Debate: Outcome of COP
Date: MONDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2022
Speaker: Frans Timmermans
Language: EN

So, when will we change our NDC? Let’s – and I call upon all of you – finish as quickly as we can all the trilogues that are ongoing on Fit for 55. Once we’ve finish the trilogues, we can establish where these trilogues will take us in terms of our emission reductions. Then we can update the NDC so that we can say we have put in our climate law a binding reduction of at least 55% by 2030 on the basis of all the results of our trilogues and the decisions we have taken. We can now announce an X amount that we will reach. That would probably, most certainly already now, lead to a more ambitious NDC, but I have to state very clearly, we do not change our climate law. Climate law remains as it is. We just put in the latest results, when we have them, of all the trilogues into our NDC, and that will certainly lead to a more ambitious NDC. So, how do we limit the exploration of fossil fuels was another question. I think by speeding up the implementation, by reducing demand, which is something sadly we speak about not enough. We should be making a much, much bigger case for the reduction of energy consumption. Secondly, by speeding up our transition to renewables, not just in Europe, but especially helping developing countries choose renewables before they choose especially the most polluting fossil fuels. For that, they need the possibility to invest. We need to change the way the MDBs function; we need to share technology more; we need to create industrial ecosystems that will allow the developing countries to be part of that. Then, obviously, it is a much better proposition to invest in renewables than to keep investing in fossil fuels. Having said all that, it is without any doubt that I have to say that natural gas in particular will play a role in the transition towards climate neutrality – it plays that role in Europe. We cannot deny others use of that natural gas as a transitional energy carrier if we’re doing that ourselves; that would be highly hypocritical. In that dialogue, the introduction of green hydrogen plays a huge role in all of this. This could also help us limit the exploration of fossil fuels. With a number of African countries, you see that this is working. But then we have to get our homework done on all the other issues that I just mentioned. This leads to alliances with the Global South. I think the Global South really welcomed the EU’s position on the loss and damage fund. But now we have to prove that we mean business. That’s what we have to do from now on in the weeks and months that follow. The attitude of the Global South, especially small island developing states and African countries, they were surprised and actually intrigued and they wanted us to move forward with them. But we have to prove that we can actually do that. I would say, on the whole scope, not just on the fund, but also how we share technology, how we help them introduce renewables, etc., that it is very important for us to do. Now, I will be travelling to Dubai early next year, in the first weeks of the New Year, to discuss the preparation of the next COP. High on my list will be space for civil society. This is of extreme importance to make very clear to the incoming presidency and to the UN system, by the way, that space for civil society is going to be an essential element, a crucial element in how the COP should function. The uniqueness of the COP, to a large extent, is because of the participation of civil society, and this should never be lost. By the way, I will also then bring up the issue of the Blue COP with the Emirates and see what their plans are, and I certainly would like to continue to work with them on that. Is China beneficiary of the loss and damage fund? Well, no, of course not. That’s the whole idea behind the proposal the EU made. It should be directed at the most vulnerable and the contribution should come from the richest country, the countries doing well and also the major emitters. Now, even if you look at historic emissions, and I say this to those who talk about history, China is right up there with the major emitters. Even if you just look at historic emissions, because of the enormous amounts of their emissions. So there is no way that China can keep hiding behind the status of a developing country. This is something that is dawning also on the G77, this idea that there’s for all eternity going to be G77 plus China is no longer a given anymore. Part of our diplomacy is also directed at creating alliances with the Global South, but also at calling China to take more of its responsibility. By the way, China is suffering a lot from the climate crisis and is investing massively in renewables and in other areas. So who knows? They might surprise us, but we will have to continue this dialogue very intensively to make sure they peak out well before 2030, because otherwise, attaining 1.5 is going to be almost impossible, if not impossible. Now, climate is not an ideology. Climate policy is based on science. I would argue the opposite: neglecting the science has become an ideology, right up to the flat—Earthers. So if you want to talk about ideology, then talk about that ideology. We are led by science and the scientific evidence is overwhelming. We would be amiss, we would neglect our duty as politicians in this time and age, if we did not act upon science. What world would we then give to our children and grandchildren if we had just neglected science? I think that would be the real, horrible ideology. Now, on the issue of the markets, yes, there are many things you can say about the market and where it doesn’t function. But you cannot decarbonise our economy without putting a price on carbon. The one instrument that has worked extremely well and is being copied, by the way, by other parts of the world is the European emissions trading scheme, which has used market elements to put a price on carbon and created a market that is working better and better to decarbonise our economy and to give certainty to economic actors in the long term. So don’t dismiss the market outright, then you’re also in the domain of ideology. I would also like to take issue with those who said Europe didn’t pay up. If you look at the adaptation fund, if you look at the USD 100 billion, Europe did pay up; we did do our part. We have not been able to convince others to do their part. There’s still a lot of work to do there, but I don’t think Europe should blame itself for not doing its part. With the USD 27 billion we have contributed, we do more than our fair share for that. I am more than willing to defend doing more, but we should also step up our efforts to convince the Americans, the Chinese and others to take more of their responsibility, and to convince some of the Gulf States, which are still saying they are developing countries, to do more in that area. So let’s continue to work on that. All in all, Madam President, there is a lot of work to do. I share partly the disappointment of this House in terms of what we did, what we couldn’t achieve on emissions. I do want to insist on the peaking out. I do want to insist on the end, on the phasing out, of fossil fuels – things we need to work on. But I do say that Europe has given the example by having a plan, by being concrete on where we want to go, and in that way we can perhaps convince more and more other developed countries in the Global North to do the same. We saw it with many countries in the Global North that are following our example. Now, in the alliance, we could forge ahead with the most vulnerable countries in the Global South. We can also demonstrate that we mean business to make sure that those who are most vulnerable, who have no responsibility for where we are now, but are suffering in such a way that they cannot afford to address, should see help coming from us, support coming from us, and the understanding that we’re in this together.