Press comments on the climate conference in Madrid: "What planet are they living on?"

Thousands of participants from 200 countries, after renewing a new record for the length of the climate conference - and in the end only a minimal compromise. It was not possible to agree at all on the redesign of the market for C02 certificates, and other important aspects had to be postponed to the summit in Glasgow next year.

The comments in the German and international media see the meager result of the mammoth conference:

"The World", Berlin:
The definition of the United Nations as a "community of states" is no longer applicable in climate protection. The community has crumbled. The glorious end of the 25th Madrid World Climate Conference shows that global multilateralism was a misguided hope in the fight against global warming. But that would not mean the end of climate protection. Regional initiatives have long proven their effectiveness. The annual mammoth conferences of the UN with tens of thousands of participants are superfluous. In the best case, they are just a waste of money, in the worst they are counterproductive because they fuel false hopes. They should be done away with.

"Die Zeit", Hamburg:
The gap between what climate protectors demand scientifically based and what a UN climate summit can do has never been so great. In the end, Madrid was all about limiting damage, of all things at the end of a year in which millions of people around the world demonstrated for more climate protection, in which scientific warnings about the consequences of the climate crisis have become louder, and in which it became clear is how much time is pressing.

ZDF, Mainz
They all thought: The Paris climate protection agreement has been adopted, and now global climate protection is starting. The Madrid conference shows that this is a gross misjudgment. The 25th climate conference feels like one - last one? - Raising the countries that are still influenced by the oil and coal lobby. Or from the agricultural lobby, as the examples in Brazil and Argentina show.

The sheer fear of restructuring national agricultural policies because, of course, clearing pasture land and expanding livestock farming are driving climate change is leading to blockade attacks wherever possible. For example, in the recognition of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the interaction of land use and climate change. The violent discussions here did not only surprise the conference presidency.

"Berliner Morgenpost":
With the current commitments to reduce emissions, the world is heading for over three degrees of warming. It is not a secret. It can be assumed that governments in the United States, Australia, Brazil and Saudi Arabia are also familiar with the reports. They just obviously don't care. The message that comes from Madrid is fatal. The small island states and many other vulnerable countries around the world say this result: Our national interests come first - your survival is secondary.

And the conclusion that the millions who took to the streets last year in the hope of making science heard is what this conclusion says: You cannot rely on us.

This is extremely dangerous. If multilateral, consensus-based systems fail so badly, they run the risk of fundamentally shaking the confidence of the many young climate activists in democracy.

"Volksstimme", Magdeburg:
It is particularly disappointing that there will be no progress in expanding global emissions trading after this climate summit. If the states could agree on the price of CO2 and if there were - as in Europe - central bodies that issue certificates, climate protection would finally become a real economic factor all over the world. The opportunity is wasted. This also has consequences for Europe, where rising prices for emissions could result in a global competitive disadvantage. The prerequisites for rising prices for greenhouse gas are getting worse.

By contrast, agreeing on aid to regions of the world that are particularly affected by climate change is far more complicated. How should countries be considered that already distribute most of their development aid among their elites? Countries that are overwhelmed with planning and implementing measures. These are problems that could not be solved in many decades.

"Südkurier", Constance:
Which planet do the participants in the climate conference actually live on? Not evident where millions of young people have taken to the streets for the climate for a good year. All the demonstration, all the appeals and debates were ultimately ignored by the Madrid conference. Important decisions, such as the trading of CO2 pollution rights, have been postponed, others have been circumvented, such as the establishment of a fund for the consequences of climate change. This summit shows once again that climate protection will not do anything. The multilateral approach does not help us: Although the world should have a common interest in it, it does not come to a common denominator. It is time to finally let the expensive, lengthy and ultimately pointless summits stay. And instead rely on climate protection projects with those who want to be there. Countries and regions have long been networking for the common goal. And they are successful with it.

"Baden Latest News", Karlsruhe:
National selfishness in Madrid ensured that no hard rules were put in place to achieve the Paris climate agreement's goal of keeping global warming below two degrees. Booming industrialized nations like China and India want to continue to grow, they are acting against too high CO2-saving targets because the money costs - and if they finally agree to a compromise, nobody knows whether they really will comply. Because there are no effective controls.

"The New Zurich Times":
The climate conference in Madrid clearly missed the goal of preserving the vigor of the Paris Agreement of 2015 and completing its regulatory framework. The proposed financing of damage from the consequences of climate change also remained controversial. The delegates could not even make a clear commitment to tighten all national climate targets as originally planned in the coming year - the appeal remained. (...)

Over the course of time, it has proven to be characteristic of international climate policy: larger decisions are initially praised - and a few years later they are heavily criticized. The Paris Agreement now faces a similar fate to the Kyoto Protocol. The ambivalence of the text decided in Paris, which was partly responsible for the success, enabled skillful negotiators to make all sorts of nooks and crannies in the further discussion about the rules.

"de Volkskrant", Amsterdam:
Of course, such meetings often end with promises and pious words that are of little value later. But at the Paris climate conference in 2015, at least a spirit of cooperation was found that was difficult to find in Madrid. (...) The failure of Madrid threatens to undermine support for climate policy. Why should Europe have to take expensive and sometimes painful measures while the rest of the world continues to emit greenhouse gases?

Nevertheless, Europe must continue to pursue climate policy in a reasonable manner. Firstly, because the climate crisis is so acute that Europe has to live up to its responsibilities in the hope that other countries will join. Secondly, because many climate protection measures benefit the environment. Everyone has an interest in clean air, well-insulated houses, or developing renewable energy sources as an alternative to fossil fuels.

"Times", London:
Now the UK, hosting COP26 in Glasgow in November of next year, will have the task of finding the way to a solution. Further evidence of the high cost of climate change should spur the cabinet on to make this a priority. (...) The elected conservative government has rightly committed itself to ambitious, binding targets for the reduction of British CO2 emissions. Boris Johnson said he wanted "global Britain" to play a leading role on the world stage after Brexit. He should make it his mission to have delegates talk about him instead of Greta Thunberg when they leave Glasgow.

"La Repubblica", Rome:
The failure of the Madrid climate conference is appalling. This means that the international community will waste even more time without taking the necessary measures. Time is running out, the emergency requires immediate measures to reduce CO2 emissions, otherwise the environmental crisis will become irreversible and the consequences will be even more dramatic. (...) Unfortunately, no one has yet been able to prove that sustainability creates more jobs and more income than coal capitalism. Europe is at least apparently campaigning for this with the Green Deal presented by Ursula von der Leyen.

But there are misunderstandings here too. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested. But the Union spends very little money and expects the rest to come from the private sector. The emerging markets also suspect that environmental protection is the new dress of the political correctness of protectionism: Because Ursula's Green New Deal includes an environmental tax on imports of goods that are produced by the production of CO2.