He has more than 20 United Nations climate summits in his backpack, even though the one in the Brazilian city of Belém was for Sara Aagesen (Madrid, 49 years old) her first minister for the Ecological Transition. This is why he was head of the Spanish delegation in these complicated negotiations. When Brazilian president and COP30 host Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva threw down the gauntlet for countries to promote a roadmap to abandon fossil fuels at the summit, he was one of the first to take it up. To the point that, in one of the closed-door meetings, the representative of Saudi Arabia scolded him in a tense conversation. Finally, these direct references to fossil fuels in the final declaration could not be included due to the blockade imposed by many states, led by the Arab Group of States.
Ask. The summit ended without mentioning fuel. How can one return to Spain and explain this to the citizens?
Answer. We have reached an agreement which means continuing to support multilateralism and solidarity where progress has been made. But it is true that we must say that this is an agreement far from the ambition that we wanted to see, especially in one of the fundamental aspects when we talk about climate change, namely mitigation, the reduction of emissions. Now, the finally approved text has more elements thanks to the European Union. The EU has been an action bloc seeking such an ambition, together with AILAC (the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries that usually act together in these summits).
Q Does the fact that this mitigation goal is not achieved mean that this summit is a failure?
R. In terms of mitigation, what we have done is not go backwards or advance, we have stalled at a time when we need to move forward much faster. The latest two UN reports tell us that the gap compared to what is necessary to reach the 1.5 degree objective is still there. And we have not gone back, but we have not managed to go at the necessary speed, and this is also achieved with the progressive abandonment of fossil fuels. Well, that mission has not been lost. We will recover this theme in the analyzes that will have to be taken into consideration throughout the next year. Already at the Dubai summit in 2023 there was explicit talk of the progressive abandonment of fossil fuels. What we were advocating for now was the next step: defining a roadmap. Fossil fuels will stop being used, no matter what. The important thing is to define when.
One of the options that may have occurred is to go back. And it didn’t happen
Q. The American government doesn’t think so. During the summit, Trump’s energy secretary said renewable energy has failed and urged Europe to buy more gas.
R. Renewable energy is a global success story. Over 90% of the world’s installed power in 2024 will be renewable. It is a success story not only for advancing the energy transition, but also for advancing climate action. Previously, at these summits, energy was not part of the debates. Now you are at the center, in the heart of the action. And it is a success story in the United States too, despite these messages. In the first six months of the year, the main source of installed power in the United States was also renewable. What they say is one thing and the reality is another.
Q. Renewables are advancing, but fossil fuel consumption is not decreasing. How is it possible that the root cause is not explicitly mentioned in a climate summit?
R. It is a summit in which 195 countries are present, which were the ones that participated on this occasion, with different sizes, needs and economies. And there is a very strong bloc, which is the so-called Arab group, which really has the strength and has always defended that this debate is extraordinarily complicated for them. But it’s still the order of the day. One of the options that could have been presented at this summit was to go back. And this didn’t happen. The reference to the abandonment of fossil fuels that we obtained in Dubai is still there and we have recovered it in a generic way. Two problems could have occurred at this summit: forgetting the abandonment of fossil fuels and eliminating references to science. Both things are still alive and that’s important.
Q. Is not going back but not moving forward the best possible thing in the current international context?
Q. No, I think we have a lot of chances to move forward. Indeed, I would welcome the coalition of the ambitious, the 80-plus countries that have united behind the road map. Now we must work hard from now until the next COP so that the gathering of the ambitious not only wins history, but also wins in these negotiations. Now there is talk of abandoning fossil fuels beyond the negotiating texts, and this is important.
Q. This summit took place without the fossil fuel roadmap being on the agenda, but it was the Brazilian president who included it in his speeches. Do you think you correctly assessed the support this idea actually had among countries?
R. It is positive that President Lula has included it among the fundamental elements of this summit. Because that triggered that movement and that grand coalition. And even the European Union has said that it will not support the text in which the road map was eliminated.
Q. In the final stretch, during the negotiations, the President of the European Commission told the G20 that it is not a question of fighting against fossil fuels, but against fossil fuel emissions. This is the argument that Saudi Arabia uses at the top.
R. My opinion and that of our Government is that this agenda addresses the progressive abandonment of fossil fuels. We must be very strong and in this sense we have supported precisely this, as we have seen over the course of this week and especially with the Spanish delegation.
Q. But how did you feel when those statements arrived?
R. I would say that the moment was not the most appropriate, but the commitment remained the same on the part of Spain and many European countries and the European Commissioner: we continued to defend the progressive abandonment of fossil fuels, a position that cost us a lot to achieve at the Dubai summit. And what was agreed in 2023 was not the abandonment of emissions, but of fossil fuels.
Now there is talk of abandoning fossil fuels beyond the text. This is important
Q. Do you fear the contagion that the conservatives of the European PP suffer due to the postulates of the ultra groups on environmental issues?
R. The context is complicated on a global and European level, but it is true that Europe continues to lead on climate action. We are still there when in a very complicated context we also managed to reach the 2040 objective of reducing emissions by 90%, and we managed to have an NDC (the climate plan that all countries must present to the UN) in extremis. Having achieved this in the current context seems very positive and a success story to me. It is a deep disappointment to see that the Spanish PP also voted against what their party has established at European level. But what we need to achieve is to stop all this movement with reality, with science. The case of Spain is a success story. We must support the energy transition and the ecological transition because they bring social, economic, health and progress benefits.
Q. In the final section of the COP there was a confrontation with the representative of Saudi Arabia.
R. Yes, I would say it was a difficult conversation where the Saudi Arabian delegate blamed me saying that the death of the Paris Agreement would be our fault, Spain’s fault and Europe’s fault. But I think the important thing is to clarify that Europe has been on the good side of history. Those who are not on the good side of history are the group of Arab countries, who essentially want to consolidate this model based on the consumption of fossil fuels as if it were the right path. And no, that’s not really the case.
Q. In the latest report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the blackout in Spain is cited to talk about the challenges related to the development of renewable energy. Do you believe that the blackout is being used against renewables by denialism?
R. Those who want to stop it to basically ensure that fossil fuels remain part of the agenda for a long time embrace themselves and use any argument. That of the blackout, that of the threat to economic development, that of the loss of jobs… But I was surprised that it appeared in the IEA report, especially because after the studies we saw that it has nothing to do with renewables. It has nothing to do with the networks and it has to do with a cause of overvoltage which is currently in the hands of the CNMC (National Markets and Competition Commission) to decide who performed well and who poorly and to identify who is responsible.
Q. In Spain the energy debate seems to be dominated almost exclusively by the question of whether or not it is appropriate to further extend the life of nuclear power plants. If the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN) gives the green light from a safety point of view to Almaraz, what will the Government do?
R. The Government has sent this extension request to the CSN. Now we have to wait for the report to be issued and I cannot make any assessment because it would somehow interfere in that technical process, which must be rigorous. When the report arrives, we will see the next step.
