Ávarp Guðmundar Inga Guðbrandssonar umhverfis- og auðlindaráðherra á ráðstefnu Climate Policy in Europe
I want to say a few words about the subject of the panel, namely about climate policy in Iceland and how it is connected to European and international climate affairs. The last few years have been extraordinarily fruitful in terms of climate policy here in Iceland. At the heart of this is a big change in public opinion and discussion, that took place around and after the Paris Agreement. Before the Paris COP in 2015, climate issues were not very prominent in the public debate, but then there was a notable shift in attitude – in the media, in politics, in industry and in civil society. The government that took office almost four years ago put an unprecedented emphasis on climate issues in its agenda. It was one of my priorities when I entered office to put together an ambitious climate action plan, with funding where necessary, as previous plans had mostly lacked funding. I will not go into detail about the plan itself, but address a few issues, that touch upon the themes in this panel.
First, climate policy in Iceland, like in other countries, must be based on international agreements and efforts to tackle the climate crisis. This, of course, is true for most environmental issues in an interconnected world – but perhaps nowhere more relevant than for climate policy, which deals with our common atmosphere. Emissions accounting and reporting must be standardized, and goals and actions must be comparable.
Iceland has chosen to be part of the European climate legal regime, as this helps us to set comparable targets and policies to cut emissions and increase carbon uptake. It is also in line with the requirements of the European Economic Area, which calls for a level playing field for industry. For many, however, this makes our targets seem complex. Some emissions fall under the Emissions Trading Scheme, where emissions are pooled in a pan-European system, while others are part of so-called Effort Sharing, where States get an individual target. This arrangement is more novel in Iceland than in most European countries, and we must make sure that all relevant parties understand our targets and commitments and how this arrangement helps us to do our part in a global effort. If the goals and rules are poorly understood, then it becomes more difficult to form effective policies. The government established a Climate Council three years ago, with the participation of NGOs, industry, academia, youth representatives and others. The Council is useful for consultations and advising government – we need active discussion between different sectors of society in climate affairs.
It is important to have a narrative that is positive and true, in addition to legal commitments and action plans. Iceland has a very positive story about our clean energy revolution in heating and electricity production in the last century. We can indeed be proud of this. To some in the past, this narrative showed that Iceland had already done its part. To me – and most people today, I think it is safe to say – it is an inspiration and something that we want to build on. We have now launched a third clean energy revolution, in transport. It requires temporary support for electric cars and other clean vehicles and for service infrastructure. The Climate Action Plan puts great emphasis on this. It is encouraging to see that this is bearing fruit: Electric chargers sprout like mushrooms, and Iceland has moved up to second place in the share of clean cars in overall sales, after Norway. This is something that people identify with, and now enjoys broad support. Good consultations and cooperation with all parts of civil society is essential in making societal changes like these.
One aspect of climate policy, which can be frustrating, is that there is usually a time lag from climate actions – good or bad – until their full effect comes about. It took decades for Iceland to introduce geothermal heating. The present clean revolution in transport has taken off, but will take over a decade for cars, and still longer for ships and aviation. Past neglect has made it difficult for Iceland to fulfill our current Kyoto obligations, while we need actions now if we are to meet our Paris commitments for 2030. Voters and politicians alike want to see quick results. It is therefore helpful to emphasize the co-benefits of climate actions. Supporting electric cars is good economics and brings clean air and better health. Planting trees and reversing soil erosion can bring jobs and income to fragile rural areas. We need to emphasize this.
Lastly, I want to mention that we need to work with nature. Our policies and laws must align with the laws of nature. The climate crisis is not an isolated technical challenge, it is part of a greater crisis of the atmosphere and the biosphere, about the future of humankind and life on this great planet. I want to emphasize nature-based solutions to avert a climate catastrophe. This calls for protecting forests and wetlands, and restoring damaged ecosystems. We have greatly increased efforts in afforestation, revegetation and wetland restoration in the past three years. These are win-win actions – we need to help nature to heal herself.
We will see a lively debate in Europe this year, as new proposals come forth on how to deliver on the newly enhanced target of 55% cuts in emissions to 2030. Iceland will have to increase its efforts, like other countries, even if we have taken decisive steps in this direction in 2018, and again in 2020. I wish you a fruitful discussion, and welcome all good suggestions on climate action, and how to advance climate policies.
Thank you,