Scorching heat, melting ice, forests ablaze: Why the Arctic needs Azerbaijan

With temperatures in the 30s as we head into September here in Germany, it’s hard not to worry about the strange things afoot with our climate. My garden is like a jungle. The water butts are brimming over from repeated heavy rainfall during powerful thunderstorms intermittently interrupting the heatwaves. Humidity is high. There’s a tropical feel. Mosquitos are thriving. New insects and plant species from further south have moved in. But the local grain harvest has suffered from the torrential downpours. It’s hot – and wet.

There were times when I would have looked to my favourite icy Arctic region for some cool.

Alas.

My first ever visit to the Arctic, back in 2007 took me to the Svalbard archipelago, situated between mainland Norway and the North Pole. Over half of its land area is covered with ice, composing about six percent of the planet’s glaciated area outside of Greenland and Antarctica. That’s where I got hooked on the Arctic. Scientists at the Research Station at Ny Alesund on Spitsbergen, the main island, told me then that the Arctic was the “canary in the coalmine” for climate change. Today, Svalbard is one of the fastest-warming places on the planet.

Svalbard melting

This summer, Svalbard’s ice caps underwent extreme episodes of melting, brought on by exceptionally high air temperatures. NASA satellite data shows that in late July and early August 2024, temperatures hovered around 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) above average for this part of the Arctic Circle.

The heat took its toll on Svalbard, home to some of Earth’s northernmost glaciers, causing snow and ice to rapidly melt, writes NASA’s Emily Cassidy.

According to Xavier Fettweis, a climatologist at the Laboratory of Climatology and Topoclimatology at the University of Liège, Svalbard’s ice caps broke their all-time record for daily surface melt on July 23, 2024. Svalbard shed about 55 millimeters of water equivalent that day, a rate five times higher than normal.

The exceptional melting continued into August, corresponding with a “persistent heat dome that baked parts of Scandinavia’s Arctic”. The Barents Observer reported that the hottest ever monthly temperature had been recorded in August at Svalbard Airport, close to Longyearbyen. On August 11th this year the registered temperature there was 20.3°C two degrees warmer than the previous record.

This follows on Svalbard’s warmest summer on record in 2023, according to the Copernicus State of the Climate report, an annual report compiled by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), on behalf of the European Commission. The report cited several contributing factors for the warmth, including below-average sea ice cover and above-average sea surface temperatures.

Widespread Arctic warming

The extreme melting observed across these glaciers on Svalbard this summer is part of a longer-term trend seen around the whole Arctic, which contains a quarter of the world’s glaciers. According to a study published by Northern Arizona University on August 15, 2024, the snow line (the altitude at which snow accumulates each year and remains at the end of the summer), has risen by 150 meters over the past four decades. Researchers looked at 269 glaciers across the Arctic, covering Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia and Russia.

Today’s high levels of sustained warming have reduced the number of days each year in which snow falls, rather than rain. Without a protective snow cover, glaciers both lose ice faster in summer, and fail to accumulate enough snow to grow or at least maintain their ice each year. Measurements showed that snowlines had retreated Arctic-wide, and twice as fast on low-elevation glaciers compared to high-elevation ones.

The study concluded that if emissions continue at their current pace, more than 50 percent of these Arctic glaciers will no longer have any snow accumulating on their surface by 2100, making it only a question of time before they disappear entirely.

Sea ice refrigerator out of order

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters on 17 July 2024 provided worrying conclusions about the impacts of declining Arctic sea ice. It is sometimes called the “Earth’s refrigerator,” because it cools the planet by reflecting the sun’s rays. Scientists have been debating the extent to which the reduction in its area over the last few decades has impacted the ice’s cooling effect. Some models have indicated that cloud cover might increase as sea ice declines. This could potentially offset the loss of sea ice, since clouds also reflect sunlight back into space.

However, the new study – using high-performance computational techniques together with satellite observations of total reflectivity from the 1980s onwards – confirms that this cooling effect has decreased in the Arctic. It also concludes that the same is true of much more recent losses of Antarctic sea ice.

In the Arctic, cooling decreased by 17-22 percent between the period of 1980-88 versus 2016-2023. Cooling from Antarctic sea ice has also decreased measurably , by 9-14 percent, despite the fact that Antarctic sea ice extent only began to decline around 2016 after decades of relative stability. The Arctic has warmed 3 to 4 times faster than the rest of the planet, Antarctica around twice as fast.

This decline in sea ice extent and reflectivity in both polar regions may be contributing to this more rapid polar warming in a feedback much stronger than predicted by global climate models.

Arctic in flames

The final element I’ll mention in this list of highly concerning climate developments in the Arctic this summer is the large number of intense wildfires in Canada, Russia and Alaska. It is the third time in the past five years that high intensity fires have swept across the region, says the EU’s Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS), which closely tracks the fire emissions, smoke transport and potential air quality impacts.

Prof Guillermo Rein, Professor of Fire Science, Imperial College London, called the fires a “growing monster of climate change” in an interview with BBC.

A decade ago, Arctic wildfires were considered rare events, hardly ever studied. Now they are happening in all summer sessions and at increasing burn scar, he said.

In addition to the destruction of boreal forest and tundra, loss of life and health impacts through smoke pollution, scientists are concerned about feedback effects through which the fires will reinforce climate warming. Smoke will reduce the capacity of the Arctic ice to reflect solar radiation back into space- which would mean both land and sea absorb more heat.

Reports published in the course of the summer analysing last year’s devastating forest fires in Canada focused attention on the huge amounts of carbon released through the fires.

Canada’s “record-shattering” wildfires last year produced nearly as much greenhouse gas emissions in one season as would be expected over a decade of fires in normal circumstances, the Guardian wrote on August 13, citing the recently published State of Wildfires report. The fires, in Canada’s “wildest season ever”, were made at least three times more likely by the climate crisis, the paper adds.

A NASA-funded study published on Aug. 28 in the journal Nature found that the extreme forest fires in 2023 “stoked by Canada’s warmest and driest conditions in decades” released about 640 million metric tons of carbon. “That’s comparable in magnitude to the annual fossil fuel emissions of a large industrialized nation”, NASA writes.

The research team used satellite observations and advanced computing to quantify the carbon emissions of the fires from May to September 2023. They found that the Canadian fires released more carbon in five months than Russia or Japan emitted from fossil fuels in all of 2022 (about 480 million and 291 million metric tons, respectively).

While the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from both wildfires and fossil fuel combustion cause extra warming immediately, there is an important distinction, the scientists noted. In most cases, burned areas will eventually reseed themselves, and new trees will grow again, which then re-absorb some of the released CO2 year by year. The CO2 emitted from the burning of fossil fuels, on the other hand, is not readily offset by any natural processes. But regrowth takes a long time. The International Association of Fire and Rescue Services explains that in cases where land erosion occurs after a wildfire, no CO2 is reabsorbed there until reforestation projects are initiated.

The fire experts add that the combined impact on the greenhouse gas emission balance is larger than just the direct emissions. When trees are killed by fires, and left to rot, they will continue to decompose over the next decades, releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Also, dead trees will not be absorbing any carbon dioxide from the atmosphere like living trees would.

Azerbaijan and the Arctic

The next annual round of UN climate talks where the world should – in theory – make progress towards the rapid greenhouse gas emissions reductions that are key to protecting our icy areas will be held in November in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. Where? And how did that come about?

It’s an unlikely location. I would add “unpromising”, but am trying to keep an open mind and give COP29 a chance. I remember hearing the announcement in Dubai last December, traveling from last year’s COP28 venue back to town in a metro train packed full of delegates and observers. The UNFCCC, the body charged with negotiating international climate action and organising the annual end-of-year talks, chooses the hosts on a rotating cycle.

This time round, it was to be a country in Eastern Europe or the Caucasus. Against the background of the war in Ukraine, Russia was blocking efforts to have any EU or western-aligned country as the next host. It looked like COP29 would default once more to my current home town Bonn, the headquarters of the UNFCCC. Then came the last-minute agreement on Azerbaijan, a small country on the Caspian Sea between Russia and Iran, (mostly in the headlines in connection with its conflict with Armenia over the disputed enclave of Nagorno Karabach). A woman opposite me, working for one of the national negotiating teams, blurted out:

Thank goodness. We can get to see some place other than Bonn again. And Azerbaijan is near Russia, I’ve never been there”. Sigh. That remark weighed down on my sceptical side, where “conference tourism” is concerned. Around me though, dismayed, resigned gasps of “not another petrostate”. That is one of several key problems relating to this choice of venue.

Climate progress in an oil-and gas autocracy?

“Oil-rich Azerbaijan has redefined itself over the past two decades from a struggling newly independent state to a major regional energy player”, is the description on the BBC’S country profile site. The country’s economy is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Oil and gas account for over 90 percent of exports and one-third of GDP, according to the World Bank. The country is currently profiting from the surge in energy prices driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Despite its wealth and increased influence in the wider region, poverty and corruption continue to overshadow the country’s development”, the BBC profile goes on. That brings us to the next problem. Azerbaijan is under theauthoritarian rule of President Ilham Aliyev, who has run the country since taking over from his father, Heydar Aliyev, in 2003. The family has increasingly tightened its grip on the country since it became independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The political opposition has been weakened by years of persecution, and civil liberties are severely constrained. Freedom of assembly is restricted. “Dissenting voices are practically absent from mainstream media and critical journalists risk arrest and imprisonment, says the BBC profile.

COP in Baku – out of the blue

A further problem is the last-minute nature of the decision to hold the conference in Baku. These mega-meetings need years, not months, of planning. And the country has little experience in global climate politics. New York Times reporter Max Bearak visited the country for an article published early in August, which provides an insightful look behind the scenes. He interviewed Mukhtar Babayev, whom he describes as “an amiable midlevel bureaucrat put in charge of the talks”, and who “scarcely anticipated filling such a high-stakes role.

“We are not famous as a green transition ideas developer,” Babyev told Bearak in what could be described as more than a slight understatement. Babayev made his career in the state-owned oil company.

Like last year’s host Dubai, Azerbaijan seeks to hold on to its profits from oil and gas while having to at least pay lip service, at best play an active role in the transformation to renewable energy.

“It’s easy for Azerbaijan today to stay a fossil-fuel-producing country,” Mr. Babayev told the New York Times. He said other Azerbaijani officials, with a hint of worry, ask him, “‘Why do you need to involve this pressure from all sides?”

Bearek also alludes to the “often-contradictory policies” of climate-conscious Western countries. The term “hypocritical” comes to mind.

Even as Europe in recent years barred its banks from financing fossil fuels, it gobbled up Azerbaijani gas and now hopes others will fund the expansion of the pipelines, he writes. Too true.

Similarly, the United States has called on the world to move more quickly to fight climate change, even as it produces and exports more oil and gas than ever, he adds.

Coming back to the climate threat to the Arctic ice, it must be said that the Arctic states USA, Russia, Canada and Norway all have their fossil fuel interests – and corresponding climate warming contributions to account for.

Climate Impacts on Azerbaijan

Experts stress that Azerbaijan itself is subject to considerable impacts from climate change. The World Bank says temperatures are projected to rise at a faster rate than the global average, potentially by a staggering 4.7°C by the 2090s (compared with the 1986–2005 baseline) under the highest emissions scenario.

This could reduce agricultural productivity, exacerbate issues of desertification and soil salinity, and increase demand for irrigation, putting further pressure on the country’s water supply. Poorer communities in rural areas are more reliant on rain-fed agriculture, which is likely to be negatively impacted by more frequent droughts.

A warmer climate would also pose multiple threats to public health in Azerbaijan, increasing the rate of heat-related medical issues in urban areas such as Baku, and lengthening the seasonal window during which malaria occurs, the organisation concludes.

Against this background, the World Bank argues that regardless of the pace of global mitigation efforts, decarbonization is in Azerbaijan’s economic self-interest and would be affordable if supported by the right set of policies.

“Although the hydrocarbon-fueled growth model has delivered substantial gains, Azerbaijan today acknowledges both its constraints and the opportunities arising from the clean energy transition”, the organisation says.

Other advantages should be clear to anyone attending COP29 in Baku. Bearek in the New York times sets the scene: “Across a lake reeking of sulfur, creaking rigs excrete pools of stagnant oil. Day and night, a refinery next door burns off methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases”.

Bearak writes that Mr. Aliyev’s government sees the future in investment in renewable energy at home coupled with increased gas exports:

“Much of the renewable energy development will take place in territories Azerbaijan wrested from neighboring Armenia in a war that flared off and on for 30 years and came to a sudden and bloody conclusion last September”. An important detail?

Civil society concerns

I am in contact with various civil society groups concerned with climate change, who regularly attend and observe the UN climate talks. Azerbaijan is reportedly restricting access, limiting the number of entrance badges to civil society groups. Costs for representation on site are reported to be even higher than in last year’s host country Dubai. This time, some groups are considering giving the meeting a miss. The human rights situation makes activists and even journalists wary.

At the interim UN talks in Bonn in June, the Climate Action International (CAN) publicised the challenges for activists and the media but stressed there could be no climate justice without the active participation of civil society.

Responding to the detention earlier this year of prominent human rights defender Anar Mammadli, who is Head of the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre and co-founder of the Climate of Justice Initiative in Azerbaijan, Amnesty International issued a statement:

The Azerbaijani authorities must immediately cease their campaign of intimidation against civil society, and stop cynically detaining their critics ahead of the COP29 meeting in Baku in November. This has already led to the dubious criminal prosecution of several prominent activists and journalists. The arrest of renowned human rights defender Anar Mammadli is yet another egregious example of this disturbing trend.

The organisation recently published a paper expressing its “concerns on Azerbaijan’s human rights record and corresponding implications for Azerbaijan as a host country which aims to ensure effective discussions at COP29 and meaningful outcomes.”

The document provides recommendations to the Azerbaijani authorities on steps they can take to “address the existing concerns and hold COP29 in an environment that respects and upholds the human rights of everyone in the country.” Here’s hoping the Baku regime takes note.

The rights to freedom of association, expression and peaceful assembly in Azerbaijan are indispensable for any effective climate action, Amnesty writes. The group calls on the government to “ensure safe, effective and meaningful participation of Azerbaijani and non-Azerbaijani civil society actors in COP29 without fear of reprisals”

Baku: is it worth it?

There are also those who feel that this meeting will be somewhat of a waste of time, arguing that the hosts will not be in a position to make real progress – or will not be particularly keen to do so.

As I discussed in my last Ice Blog post, the focus at COP29 in Baku will be on finance. Countries are supposed to reach an agreement on a new, global climate-finance goal that will come into play after 2025. This is a key issue – and could be the one that ultimately decides whether we take steps to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C or not. But the bitter struggle between developed and developing countries over who should provide the trillions of dollars required to tackle climate change across the global south could well block progress on emissions reductions. To date, countries are still far apart in the negotiations.

The next round of national climate action plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are due to be submitted to the UN Climate Secretariat in early 2025 – AFTER the Baku meeting. There is a danger that this could remove a sense of urgency from the Azerbaijan talks.

So far, the NDCs put forward have shown that current efforts and plans are insufficient to put the world on track to achieve the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.

The 2025 NDCs (NDCs 3.0) will determine to a large extent whether the world can get on an emissions trajectory that is in line with the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement and whether countries will be able to build up adequate resilience to climate change, according to the UNFCCC.

“This next round of NDCs may be the most important documents to be produced in a multilateral context so far this century”, according to UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell.

As they add up, they will determine which direction the world will take over the coming decades. It can be a direction where economic growth is gradually cancelled out by the cost of disaster management, rebuilding, and loss and damage. Or it can be one where we manage to set our economies and our societies on a sustainable, long-term pathway over the coming 5-10 years, says Stiell.

The 2025 targets are to present national plans with a time horizon of 2035 and are to be submitted in advance of the UN Climate Change Conference COP30 that is scheduled for November 2025. Brazil, a big global player, will host that meeting, and preparations are already well underway. That’s a good thing. I’m all for forward planning. But that doesn’t mean we can discount this year’s Baku COP.

We have no time to waste. We cannot afford to sit out a COP.

What the Arctic – and the world – needs is a rapid and substantial reduction in emissions. We can’t win the climate battle without the petrostates. We can’t win it without authoritarian states. We cannot pick and choose. We cannot pause mitigation efforts because the agenda focus is on finance.

We are all in this together. Let’s give Baku a chance. We have no option.

Related stories from around the North:

Canada : COP28 : Closure of hospitals in Northern Canada, an example of climate change, doctors, CBC News

Finland: Sámi knowledge helps developing climate policies, The Independent Barents Observer

Greenland: Canada and Greenland sign letter of intent on marine conservation area in Arctic, Eye on the Arctic

Russia: Melting permafrost may release industrial pollutants at Arctic sites: study, Eye on the Arctic

United States: Warming North pushing earth into “uncharted territory”: Arctic Report Card, Eye on the Arctic

Norway : Assessment looks at dust in Arctic and its impacts on Svalbard, Eye on the Arctic