Climate Conference COP 30 | Lisa Badum: "Fighting for every tenth of a degree is the only option"

Ms. Badum, when President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva invited the world to Brazil for the 2022 UN Climate Change Conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, everyone hoped for a major boost to climate protection. Now, at COP 30 in Belém, the main focus is on keeping the climate negotiations alive. What has happened in the world?

Climate conferences have been held in a challenging environment for many years. The US has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement for the second time. Authoritarian states hosted the last few world climate meetings. Therefore, we are constantly grappling with the question of what is even possible. This year, it's positive that an ambitious democracy is hosting the conference. Brazil is serious about forest protection and can have a positive impact on all of Latin America. It's negative that the European Union is not attending Belém as a leading force in climate policy. This was also due to serious errors by the German government. I can certainly imagine that there will be good resolutions on forest protection and a roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels. So far, I see little progress on climate finance. Overall, the format of the World Climate Conference will have to change in the coming years because the Paris Agreement has now been largely "negotiated." However, its implementation will still require multilateral cooperation. Climate conferences are the best forum for this.

Climate summits, yes – but not in today's traditional form with up to 60,000 participants?

Exactly, climate conferences should have a stronger focus in the future, because they shouldn't be a place where the fossil fuel lobby and other actors unrelated to the issue congregate. It's crucial that people from the Global South continue to participate and that activists and political actors worldwide can network. I also find the sheer number of different topics confusing. A clear focus on one theme that runs through the entire conference would be desirable. For me, the global phase-out of fossil fuels is the number one priority. Furthermore, addressing the significant inequalities in public and private development and climate finance between industrialized, emerging, and developing countries requires greater involvement of other UN institutions and the World Bank, which have even more influence in this area than the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Based on countries' climate commitments, the so-called NDCs, the Climate Secretariat calculated that emissions would fall by about ten percent by 2035. This is not only insufficient – ​​it is also unclear when global emissions peak will be reached. Where do we stand with the crucial reduction of greenhouse gases?

For the first time, we have sustained the 1.5-degree limit for twelve months. While global _CO2 emissions will not increase this year compared to last year, the capacity of oceans, forests, peatlands, and other forms of land use to absorb _CO2 has decreased dramatically. This underscores the crucial link to natural climate protection, which is also evident at this year's COP, which focused on forest conservation. Before the climate conferences, the world was on a path toward four degrees of warming. Without the efforts of climate diplomacy, the situation would be far more dire. It is also positive that China's emissions are now declining for the first time. This trend will intensify in the coming years thanks to the solar boom. Nevertheless, we are still hurtling toward climate collapse. But there is no alternative to continuing to fight for every tenth of a degree of reduction.

Last week, the environment ministers of the European Union, one of the world's largest emitters, committed to reducing _CO2 emissions by 66.25 to 72.5 percent by 2035. What is your assessment of this decision?

This is the first time the EU has submitted a climate plan with a target range, a corridor, instead of setting a clear target. The message to our partner countries is quite clear: Europe cannot and will not commit. This is disastrous and will backfire on us in Belém. This is not what leadership looks like. We also have Chancellor Friedrich Merz to thank for this. With his deliberate blocking of the 2040 target in September, he opened the floodgates to the numerous watering-down measures that were decided upon by the Environment Council so shortly before COP 30. The resulting diplomatic and climate policy damage will haunt us for a long time. If the Chancellor leaves it at that, this disgraceful maneuver will become part of Merz's legacy.

What role did the German Environment Minister Carsten Schneider play in the creation of the European climate plan with the "corridor"?

I wasn't personally involved in the negotiations – but I don't think it was helpful that Germany delayed the decision on the climate target. I appreciate Carsten Schneider for his rhetoric, but where is he in this government and where can he make his mark? Where, in fact, is the SPD's priority for the climate crisis?

Climate optimists point to the rapid growth of renewable energies worldwide. However, this doesn't benefit the climate much as long as fossil fuel combustion doesn't truly decline. How can this be achieved?

The European emissions trading system provides a prime example: coal-fired power plants have become unprofitable over time. And that will be precisely the fate of coal-fired power in many developing countries, even those without _CO2 pricing. It is precisely in these countries that the susceptibility to disruptions, the high costs of the fossil fuel system, and the constant power outages and repairs are forcing more and more nations to rethink their approach. Naturally, this necessitates an intelligent, decentralized system as an alternative. As for the oil and gas lobby, the government subsidies and handouts must end. We also need a tax on excess profits from fossil fuels. It must no longer be profitable to pollute and sicken humanity.

The World Climate Summit kicked off with the World Climate Summit. There, the Tropical Forest Fund (TFFF) was launched as a new instrument to advance the protection of tropical forests with the help of financial markets. What is your opinion of the new forest fund?

Anything that helps stop deforestation is worthwhile. The planned long-term investment of the funds and the predictability for the coming years are new and important approaches. We see that previous short-term funding programs for forest protection have not achieved the desired results. Of course, the success of the TFFF will depend on the details of its design – and on ensuring that sufficient funds are allocated. These funds should come from Germany, but not exclusively.