Minister Theresa Rivera, first of all I would like to thank you for accepting our invitation and congratulate for becoming the progressive person of the year. This is a tradition for FEBS. Whenever we produce the progressive yearbook, we choose someone who represents the main achievements of the previous year and in Spain to defeat the far right, like the Spanish socialist government did in the July election.
It has been a fantastic achievement for many unexpected, but secondly, at the time of the Spanish presidency of the EU Council, to fight for the climate agenda and to ensure that the objectives and the tools of climate policy of the European Union remain there. I think altogether this definitely justifies this choice. So congratulations and if you have a little time I would like to ask a few questions because you would be able to share your thoughts with our viewers in Brussels.
Thank you, thank you so much. It is a great honour. It is a great honour to belong to this family and it is a great privilege to have the opportunity to have work with you all for such a long time in such difficult circumstances. So thank you, I feel quite honoured but it is a collective job and I am very happy to have the opportunity to exchange views with you. Okay, let's start. The first question would be about the urgency, or we speak about climate emergency.
And I was wondering why so many people do not understand this. We often say we are in a twenty-fourth hour regarding climate change and there is so much needs to be done and so quickly. Why in your view many people do not accept or do not understand this? I think that everybody understands that there are strange things with the climate and that the explanation makes sense. So I think that this is not anymore something being challenged by a large majority.
But what it is true is that too often we have the impressions that there is not a clear understanding of the importance of what it is happening and need to react in a very quick manner and deep manner and a very cross-cutting approach to climate policies. My impression is that to a certain extent it is a kind of self-protection. It is difficult to accept that we need to change so many things in such a short period of time.
So unless it is reasonably easy to make the necessary change in our behaviors, we try to stay in our comfort zone, so not to accelerate these changes. And I think that with public responsibilities and with the personal conviction that political politics do need to serve to citizens, our oblige to find a way to make the decisions easier, not to hide the reality, not to stay as if nothing was happening. That could be very dangerous and could be backtracking.
But to facilitate the transformation in a socially fair just manner and to allow people to experience the benefits of doing things in a different way. Could you give us a few examples from the recent years, what measures, what main steps the socialist government of Spain has been making under your leadership in the field of climate policy? I think that there have been many positive experiences. Some of them were not easy.
When we entered into power in government last June 2018, we knew that we had to face out a call in Spain. There was not much mining activity already, but there was. And there were a relevant number of coal-fired power plants. And of course, for the people working in these areas, in coal areas, and for union people, this was an important thing. For generations, it was the most relevant way of making their lives in the different families, in the different territories.
And apparently, there were not so many alternatives around. And we decided to go ahead, trying to promote a fair transformation, a just transition in this area. So ensuring that the social policies, but the creation of new opportunities of work, and the pride of having contributed to the prosperity of Spain along decades with many relatives that had very painful experiences in the mining activities was a reality. And it has happened.
It is not that people are very happy because everything is fantastic. There are people who are happier and people who are less happy. But there has been not a social class or a territorial class, because we have invested in a very focused, with a very focused approach, and taking into consideration the aspirations of the local communities.
What they wanted to do, were they identify the value of creating new activities, and then we were there to facilitate and to find a way to support their decisions, but ensuring that they could count on this supporting measures, both socially and in economic and industrial terms. This is something which is very important. And the initiatives that came out in these areas were very interesting in many cases.
And curiously, in these areas, people finally feel proud of the capacity to have facilitated the change. This was something which was relevant. The other thing which was very important was the discussion on energy. Energy transition to experience a new approach on how we can produce and consume energy differently, how this could be a good reason to feel again proud of what we do.
Because there was the innovation approach, the skill and re-skilling approach, the new jobs creation, the lower share of the big utilities in the electricity market, and the capacity to reduce the bills, thanks to the self-consumption and the renewable energy solutions. And this was also very important. But these are not the only cases. This is a very important piece in the climate and environmental policies that create positive effects or that create negative effects.
But on the side of environment, connected or not connected to climate, there are very relevant things that have an impact on people. I'm thinking about water, water planning. In the modeling to identify what type of infrastructure and what type of management of water we need, the fact that climate change does already exist and it creates a different distribution of water. It may mean lots of water flooding, so the risk, the flood risk does change.
Or it can mean severe and longer droughts and it creates tensions on the availability of fresh water for households or for agriculture or other consumptions. So we need to think in a different manner, how to be very effective, very efficient, how we can reuse water, how we can introduce additional infrastructure, and how we can create a different culture dealing with water.
Same for the relation with biodiversity, ecosystems, and the social and territorial development in those areas that are directly connected to Red Natura 2000 sites. So how we can ensure that having an environmental protection level for any particular site does not prevent having activities and economic prosperity in the surrounding areas. It's not a threat, but it is something that could be used in a different manner.
And again, this requires much investment at the local level, on the ground. Sometimes with difficulties in terms of the social discussion, how we can ensure that the local population and the local authorities do embrace the alternatives and do feel part of the final decisions, the soundness of what they want to be. But that's at the national level. But probably what has been very impressive in these last years is that we have experienced that the world is very small.
And that very small virus can stop the whole activity all over the world and create very serious problems, not only in terms of health, but of course, but also in economic terms and in terms of social impact. And how we should take notice of the importance of counting on resilient public services to be in a position to provide care, to provide protection and alternatives in these difficult moments. And I think that this has also been quite an experience for all of us.
And all the different side effects that this has represented all along our countries in Europe could have been solved in many different ways. Because it could have meant the implosion of the European project. It could have meant the implosion of the internal market. It could have meant coming back each one to his or her corner, avoiding solidarity.
And I think that thanks to this progressive thinking that was at the very beginning of this European cycle, so how we can build a new social green contract with citizens, how we could bet on the green new deal, how we could make together a much better response to the current challenges, we were in a better position to face this. Well, exactly. I wanted to ask you about the EU dimension, because you emphasized the local action, I suppose in different regions of Spain.
But the EU green deal is probably something that opened a new chapter. How do you assess, because about four years are behind us, the aim, but also the implementation so far? I think that we are pretty demanding. We ask ourselves doing always everything very well. And from that perspective, there may be people thinking that what we have done is not enough. But I think that it is very impressive what we have done collectively.
I think that we have rapidly introduced in our understanding of the European values, that the green is an European value, and that the social dimension of the green transformation is an European value. And that this was in addition a very good opportunity to export our values and the way we think we can relate to other partners elsewhere in the world. So through the multilateralities, but enhancing these green social values.
And I think that the green New Deal has been quite a good representation of what all of these means. It is through regulation, but it is also through a different perspective on how to build European policies. And I think that it has also been very important again when we had particular crisis, and now I'm not referring to the COVID crisis that had a very different response when compared to the previous economic financial crisis.
But also with the energy crisis, with the energy crisis that was impacting differently in the member states, we all knew that we had to react in a consensual manner, acting together, but with the flexibility and the solidarity that the situation required. And I think that this was part of what we had been learning by doing through the previous crisis experience, but also through the anticipation and the developments that we had already promoted around the Green New Deal.
We knew what we had to do. We knew that probably that required additional flexibility, but we had a response on how to address these questions, avoiding energy poverty and providing what it could be needed in certain countries more than in other countries. On the EU level, there is also the global. And you have been helping FEPPS already in 2019 when we organized the Big Event in New York aligned on the United Nations Summit.
And how do you see the development of the global diplomacy of climate change, in which you also have participated? I think that this is something we need to invest much more in. I think that this is very important and that Europe has the capacity to play hard in this agenda because it is very close to our own. values, as I was saying. There has been very relevant moves.
Now everybody understands that building adaptation is not just a local issue, that there are trans-boundary effects connected to the climate change impacts. If there is big droughts in Africa, there could be problems of access to water, to food, and that could create tensions, and that could create migration, and that could create additional, I don't know, local problems, so maybe violence. So there could be issues that could go beyond the border.
So yes, we need to work at the global scale. And in these turbulent times, where we miss governance platforms that allow us to discuss how to solve problems, certain problems, violence, and wars, for instance, but not only, I think that we have the chance to count on a platform to facilitate governance on climate as a global problem. And we need to pay attention to that, and to take care, and to build around this platform.
And yes, adaptation, resilience, losses and damages being suffered in most vulnerable countries. Do not go on our door, and we Europeans need to craft carefully how we can respond to this, how we can facilitate a broader investment in a much more climate-safe future, which is, of course, part of our efforts coming from our public budgets, but not only.
We need to think how private investments could be played differently, how we could move the development banks towards something that is much more consistent in development terms, so to be resilient, sustainable in the long run, how we can ensure that this is something that is taking increasingly into account in other capitals, in other countries. And I think that this perspective is much more clear right now.
So the concept, the mere concept of climate justice as something that does relate countries among themselves, but also citizens within the same country, or generations in any country, is providing a new type of approach to climate policies at the international level.
When you say there is a generational dimension, do you mean that young people would be more sensitive to the question of the climate change, and if this is true, should they not have a greater say in the consultations and the development of the policy? Well, I think that young people do experience, do understand, and do have a much more real intelligence on what we talk when we talk about climate change. It is something that is not a new income in their concerns.
It is something that they have grown up as part of their question marks, what this is going to mean for me. So yes, I think that the way they may shape the problem, or they may think on how to face the problem is different. And this is also an explanation why we see this anger in some of the young activists.
Once they understand the deep problem that we are already facing and that will be increasingly bigger, they react with anger because they say, "Why in hell do you not react as it deserves?" So yes, I think that there is a much more clear understanding. The second thing is that my conviction is that we need to find ways to ensure that the way young people may shape the problem or may provide answers to the problem are taken into consideration.
We are talking about something that will be part of their day-to-day life. So the way they think today and the way they own the problem and the solution is very important. And sometimes we have this temptation to say, "Yes, I listen to you, but then I forget about what you say."
No, I think that it is very important to keep this dialogue between generations in a very committed manner because in fact we need them being in the decision-making process and we need ownership also on their side on how we can respond. The first element I still miss is a much more clear conversation. The general public conversation is still quite either vague or defensive. It's not so assertive in terms of proposals on how to solve.
I think that it is good, it is important to be honest, dealing with the information and with the assessment being made by researchers and scientists, but that is the first stage. Then we need to say, "Then what?
How we can solve this?" And in the "how we can solve this?" they have a very important role to play, not to overcharge young people that need to be studying and working and making their vital decisions and not just solving problems that have been created by others, but I think that this has a large room for improvement.
You have a dimension, this social dimension, but I would like to ask you once again about the concept of the just transition, because very often we highlight the importance of making the transition to a sustainable economy and society just and fair and what you think would need to be brought forward in addition to the existing ideas, because there have already been made some measures in order to ensure that people are compensated, people
are reskilled, but what could be done in addition to ensure that the transition is fair and just? I think that this is a concept that was used for a very long time related to coal. So it was not climate in general, it was coal. So workers in the coal sector, because it was the first thing to phase out.
Then we identified that yes, because the transition is going to be very intense and very quick, we need to prepare workers for the new skills being required by the market and reskill those that today are working in sectors that could not be lasting for a long time. Then we introduced the second dimension. Hey, the transition time may have a distributional impact that may be not fair. Transitional cost that may be not fair.
For instance, market instruments, price signals may be very effective in terms of the cost signal to take decisions on investments, but it may be not fair for consumers, because this cost could be finally translated to consumers and the consumers that have more difficulties to invest in a change could be paying for longer time a larger share of their own family income. So yes, it is important for workers, it is important for consumers in the transitional period.
Then I think that there are other dimensions that also relate to the physical aspects of the climate impacts. I think that the cost of the physical impacts of climate may differ from different groups depending on their own vulnerability, physical vulnerability or social vulnerability.
And again, it may be worthy to think in the long run how we can organize the urban agenda or how we can retrofit the homes or how we can do many things in terms of infrastructures, but in the very short term there may be transitional costs that cannot be covered by the people with less resources.
So these are dimensions that need to be taken into consideration in the design of policies and that should be also taken into consideration in the updating of the fiscal and tax policies and in the social policies in general. And I think that this is something which is a beautiful duty for progressive thinkers. I think that this should be part of our agenda, how we are going to live in a warmer world. What type of social impacts this may have?
How we can ensure justice and just access to the basic resources and services for everyone. I think that there are dimensions that are related to justice and to this climate challenge. Why on climate challenge and not on other big changes? Because I think that we cannot manage the time period.
I think that it is so clear that we have to do so much in such a short period of time that the transformation is intense and it could create a huge injustice if we do not take into consideration the uneven impacts that it may have in the different groups of the society depending on the capacities to face this challenge. My final question is this. Are we in a defensive struggle?
And I'm asking this question because 2024 is going to be a year for the European Parliament elections and we are witnessing the center right perhaps stepping back from the commitments of the climate policy, the Green Deal and various political tendencies might be more ambivalent than before in terms of the determination which is otherwise needed. So are we now in a phase when we simply defend the policies or it's also possible to bring forward new ambition and further necessary measures?
To me it could be a great mistake to stay defensive and coerce against these accusations because in fact it is the contrary. In fact the ones asking for doing nothing are the ones that could be accused of being responsible of the injustice that could create not tackling climate as it has to be tackled. And I think that what is very important on our side is to sound and to act in a convincing manner. We know what we have to do. We need to stress the social dimension.
We could not act without a very committed social policy behind and social values behind that. We need to ensure that people have early access to the benefits of the change. So if we are investing in the energy transition we need to ensure that people have access, early access to lower prices of energy because the operational costs of renewable energy are lower than the traditional way to produce electricity.
If we are talking about water security that water is accessible and insured everywhere.
If we are talking about the urban agenda and healthy cities that we start in the popular neighborhoods so to ensure that those that have poorer houses and higher bills in relative terms because their houses are badly isolated or have long distances to the center of the city can count on green neighborhoods and well isolated houses because there is this public initiative supporting facilitating this type of investment that at the end is a social investment too.
So I think that no, we need to build something that not only brings hope, brings envy, brings willingness to do more and understands that now this solidarity, social justice is very much connected to the green agenda. Thank you very much for this encouraging conclusion and I thank you for your time and for the conversation which we just had and congratulate again to becoming the progressive person of the year. Thank you. Thank you.
(soft music) (soft music) (soft music) (gentle music)