World climate: "Some light and very dark shadows"

Created: 11/24/2022, 08:00

On site as an observer: The Uffinger climate researcher Professor Dr.

Harald Kunstmann traveled to Sharm El Sheikh for the World Climate Conference on behalf of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT).

© Private

The Uffinger climate researcher Professor Dr.

Harald Kunstmann (54), Deputy Head of the Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research at the KIT Campus Alpin and Director of the Center for Climate Resilience, was an observer at the World Climate Summit in Egypt.

In a Tagblatt interview, he classifies the decisions made there.

Uffing/Scharm El Scheich

– The world climate conference "COP27" ended in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, with a final declaration.

For two weeks, representatives from 200 countries negotiated, discussed and haggled.

The final assessments of various climate experts are rather cautious.

Although some progress could be seen, the big breakthrough in the resolutions did not materialize.

The goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is still not within reach.

Professor Kunstmann, how satisfied are you with the results of the COP27 climate summit?

Harald Kunstmann: The overall results are disappointing - I can confirm the tenor of the media.

I find it a poor result that they just want to "shut down" coal energy.

There is no mention of the exit from oil and gas.

A positive point is certainly that the industrialized nations are also financially responsible and want to mitigate the climate damage they have caused in threatened countries.

This is the first admission of guilt that has been demanded for a long time.

But the financial details of a climate fund have been postponed.

It is important to understand that such a climate summit will not solve all problems - that would be naïve.

But it is just as important to emphasize that many great projects are being created there on a small scale.

For example, I was allowed to be present at a high-level backroom

in which solar agreements in the Middle East or the renaturation of the Jordan River were decided - between politically hostile states.

You don't hear anything about it in the reports.

It was also decided that the early warning systems for climate extremes, which are so important for us researchers, will be expanded.

So, despite all the criticism, more happened than you think.

There was light and shadow, but unfortunately the shadow is already very shady.

The EU has demanded a lot in terms of climate protection, the classic oil and gas producing countries and especially China have slowed down.

Were too many compromises made at the summit?

The weak point of the climate summit system is bringing 200 countries to a common denominator.

So it is hardly possible to enforce what goes against the grain of individual countries - especially when it comes to a global player like China.

There are different value systems in the world.

Climate protection is very important to the EU, but other countries tick differently.

That's why it's so difficult to get everyone on board.

Personally, I would advocate promoting more local solutions and not looking so much at others.

We can only create the global solution if we tackle the small issues.

If we concentrate primarily on climate protection in the EU, then we have it in our hands.

A central point of the declaration is the climate fund to support countries particularly threatened by climate change.

Can this fund help in the long term or does it serve more to combat symptoms?

The basic idea of ​​the climate fund isn't bad, but I think it's window dressing.

The totals are way too low.

The flood disaster in the Ahr Valley alone generated damage in the order of 30 billion euros.

Every extreme event demands billions, and the money reserves will quickly be exhausted.

And there will be more and more events of this kind in the future.

Unfortunately, the fund is only a relief and not a real solution.

But it was only one aspect of the summit.

Can the 1.5 degree target still be met somehow?

Unfortunately, the fact that we can do it is absolutely illusory.

In theory, we could stop heating or driving tomorrow, but of course that's not realistic.

There is currently no key figure that indicates that we can still make it.

In Germany we have reduced emissions overall, but they continue to rise in traffic.

This sacred cow is not really touched in Germany.

Unfortunately, we will break the 1.5 degree mark and can be happy if we still end up at 2.5 degrees.

also read

Serious B2 accident claims fatalities: Considerable disabilities - experts on site

Ascension Squad: Munich residents get bogged down in the Karwendel – one wears leggings and shorts

More and more voices are being raised that the climate summits are outdated.

Do you share this assessment?

Only through negotiations and binding contracts is it possible to achieve something.

Of course one can and may criticize the summits, but without them one achieves even less.

We have to pull together.

We should also help poorer countries to skip the fossil fuel route - even if we don't set good examples ourselves.

With 200 participating countries, compromises can only ever be reached, but you can also see that a lot of good can happen at the summits in the background.

Aaron Jungwirth