Discussion on Sustainable Development Goals: Climate Change and New Evidence from Science, Engineering and Policy

– As delivered –

Statement by H.E. Mrs. María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés, President of the 73^rd Session of the UN General Assembly

27 May 2019

Your Excellency, Felipe Larraín, Minister of Finance, Chile,

Your Most Reverend Excellency, Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,

Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Director, UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network,

Ministers, Excellencies,

Distinguished guests,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I will share perhaps with you some thoughts on the issue that I have gathered from my experiences with Climate Change.

It is an honour to address you today. I am very grateful to Minister Larraín and Professor Sachs for inviting me to this discussion at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

I want to start by expressing my deep appreciation for the clearsighted leadership that, His Holiness Pope Francis has shown on the issue of climate change. At the same time when principled leadership is in short supply, his personal advocacy has been crucial in raising awareness of the climate crisis. So, too, has the work of this Academy, in convening leaders to identify how we can work together to address this crisis.

Friends and Excellencies,

I do not need to tell this distinguished group that the climate crisis is not only an environmental problem; it is also and more particularly, a political and moral challenge that is testing leadership at the national and international levels. If we exclude political will and moral endeavor the climate crisis is the biggest threat to the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development.

I recently visited Lake Chad, and saw first-hand how the climate crisis is already putting at risk – even reversing – the hard-won developmental gains of the past seventy years. It is already affecting millions of people, wrecking lives and livelihoods; exacerbating poverty and inequality; and fueling conflict and displacement and adding to the painful security crisis of the area.

The climate cirisis is already a huge economic problem, costing well over 300 billion dollars per annum in damage. In 2006, we all remember the very important, and timely at the time, the Stern Review cautioned that the economic impact of climate change could be as much as 20 percent of global GDP, while climate action would cost around 1 percent.

So at the time, we were saying 20% GDP for inaction, versus 1% for action. A decade on, the costs of inaction have risen; the costs of action have dropped. But action remains woefully inadequate and we know that.

Climate change is, quite simply, an existential crisis. We know that we have just 11 years to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. We know that emissions need to peak next year. And that we are way off track. That’s science saying it, but also concrete evidence on the ground.

Excellencies,

The climate crisis is probably the clearest argument we have in favour of multilateral action. Indeed, there is no other way we deal with this crisis. And when I say “multilateral” in this context, I mean more than traditional state-to-state, foreign ministry-to-foreign ministry co-operation. We need dynamic collaboration at all levels: across borders, across sectors and across generations.

I am therefore delighted by the launch of the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action, so ably co-chaired by Chile and Finland. And I commend the Coalition’s endorsement of the Helsinki Principles. I hope this proves a watershed moment – a sign that we are finally moving to a whole-of-government, whole-of-society approach we need to address the climate crisis, and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

I take encouragement from this initiative following closely that of Central Bankers who have begun to build a network to think how to Green the Financial System. The key to our success will be ambition and working together

As someone who has held several ministerial portfolios, I am well aware of how much, in the public sector, in the executive, we still operate in siloes. That’s the culture that still exists in most of our countries. We need finance ministers to work more closely with environment ministers, with transport, energy and employment ministers and so on. We need greater collaboration between all these ministries at the regional and international levels. And we need greater collaboration with cities and local authorities, as well as traditional leaders, academia and the private sector.

I hope that this meeting will serve as a catalyst for further action by the Coalition ahead of COP25 in Chile this December, and that we will see some concrete language on coordination and on fiscal policy in the Santiago Action Plan.

Excellencies,

We urgently need a new economic framework that integrates climate and sustainable development into all aspects of budgeting, policy priority-setting  and financial planning. I recommend that we take a closer look to the recently launched Global Green New Deal by UNCTAD and the Global Development Policy Center calling for a new multilateral trade and investment regime. I think it has very interesting recommendations.

First, we must encourage instruments such as carbon taxes, and put an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Incidentally, at around 370 billion dollars per annum, these subsidies are costing us more than climate-related disasters.

Second, we must dramatically increase investment in climate-smart growth – which the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate estimates could generate as much as 26 trillion dollars by 2030. At the same time, we must avoid investment decisions that will lock us into a high-carbon future.

For example, around 90 trillion dollars are set to be invested in infrastructure over the next decade. We already know what decisions to make – the recent UNEP report on the construction sector showed that greener buildings are possible. Increased efficiencies in heating, lighting and cooking systems, coupled with cleaner forms of energy have contributed to a flattening of emissions in very recent years. But these approaches have to be the norm and not the exception.

Third, we must work harder to mobilize climate finance. We know that private sector finance is crucial – to support the Green Climate Fund, and we have the Director just next to us – so this is the message for the GCF –  and to plug the annual $2.5 trillion-dollar finance gap for the SDGs based on current commitments. But there needs to be more creative thinking about public financing options. Advocates for a Green New Deal in the United States House of Representatives and the Congress have made a start. And we know that Jamaica, France and Qatar are aiming to mobilize the $100 billion USD per year for climate finance. But the amounts raised are still small, and most tends to go to middle, and not low-income countries. Research by the think-tank ODI has indicated that every dollar of public investment generates just 37 cents of private finance for poorer states.

I really hope that the Coalition will focus precisely on this. Time and again, when we have discussions at the UN on financing for development, the IFIs and banks say – I here this every week in New York – : there are trillions out there, the money is there, the money exists. But financing global public goods cannot be left to private financiers.

But where is the problem? The problem is not simply financial. It is political and moral. His Holiness Pope Francis has rightly warned that despite the market excesses exposed by the financial crisis of 2008 we have seen a return to the “heights of myopic egoism”. We need to redefine “profit”. Profit’s new meaning should encompass collective wellbeing, caring for the global public goods. We need to think of the interests of the most vulnerable; not only the interests of shareholders – and adopt approaches that work for everyone. They are not hard to find, if you take a long-term view: it is in the interest of all to have inclusive, sustainable and peaceful societies.

And to those who are narrowly focused on their own interests, climate action is a clear-cut case of self-interest. For instance, if you are worried about refugees and migrants, then preventive action makes sense, given that an estimated 200 million people are likely to be displaced by climate change by 2050 – roughly equivalent to the total number of international migrants today.

Finally, I hope this Coalition will also discuss the big – and overdue – challenge of reshaping global economic governance. Despite progress since the days of “structural adjustment”, IFIs still are still skewed towards rich countries, in terms of structure, voice and approach. Fora like the G20, meanwhile, are useful but they do not provide for meaningful input by smaller countries. They cannot produce outcomes with legal force or global buy-in. So it is clear that the UN is well placed to serve that function. The General Assembly is the house in which every Member State has one microphone and one vote. By its very nature, it fosters buy-in through discussion and debate. So I encourage you, Excellencies, to remember this, particularly at a time when inclusivity and collective action are what will make a difference in our battle against climate change.

Excellencies,

Let me end with a few thoughts on science, engineering and policy from a political and public policy perspective.

On science, the lesson that really resonates with me is that while it is essential for policies to be based on evidence, having the data is not enough. It must be communicated in the right way – by emphasizing solutions, by providing options for policy-makers, and by taking a much firmer, pro-active stance to counter falsehoods. This is something that the UN has not yet come to grips with – I saw it at COP last year and, most visibly, during discussions on the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.

On engineering, my key take-away is the need to provide policy-makers with a holistic view of the many solutions that are out there and their potential cumulative impact.

For example, one of my priorities is plastic pollution. While I have been raising awareness of the issue – next week I am organizing a concert in Antigua, for instance – I have also been clear that this is a problem we can already solve: through changing behaviours but also through the many existing technologies that, if deployed in a coordinated manner, would make a huge difference from both the production side, but also the consumption side.

And on policy, my overriding lesson is to learn from positive examples of shifting behaviours. The Montreal Protocol, for instance, phased out CFCs by switching first to readily available interim substitutes and now to climate neutral hydrocarbons. This is the approach we need when we talk about ending coal – we need to reassure those whose jobs depend on the industry that their needs have been accounted for, that there are alternatives for them. Otherwise, nationalist voices will only grow louder. We have seen great efforts and examples, like the discussions on Just Transitions in Poland.

Excellencies,

I thank you once again for the work you have already done through the Coalition. The Secretary-General’s Climate Action Summit this September will be a crucial milestone on the road to COP25 in Chile.

I hope that all countries will heed the call to: come with a plan, not with a speech. We are the last generation that can prevent irreversible damage from climate change. And our deadline for peaking emissions is next year.

2020 also marks a very important time, which is the 75^th anniversary of the UN, which should also be used as a golden opportunity to make progress on multilateral governance, and on accelerated action to meet the SDGs.

If we are to chart a path to a more sustainable and prosperous future for all, then multilateralism is our only option. And if we succeed, it will be the biggest victory –  for global cooperation, for people and for planet.

Thank you.