Christiana Figueres: “Finally there is enough anger against climate change”

In the early nineties, Christiana Figueres took her daughters to the Monteverde Biological Reserve in Costa Rica. I wanted to show them the golden frog, a species endemic to this park that had dazzled her as a child. When he arrived and asked about the species, the blow was great: “How? That it has disappeared?” A few years earlier, in 1989, the extinction of this amphibian had been declared. Figueres was stunned: “I realized that if I, in my thirties, had seen the disappearance of a species, I was giving my daughters a worse world.”

That was a turning point in the career of Figueres, anthropologist, economist, daughter of the three-time Costa Rican president José Figueres Ferrer, Don Pepe, considered the architect of the stable political system of the Ticos and who abolished the Army. “I started studying on the subject, talking to scientists… At that time there were very few secular people, the ignorant like me, who knew about the subject.” “Now, here I am,” she says proudly almost three decades later, at age 63, who is considered one of the world’s leading experts on climate change; the Costa Rican who, under the bombastic position of executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, became the architect of the 2015 Paris Agreement. A woman who, she admits, could not follow her rhythm of life – after this interview she will travel to the United States, Sweden and Israel and back to the United States – if it were not for meditation and because after not being able to teach her daughters a golden frog now has three species with her name: a moth (Struthoscelis christianafigueresae), a wasp (Pseudapanteles christianafigueresae) and an orchid (Vanilla karen-christianae).

After nearly three decades of fighting climate change and seeing the planet continue to be destroyed, how many times a day does it cross your mind to say “I told you so”? The “I told him so” is the equivalent of blaming and I don’t blame. Raising your finger and pointing at someone does not help, because the aiming the first thing he does is defend himself. It is preferable to encourage people, especially those who are able to make decisions. In addition, the effects of climate change are getting worse than we imagine. We underestimate the impact. It’s not that we can say we knew it was going to happen, every time something new happens we say, “What a horror!”

Is the current speed of climate action sufficient? No and never has been. We are always behind. The evolution of measures always has its own course, its political rhythm, and the impacts of climate change, no. I do believe that the paradigm from which we started several decades ago has changed. Countries, corporations, individuals, financial institutions already realize that while there is a responsibility to decarbonize the planet, there is also an opportunity. I’m writing a book that, in part, describes what the world will be like in 2050. Under the scenario that we do nothing at the pace we have to do, the degree of destruction, suffering and conflict will be as we have never had, not even in world wars. Paradoxically, if we manage to decarbonize, cities will be more livable, there will be more food security, better access to electricity, greater forest cover, so it will be a world of more health, peace and efficiency. We need to understand that not only do we have a responsibility to tackle climate change to avoid disasters, but that we are being put on a silver platter.

To get to that world you’re talking about 30 years from now, what is most urgent now? The trajectory we must follow is simple to understand, not so much to fulfill. From 2020 we begin a decrease in global emissions to be able to reach 2030 with half of the emissions we have. Today we are at 41 gigatons of _CO2; we should get to 20. The next decade would have to be cut in half, 10 and then 5, which are the gigatons that the planet could naturally absorb. It is not easy, because we have been in reverse for 50 years, increasing emissions, but it is entirely possible. And we have the funds.

So, if it’s possible and you have the funds… why is it not done?

Exactly. Because we are not fully convinced that this is the greatest advantage humanity has ever seen. We have the technology, we know what the policies are to follow and we have the money, but we are not aligning all that nor the national policies with the local ones and corporate interests.

You were the great architect of the Paris Agreement, which next year will be five years old. It was a success to achieve that pact unanimously. However, in this time the consequences of climate change have been accentuated and the pact has suffered several setbacks. The Paris Agreement was built on the basis of recognizing that it is not possible to have a vision of the transformation of the global economy within 30 years. There are a lot of unknown variables that prevent us from doing so. It was built on five-year links, after that time countries have to review the effort and overcome it. At the moment there are 53 countries that are already ready to increase their ambition. It’s not enough, but it’s not zero either. Of course, the ones that have the most impact on emissions are the large economies, but after 30 years I have realized that we have a pattern of behavior in which small economies lead and serve as an example. Will we succeed? I don’t know, especially since the influence of the United States, Australia or Brazil is very harmful. But we also have some charities, such as China and India, who have understood that decarbonization is good for their economies.

Should the Paris Agreement be amended? I think not, and it would be dangerous to do so. If it had a static logic like the Kyoto Protocol had, yes, but the Paris pact was thought of with a dynamic structure and logic. With a Donald Trump in the White House in 2015 we would not have achieved the agreement. Given the political circumstances we have at the moment, opening the agreement would be very dangerous, I am sure that we could not get a unanimous pact to decarbonize the planet in 2050.

The biggest challenge on the planet right now coincides with the leadership of many of the world’s major powers by short-term rulers. Short-termists and individualists. They are people who see the world with a perspective of competitiveness, confrontation, isolation, a situation completely contrary to the principles and values required by global needs. That is why the Paris Agreement should not be touched.

Given this scenario, what leaders would you set as an example? Interesting steps are being taken. China, for example, does so in its own interest. They are happy that there is an absence of U.S. leadership in all that is clean industry. It’s number one in solar energy, in wind, in the construction of electric vehicles, in charging those vehicles, and they want to be number one in batteries. India is making efforts for other reasons, for its health, because pollution is the worst in the world. New Zealand is a country that is under a very enlightened leadership, she [Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister] understands the pressure that would come to her country and Australia with the disappearance of the Pacific Islands. Morocco and Spain are doing things right. In Latin America there are cases such as my country, which has always had an environmental conscience, or Chile, which exercises an impressive leadership. There are several examples of a transformation that has to be global, but that has to be national in turn. There is no decarbonization formula that can be applied to two countries.

Trump has promised that he will pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement… The first day he could pull the United States out of the pact is November 6, 2020, a few days after the election. It is true that he will remain president for a while, regardless of the outcome, but the universe always has its grace.

But how does the world approach the fight against climate change without decisive action by the United States? In the long run, not very successfully. So far, America’s impact has not been as catastrophic as some people would like it to be. To some extent because a large part of the economy continues to decarbonize. Big states, like California, keep going because they know it’s good for their economy. That we have this guy in the White House, who just doesn’t believe, as if it’s ideology, and who doesn’t have the ability to understand science or the vision of what’s competitive for the economy, is a tragedy. At least the private sector and some states are aware that Trump’s speeches must be stopped.

It makes many references to companies, as if beyond being convinced of the need to curb climate change, they know that it poses a high financial risk. They have realized that they have responsibility and opportunity. It is not difficult to understand that on a dead planet there is no one to consume. They have understood that they cannot depend on governments, which have gears that prevent them from moving faster than they should.

There is also a generation that is increasingly aware of the risks to which they are subjected if climate action is not intensified. What do you think of that group that is mobilizing more and more? My parents’ generation had no idea what was happening, they can’t be held responsible for anything, science was too immature, there was no consciousness. My generation is the first to have developed science with the depth necessary to understand the damage we are doing. We also developed the vast majority of the technology that is disaster response, produced the capital that is capable of dealing with this, and developed the policies. It is a hinge generation with that of my daughters, which is the first that will suffer all the impacts. Then comes another, of young people from 12 to 20 years old, which is the one that is going out on the street. They are tired of seeing the world they will inherit. All the great changes in history occurred because there was a group of people who came forward, but it was not until the masses threw themselves into the streets that the transformation finally took place. We have finally reached that moment, until now it was a concern or an effort of a very small and exclusive group. Now it is a more pervasive issue: there are finally enough voices and anger to reach that turning point in the fight against climate change.

What is missing from that generation that is going to suffer the impacts of climate change but does not finish mobilizing? There is a danger in the mobilization that is coming. She could get stuck in anger and anger and that would lose the impact. If that anger is channeled into a transformation of the consumer as an individual, there is an impressive capacity to transform. There is a need to raise our voices, to make ourselves heard, but also to act. We do not have time for the transformation to be done from the top down, we have to do it also from the bottom up.

Greta Thunberg is the symbol of this mobilization. It has inspired thousands of young people across the globe. What risks do you see in all the attention being charged to it? Greta has opened the door on a very important movement. I’ve sat down with her, and she understands the science of climate change like few other people. And she has a maturity and an eloquence that are to be admired, but I find it very dangerous to put the responsibility for this process on a 16-year-old girl. I’m glad that a lot of other leaders are coming out, and I say a lot because most of them are women.

Why do you think women’s engagement is greater? I was recently in Norway with a group of young girls. The first thing I asked them was why we were sitting only women. I know they are perhaps irresponsible generalizations, but from what they told me, I concluded: women tend to be more inclusive; to have a more long-term vision; to work more collaboratively than in competition and to care more about the legacy we are leaving. For me the surprise was that they identified him. They also told me that they are from a generation that does not accept that women are on a second level. Full stop.

He has always argued that Latin America must lead climate action. How is this possible in such an unequal region? In this negative scenario of 2050, Latin America is greatly affected. There will be countries that cannot produce food and would become uninhabitable. Millions of people would have to migrate north or south. The destabilization of these countries is frightening. Not only are we one of the areas most affected by hurricanes or droughts: the increase in temperature makes us uninhabitable. That said, Latin America has so many opportunities in front of it… Our energy matrix is not as intensely charred as on other continents. Our transportation does depend 100% on fossil fuels yet, but we have natural resources of water, wind and sun that all countries should exploit. We could become a leading continent in renewable energies, we would be investing where the jobs of the future will be. That is why it does not fit in any head how the fires in the Amazon in Brazil, which are a planetary tragedy, have been handled.

Let’s say that at this point there are still people who are not aware of the challenge we face or who do not know where to start contributing to the fight against climate change. What are your recommendations? First, what we eat. If with what we know about the connection between beef and deforestation there are still people who consume red meat every day, it is barbaric. Those people can stop doing it once a week, then two, then three… We cannot continue to consume products that lead to deforestation. Then, see how we transport ourselves; check if our home and office are insulated correctly so as not to waste unnecessary energy. In the case of people who already have certain savings, we should know where we have them, no matter how little the capital is. If you’re in fossil fuel companies, it’s harmful to the planet, but you’re also going to lose your money. Finally, those of us who live in democratic countries must demonstrate our commitment to voting and support leaders who are aware of the emergency we are experiencing.

Source: The Country