive secretary of the UN climate change area, Simon Stiell, stressed the economic aspect of this story: “the global energy transition is inevitable and is accelerating, which which makes it one of the greatest economic opportunities of our era.” And he added: “Preparations for the COP continue apace, because the fundamental facts remain unchanged: global warming is already hitting all nations.”
Because, despite the fact that the advancement of renewables is skyrocketing, global fuel consumption does not reach its ceiling. Current government policies will lead to warming of 3.1 degrees Celsius. At the moment, warming is at 1.2 degrees, always taking pre-industrial levels as a reference. Emissions do not fall and each year that passes without them being drastically cut, the window to avoid the most catastrophic warming closes further.
“We are seeing the first signs of an acceleration of warming,” warns Johan Rockström, director of the PIK. And among the possible causes that scientists deal with is “that the Earth system is beginning to lose its carbon absorption capacity.” That is, oceans and forests may be losing effectiveness in trapping carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. From that danger of feedback. It was before Trump’s victory that has stunned so many. “It is time to move forward, to reaffirm ambition and accelerate our climate commitments and our climate financing,” encourages Ulargui.
