Climate protection: possible without a consensus?
The results of the Climate Change Conference in Madrid have disappointed many participants as well as environmentalists and scientists. Key divisive issues were postponed for later discussion while relatively undemanding declarations of intent were adopted. Europe's commentators wonder whether climate protection - like the two-speed Europe - is an area where certain countries need to strike out on their own.
The UN is the wrong forum
There is a clear conclusion to be drawn from the Madrid conference, says Die Welt:
“Getting almost 200 countries to agree to a joint course of action is simply too complicated. The states that are serious about climate protection should therefore take the lead in that direction - and be honest with themselves and others. Yes, avoiding CO2 emissions is difficult, and in the beginning also expensive. But if not even the prosperous Western countries with their well-trained engineers and social security systems are able to comply with the Paris Agreement, who can? Time to Act was the motto of the Madrid Climate Conference. And it continues to apply.”
Credibility lacking without the big states
El Mundo, on the other hand, is unconvinced by the idea of a climate protection avant-garde:
“It's hypocritical to demand that ordinary citizens make gestures with regard to diesel consumption or recycling before the international community has come up with a serious, realistic and pragmatic way to get the climate crisis of the ecosystem under control and to bear the costs of the ecological transformation and the associated economic and industrial reforms. Now that science has proven that climate change is man-made, total decarbonisation by around 2050 should be a viable goal. This requires a serious commitment on the part of the 200 countries, and in particular the US, China, India and Russia as the largest emitters of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.”
Citizens' demands deliberately ignored
Once again, selfish national interests have prevented real progress, the Irish Times concludes:
“Moreover, the outcome underlines a gaping disconnect between politicians and people across the world demanding much more urgency in the response to an accelerating climate crisis. It was a time when consensus and solidarity were desperately needed. ... Many political leaders deserve to pay a heavy price for this grossly inadequate response, not least those big carbon-emitting countries such as Brazil, the US, and Australia. Their leaders deserve to be ostracised as they continue to pedal climate denialism and to facilitate fossil fuel expansion.”
The blockers' last stand
The states that still rely on fossil fuels are actually in a weak position, believes the Tages-Anzeiger:
“One is left with the impression that the governments of the 'fossil' states are using the last reserves of their strength to defend themselves against the turning point. Their once considerable influence has long since evaporated. Only a small minority of governments are still not taking science seriously and ignoring the urgent need to reduce emissions. This minority has blocked the progress of the negotiations in Madrid. But it did not succeed in passing off this conference and its lazy compromise as a success. This time the international community has shown strength and prevented the Paris climate agreement from being weakened by counterproductive decisions. In this respect Madrid's failures can also be interpreted positively.”
Not very productive but nonetheless necessary
La Libre Belgique explains why climate conferences will be necessary in future despite the disappointing results:
“As discouraging as it is, this outcome is hardly surprising. It simply reflects the current state of global geopolitics where several large countries have deliberately opted for a trial of strength and nationalist withdrawal rather than cooperation and multilateralism. The geopolitical balance is shifting and will continue to shift in the future - for better and for worse. Since the challenges posed by the climate are, by definition, a global problem, these meetings will continue to be necessary if we want to avoid falling once and for all into the vortex of every man for himself.”