“If the U.S. Doesn’t Want to Join, Let Them Be the World’s Biggest Loser”

Editor’s Note:
This article presents a highlight of an exclusive interview with Erik Solheim, conducted by Gao Yanping, Editor of Guancha.cn, following the conclusion of COP29.

Erik Solheim, Former UN Deputy Secretary-General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Q: Trump’s victory in the election and the rise of right-wing movements in Europe are widely seen as bad news for the global climate change agenda. As someone who attended COP29 this year, what were your impressions of the event and the mood of the participants?

Eric Solheim: The participants were largely angry. If any country has contributed more to the climate crisis than any other, it is the United States, yet it has failed to provide guidance to the rest of the world on resolving the chaos it has created. To date, the U.S. per capita cumulative carbon emissions are approximately 8 times that of China and 25 times that of African nations. Therefore, if any country should be more obligated to confront and resolve the climate crisis, it is the United States. However, the U.S. is now telling Europe, China, and other nations that they must solve this problem.

On a positive note, countries like China, India, and European nations have not ceased their climate action efforts despite the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, as this is in their own long-term interests. They are taking action because they recognize the severe threats posed by climate change to themselves.

Looking globally, China and other countries have experienced many climate-related natural disasters. The recent flooding in Spain, which resulted in over 200 deaths, is an example, though factors beyond just the climate contributed to the high death toll. These nations understand that the future will inevitably require green development.

From the growing market share of green products, green development can also create employment opportunities and bring economic prosperity, as there are abundant business opportunities. If the U.S. does not wish to manufacture solar panels or electric vehicles, that is truly regrettable, and this reflects their own problem, as well as the reality that the rest of the world is currently able to address.

Q: Based on your confidence in the fight against climate change, during your speeches at COP29, what were the main points and calls to action that you focused on?

Eric Solheim: A key focus of my remarks was that regardless of the situation in the United States, China has emerged as an undisputed leader in the green transition and will continue to green its economy. Additionally, India and Europe are also extremely important players. No country will cease its efforts to mitigate global warming due to changes in the U.S. position. There is also some positive news from the U.S. that should not be overlooked. In places like California, the use of green energy continues to advance. Many in the American business community recognize that inaction will cause them to lose market share. In fact, the Trump administration may gradually remove some of the business cooperation restrictions, which could make it easier for the U.S. to develop solar and wind power projects. This is important, as excessive government bureaucracy and business constraints have significantly hindered the advancement of the new energy industry in the United States. Overall, the situation remains fluid, and we will have to wait and see how things unfold going forward.

Q: The theme of COP29 includes climate finance. Could you provide an update on the progress of climate finance at the UN level? What are the original intentions and goals of climate finance?

Eric Solheim: Unfortunately, we have not yet heard the core information in this area. Currently, private investment is often playing a role.

In today’s world, a large amount of private investment, especially from China, as well as many developing countries such as Europe, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia, has been invested in the carbon credit market.

The carbon credit market will develop very rapidly in the future, as a very important agreement was reached at the meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan – a consensus on the carbon credit market standards under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement.

This agreement may sound highly technical, but it has established rules for the global carbon credit market. This capital does not come from the government, but from businesses. All participating tech companies, airlines, and many healthcare companies have pledged to achieve carbon neutrality. They need to buy carbon offsets, which could be a huge driver for carbon reduction investments, such as protecting the Amazon rainforest, increasing forest growth in India and Sri Lanka, and promoting the development of natural agriculture in Africa, among many other good projects.

Unfortunately, the institutional mechanisms we have established to invest in climate mitigation and adaptation are not playing the role they should. They are bureaucratic, inefficient, and politicized, and are essentially being controlled by people who do not understand the market, business, or investment. They must move away from diplomatic games and focus more on investing in the real development of this world.

Q: In 2009, developed countries agreed to mobilize $100 billion per year by 2020 to support climate action in developing countries. In 2015, under the Paris Agreement, the parties agreed to extend this target to 2025, which was seen as a landmark event for climate justice. However, this target has not been met as promised. It has been reported that the $100 billion in funding has been difficult to raise, and the vast majority of the funds have flowed into middle-income countries. Why has this happened?

Eric Solheim: This goal has been a complete failure, with developed countries providing only a small portion of the funds to African and least developed countries. The countries that caused the climate crisis should be the ones paying to solve it, but this goal has failed 100%.

These funds have not achieved their original objectives because the attention of these countries’ governments has been diverted to other areas, such as wasting a large amount of money on Ukraine instead of using it for actions to curb global warming. Even the funds that have been raised have not been well utilized due to the inefficiency of the bureaucratic system, making it extremely difficult for a developing country to successfully access these funds.

My recommendation is that public funds should focus on two areas:

One is climate adaptation, which are areas that are difficult to attract private investment, and the government must provide funding, such as flood control or environmental improvement in drought-affected areas. This is an area where underdeveloped countries like Chad, Central African Republic, and Madagascar find it difficult to attract investment.

The other area is risk mitigation, because for investors, investing in these countries carries great risks, which is why more investment has been made in risk mitigation in developing countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

Q: At the G20 summit all the leaders were calling for reforms to the international financial system to ensure they can finance climate action.

Absolutely, there are certainly some areas that cannot attract private investment, such as the massive floods that occurred in Pakistan a few years ago – we had to invest money in assisting the affected population, which must be done by the public sector as it is not a profitable industry. There are also some African countries that have been plagued by drought, so the government must invest to improve the situation.

However, the most important investment direction for driving emissions reduction is investment in solar energy – there are tremendous business opportunities there.

I heard Prime Minister Modi’s speech, where he outlined India’s actions to tackle climate change, saying it is a huge opportunity for India to create jobs and raise the living standards of a large population to the middle class. He views environmental action as a tool for national governance, not as a problem.

If development is not placed first, foreign policy negotiations will become deadlocked.

Q: One of the key issues at this COP29 meeting is that participating countries are seeking to establish a new annual climate finance plan to replace the $100 billion target plan. We’ve seen media reports that “many attendees are concerned that this Baku climate conference may be the only climate conference since the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit that fails to reach an agreement.” (The conference announced the “Baku Climate Solidarity Pact” in the early hours of November 24th, but it was delayed from the expected timeline.) In your view, what are the main sticking points in the negotiations?

Eric Solheim: The consensus reached on the carbon credit market standards under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement is already an important outcome of Baku. This should drive a lot of green development investment targeting low-income countries. This is a very positive aspect.

However, I tend to believe that the things we focus on are far more than just climate negotiations, because those are the real ones. If development is not placed first, foreign policy negotiations will become deadlocked, as development is both political and business.

Let me give an example. Going back to 2021, the climate conference was held in Glasgow, UK. The most controversial issue at the time was whether we should gradually reduce coal or phase it out altogether.

Discussing this issue is meaningless for anyone, as we have a global population of 8 billion, and not many people will be affected by those diplomatic platitudes. Yet, even so, some negotiators were crying on television that they had not reached a consensus.

But just a month before the Glasgow climate summit, President Xi Jinping decided that China would stop investing in all overseas coal projects. This remarkable decision was quickly met with positive responses from many countries. Countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, and Kenya said, “Well, we’re not getting investment from China in coal projects anymore, so let’s invest in solar, invest in other new energies, and let’s all work together to achieve a green transformation!” They, like President Xi, also did a lot of weighing and found that they could achieve a green economic transformation.

Therefore, by focusing on the core decisions and key actions of political leaders, we can see positive progress, rather than being stuck in those diplomatic games.

The 7th China International Photovoltaic and Energy Storage Industry Conference 2024, held in Chengdu, Sichuan, from November 17 to 20

Q: I saw your post on X. You left the climate conference before it ended to fly to Chengdu for a Chinese photovoltaic industry event. You mentioned that when comparing the two, it’s clear that the Chengdu event had a much greater impact. What made the Chengdu conference more influential?

Erik Solheim: Yes, that’s right. The Chengdu conference focused on real action, not just diplomatic talks.

You mentioned the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit—it was a disaster. I went there with high hopes, but everyone left disappointed. Back then, no one could have predicted that solar energy prices would drop by 90% in just a few years after Copenhagen. At that time, replacing coal with solar energy seemed almost impossible due to the high costs.

But now, replacing coal with solar is not only affordable, it’s also a much more efficient way to save energy. Many countries around the world can harness solar energy as a national resource. This is not just good for the environment, but also for energy security and economic development.

This is due not only to China, but also to the contributions of the United States, Germany, Japan, and other countries. However, no nation has pushed the solar industry forward as much as China has. Thanks to China’s aggressive expansion, Chinese companies have driven the global solar industry’s growth and created opportunities in many regions. That’s why I believe the impact of these achievements far outweighs that of climate negotiations.

Q:You have repeatedly acknowledged China’s solar industry, and indeed, they’ve done an incredible job.

Erik Solheim: I believe it’s well-deserved. People need to recognize the contributions of the leaders and workers in these solar companies—they are heroes because they’ve created new green development opportunities for the world.

If the cost of solar energy was still high, the green transition wouldn’t be possible. But once the cost started coming down, solar energy became an economic opportunity. Every country will pursue it. The most important energy of the future will need to be linked to hydropower, pumped storage, and batteries. However, it’s clear that breakthroughs in these fields will still be difficult over the next 10 to 20 years. As a result, solar energy will undoubtedly become the dominant renewable energy source on Earth.

Q: As you have mentioned, many people have noticed China’s tremendous achievements in combating global warming, including the large-scale use of new energy technologies. However, from my observation, you are one of the few foreigners who tells the truth and talks about China’s contributions to global warming mitigation. Why do you think this is the case?

You’re right, one of the reasons is that people are not aware of the facts. They are not bad, they just don’t know. Therefore, we should arrange more visits to China and invite people to come and see for themselves.

If I had the chance to advise President Trump, I would suggest he spend some time in China, see it with his own eyes, and that could change his perspective. Because he would see that Chinese cities are more modern than American cities, and developing solar energy and electric vehicles is a huge opportunity. But when Americans sit in their offices and read those negative news reports, they don’t realize that these are misleading.

So I’ve done my best to change people’s perceptions. Anyone who has been to Shenzhen, Guangzhou, or Shanghai will see that these are some of the most modern and green cities in the world.

Just last week, during the conference in Chengdu, I went for a morning run in a large park in the city, and I learned that Chengdu is implementing a plan to divide the city’s roads into 6 functional categories, including “living streets” that are primarily public spaces for residents’ life, entertainment, and leisure activities. This is a great concept, and many people, even in China, are not aware of it.

Q: After Trump’s election, you wrote an article for a Norwegian newspaper expressing your continued confidence in global climate action. Could you explain why?

Erik Solheim: Yes, I outlined four key reasons why we shouldn’t despair even if Trump comes to power.

First, China, India, and Europe are leading the global climate agenda, and this will continue even under Biden. If the U.S. chooses not to participate, it will simply become the world’s biggest loser while other nations move forward. Last year, China contributed two-thirds of global renewable energy production. It also produces over 60% of the world’s green products, including electric vehicles, buses, batteries, solar, wind, hydro, and high-speed trains. Additionally, China has the largest increase in forested areas globally.

Prime Minister Modi has launched the “Green Mission” vision, and India aims to build 500 GW of solar, wind, and hydropower by 2030. One project alone will provide solar green energy to 10 million households. India’s Gujarat state has also set ambitious green targets. Indonesia, the world’s second-largest rainforest nation, has significantly reduced deforestation, and Brazil is following suit. Europe, once a leader in climate policy, has been surpassed by Asia but continues to push for green growth through initiatives like the Green New Deal.

The climate actions of China, India, and Europe show that the world can still move forward without the U.S.

Second, the forces for climate action within the U.S. are also very strong. Many states, including California, New York, and others, remain committed to climate efforts. California alone has an economy large enough to be one of the world’s top ten economies. In the U.S., climate action is largely driven by businesses, not the government. When Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, no major American company supported him. U.S. businesses see profit and growth opportunities in climate action. The tech industry’s efforts to power data centers with green energy are more significant than most government plans.

Third, every action prompts a reaction. Trump’s anti-climate stance could actually fuel stronger global green movements. When people get angry, they act, and that could accelerate climate action.

Fourth, even with Trump in office, there could be some positive outcomes. It may be hard to understand, but many Americans believe Trump is a candidate for peace. He’s not part of the U.S. establishment, which for the past two decades has believed that America should intervene in every issue worldwide. This approach has been disastrous for global peace, as seen in the Iraq war, the prolonged Afghanistan conflict, the Libya war, and other violent actions in the Middle East.

If Trump fulfills his promise to end wars, it could be beneficial for the world. Climate change could then become a priority for the U.S. government, as it would no longer be bogged down in destruction and conflict.

We’re still waiting to see how this will play out.

Q: Yes, your optimistic perspective on climate action is inspiring. The G20 summit, which was held around the same time, also gave a positive response to the climate agenda, with UN climate officials calling it a hopeful sign. To curb global warming, every nation, organization, and individual must take action. How do you think we can urge global leaders, especially major carbon emitters like the U.S., to move beyond rhetoric and take concrete steps?

Erik Solheim: I believe that the U.S. is more engaged in climate issues now than it was during the Trump era. However, the U.S. is in decline, and regardless of who becomes president, the America that led the 20th century is no longer the same. The 21st century will be multipolar.

China will not dominate the world like the U.S. did, but the global power structure is shifting. Major powers like the U.S., China, Europe, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, South Africa, and many developing countries in the Global South are gaining strength.

It’s now time for the Southern Hemisphere to step up and take on global leadership. The BRICS summit a couple of weeks ago was a prime example, and the voices of developing countries at the G20 summit were notably strong as well.

Brazil’s president, Lula, is a respected global leader. Brazil will host the BRICS summit in 2025 and will also be the host nation for COP30 next year. We should keep an eye on this, as the next climate summit will likely be more engaging, environmentally focused, and fair, though we hope it will also bring stability.

The 21st century will be led by the South. Europe, the U.S., and other nations will pay the price if they fail to take action.