COP29 conversations: Gareth Redmond-King

Source: ECIU

Interview by Jack Green-Morgan, Dods Political Consultant for Energy, Utilities and Net Zero.

About Gareth Redmond-King

Gareth Redmond-King is the Head of International Programme at the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), where he leads a team of climate specialists working on UK policy, advocacy and campaigning to tackle climate change and restore nature.

He previously worked as part of WWF’s global Climate and Energy Practice network to influence UNFCCC processes and decision-making. 

Before WWF, Gareth worked for the UK government for 15 years across various policy portfolios, most recently leading a team in the Department for Energy and Climate Change which worked on subsidy and support to install and operate renewable electricity infrastructure in the UK.

Yes, it has to be, because there’s nothing else. We have nothing else and I think it’s a council of despair for anybody to say that it doesn’t work and that it’s time to abandon COP because we’re not making enough progress. It’s true that we’re not making enough progress, but we are making more progress than we would have been making without the COP process: without countries needing to turn up, without them having made commitments, and without them being held to account in the way that they are.

It’s the only option we have. If we didn’t have it [the COP process], we would have nothing and there’s no way that we would be able to reinvent what we needed and make it work in the time that we have to act. So, it’s a sort of enforced hope. Although we’re not on track, there is considerable momentum that wouldn’t have been there otherwise. There’s the momentum from the Paris Agreement through to COP26 at Glasgow, to the Global Stocktake in 2023, through to the point where we’re talking about phasing down fossil fuels.

That has meant we are on track for between 2° and 3° warming rather than the 3° or 4° warming that was predicted in earlier worst-case scenarios. All of that means that the UNFCCC is making some progress. It’s that momentum that has been picked up and driven increasingly by global market forces, which has resulted in the falling price of renewable technologies, for example. All of that momentum is there because of the COP process, because countries have to turn up and account for what they’ve promised to do.

So yes, I do think it’s possible.

I think for the biggest economies and the biggest emitters, the market has picked up where leaders have set the direction through investments and policy decisions, which have brought the costs of clean technologies down. In the context of China’s investment in clean energy, the Inflation Reduction Act in the US, and the work to speed up renewables’ deployment in Europe, the market has taken on its own momentum. A good example is to look at the Trump Presidency, where Trump talked about pulling out of the Paris Agreement and reverting back to drilling oil and gas and mining coal.

The market didn’t actually support this, and it’s now Republican parts of the US that are some of the biggest producers of renewable energy, such as the wind industry in Texas. The momentum has taken hold where it needs to most in the biggest emitting economies. That has a positive knock-on effect for middle income and poorer countries because it drives down the cost of the technologies that are needed to decarbonise. In much poorer countries there are therefore opportunities to leapfrog some of that fossil fuel infrastructure in the first place.

But all of that is not to say that climate finance is not incredibly important for the transition. Not least because it’s needed on a much greater scale for adaptation. So, climate finance is going to be crucial at this COP and beyond, because those developing countries still need that investment for the transition to reduce emissions. But they need it even more urgently for adapting to the impacts that we’re seeing at 1.2° of warming now.

Source: LinkedIn Gareth Redmond King

The Paris Agreement recognizes the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” This means the wealthier and higher emitting developed countries should get to net zero first and allow space for the economic development of developing countries that are still going to rely on some fossil fuels. This means that in some cases, climate targets which may appear unambitious are actually aligned with the Paris Agreement, for example India’s very ambitious 2070 net zero target.

However, some outlying countries have made decisions not to take significant action on climate. That could be for economic or geopolitical reasons, for example where a country has significant oil reserves and wishes to maximise the economic benefits above all else. That is often still the case for countries which will experience severe impacts as a result of climate change, like Saudi Arabia.

I think the important thing is that the costs of decarbonisation are dropping dramatically, and the market imperatives are improving commensurately in the biggest economies and for the biggest emitters. That’s where we’re seeing the transition speed up.

I don’t think there is genuine economic hurdle for developed countries like the US, the UK and most of the European Union. For those countries where there is an economic hurdle, that’s what climate finance is for. It’s the job of the wealthy developed countries to support developing countries.

Source: University of Glasgow

I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful to be talking about the biggest estimate, or a scarily big number that relies on total calculations of complex sources of funding, when negotiations focus on public finance. I think the scaling up that is needed for the new collective quantified goal is clearly of a significant quantum, and NGOs have been talking in terms of $1 trillion as a benchmark figure.

However, there is an important distinction between what is coming through the UNFCCC process and the other sources of funding, including multilateral development banks and private finance that is leveraged by public climate finance. So, the conversation around a figure is clearly one that negotiators need to be having, but it’s hard to say that any specific figure will definitely deliver the action required, or that a different number would certainly lead to failure.

That being said, it’s incredibly important that this COP comes away with credible progress on the new collective quantified goal, and that developing countries can see it is sufficient to actually help them. That’s going to be the measure of success at this COP. But it’s very hard to see what that looks like right now, given how little progress has been made, and how difficult it is to picture where the finishing line will be.

“There’s an argument that if anybody can credibly persuade states with economic dependencies on oil and gas, and fossil fuel companies, to shift in terms of climate action, then it’s one of their own. I guess we saw a bit of that in the UAE last year. However, Azerbaijan has not been very clear what the aim of its Presidency is. They’ve talked a lot about world peace, and while this is important, it’s clearly not the principal remit of the UNFCCC.

All that being said, it’s not necessarily going to be down to the COP presidency to determine whether there will be progress on mitigation. It will take others to lead as well. It will need governments like the EU and the UK – with its newly professed return to leadership – to step up with new NDCs and set some momentum.This COP is principally about climate finance. Mitigation will continue to be important, but primarily so in terms of signals from leading nations and emitters at, or shortly after COP29, which show  that they are raising their ambition in their country pledges – their NDCs.

And I think there will be one very important event just before COP29 as well – the US Presidential election – which could either keep the flames of momentum and ambition alight or could dampen things and give cover to those who don’t want to make any progress.”

Yeah, I think we do have a leadership role. I think it’s an incredibly good thing that we’ve got a government that has set out three priorities in foreign policy: reset the relationship with the global South, reset the relationship with Europe, and reset the UK’s leadership on climate change. So, it’s key that they’re putting climate leadership at the core of their foreign policy; and David Lammy has underlined that with his recent speech at Kew Gardens.

It’s also positive that there are a set of genuinely ambitious climate commitments in terms of domestic policy, including the proposed moratorium on new oil and gas in the North Sea, the accelerated deployment of renewables, and the reinstatement of the 2030 ZEV mandate. These policies all give credibility to climate leadership. However, the first real test of that leadership will be turning up to COP29 ready to make serious commitments on climate finance. This will then have to be followed up with the UK’s new NDC for 2035. And, given the Republican rhetoric on climate change in the USA, the UK will be even more important as an international leader on climate if Trump is re-elected.

If you care about climate change, you care about COP29. This is why we created the COP29 package: to provide you with high-quality content that will allow you to stay up to date with all the relevant information about this crucial event. Get the COP29 package so you can make the best decisions for your organisation.