Celeste Saulo (WMO): «We can’t allow the economic interests of a few to determine the planet for us all»
The current head of Argentina’s National Meteorological Service (SMN, for its acronym in Spanish) has been appointed the new Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization. For the first time in its 150-year history, the top agency for weather, climate and water will be run by a woman.
The professional career of Celeste Saulo (Buenos Aires, 1964) is filled with milestones. In 2014, she became the first woman to direct the National Meteorological Service (NMS) of Argentina. In 2018, she became the first female vice president of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). And, as of January 1, 2024, Saulo will be the first woman to hold the highest position at the WMO.
In its more than 150-year history, except for one period, the WMO has been led exclusively by European men. This means that Celeste Saulo will also be the first American to occupy the position of Secretary–General of the largest global organization in the field of weather, climate and water.
Saulo, who holds a doctorate in atmospheric sciences, has spent most of her career as a professor and researcher at the University of Buenos Aires, and as a researcher at the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONISET, in Spanish). Now, she will replace Finnish meteorologist Petteri Taalas, who has spent eight years as WMO Secretary-General. She will serve for at least the 2024-2027 term, after gaining the support of 108 of the 193 member states during the World Meteorological Congress held in early June, where she carried the vote over candidates from China, Switzerland and Curaçao.
A few weeks after her appointment, and back in Argentina, Celeste Saulo spoke with Climática with clarity and a message of gratitude: «I want to acknowledge the Hispanic and Latin American community, which was the first to come out in support of my candidacy for Secretary-General.»
Now that some weeks have passed since the appointment, how do you feel?
Time helps with the processing. What remains is enormous pride, joy and gratitude for the countries that gave me their support, and the enormous responsibility that this position carries. I feel grateful, honored and prepared to face this challenge.
I imagine you must have many ideas to implement as soon as you step into office. What is the most ambitious measure you would like to see materialize during your tenure?
In reality, it is the countries that make the ultimate decisions in the World Meteorological Organization. In this last congress they (including my own country, Argentina) decided to prioritize an initiative to build early warning systems for all countries and people. That is the most important initiative that the organization will undertake in the next four years. It will involve an enormous effort if we take into account the fact that 50% of countries currently lack early warning systems. Most countries that fall under that category are the least developed and most vulnerable. As a result, this will require a great collective effort.
There are other important initiatives, like developing a program to monitor greenhouse gas emissions. By expanding this monitoring network, we will have an authoritative and independent voice on changes in greenhouse gas concentration and composition. And, finally, the decision has been made to prioritize the study, monitoring and measurement of glaciers and polar zones due to the risk of melting bodies of ice that impact access to fresh water, which is a precious asset for all of humanity.
You mention the significant disparities that exist in adaptation and, specifically, in early warning systems. How are you working to reduce these inequalities?
This is one of the priorities of the WMO. An essential step is to gain the support of donors, whether they’re member states or from other backgrounds. This is on track. There are two major WMO programs that direct extra-budgetary funds for specific purposes. It is true that they must be strengthened, but that is not only a question of material resources – it is also one of human resources. And it is here that I emphasize the need for cooperation on design and construction across countries. Beyond the limitations that developing or less-developed countries may have, they are the ones on the ground, they know their vulnerabilities and communities. Working with them is, to me, a central prerequisite for the success of this kind of program. It is unthinkable that the developed world might export a solution to the developing world. We must provide them with the means to strengthen their local capabilities. And they’ll take it from there.
Strengthening the capabilities of the meteorological and hydrological services of the least developed countries and small island states is part of a strategy that I believe will not only contribute to the development of early warning systems, but will help those countries build further adaptive tools, such as the provision of climate services and other issues that fall under the scope of meteorological services.
In its 150-year history, the WMO has always been led by European men. With you, that trend is broken. It was about time to apply a different view of the world, wasn’t it?
Yes – with the exception of one Nigerian Secretary-General [Godwin Obasi], who led the organization for 25 years, the WMO has always been led by European men. Given that statistic, my appointment is a double novelty: someone from the American continent, and a woman.
I think we have been presented with an enormous opportunity. Of course, I don’t claim to understand the entire Global South just because I am Argentine. But I am sure that, coming from the Global South, I can better convey the voices and issues that arise in developing and least developed countries, and in small island states. I will not get tired of repeating it: everyone has their nuances, they have different issues to prioritize and bring forward, and they are not always listened to. It is crucial to channel those voices, to listen to them and take their concerns into account.
We are in the midst of a momentous decade, and it’s important we know how to best convey that urgency. Do you think the climate crisis is being communicated correctly?
In terms of communication, we can always improve. But I don’t think we should focus only on issues of communication. We must take advantage of all levels of decision-making, education and intervention if we want climate action to really accelerate.
Communication, per se, is a relationship with society through which we try to initiate change. A change that is conceived in a context of crisis – in this case, of climate crisis. We must produce a change, and that change affects all of us. The task, then, falls on the big decision-makers, the states, the global corporations…and from there on down. Everyone doing what they can, in their role – all the way to the bottom, to every level of education, to the schools. The message must be conveyed that this is truly necessary, essential and urgent to act now. All of us, regardless of our positions, can do that. Although, of course, the greater the power of an individual, the greater their responsibility.
Greta Thunberg has just finished her schooling, and with it, her Friday demonstrations. How do you assess the legacy of the Swedish activist?
She has done an excellent job drawing attention to a problem through strong, forceful messages. Somehow, she inspired many young people to fully embrace this cause.
I think that an engaged society is the basis for change. A society that detaches from its problems or tries to look at them through a screen is not going anywhere. We need an active, conscious and, if you will, disruptive society. In this sense, Greta has made an enormous contribution.
We talk a lot, we discuss a lot, we lay out many proposals, countries debate at the COP… But reality shows us that there have been few concrete changes, for example, in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted. So there is clearly a disconnect between what we are observing, what countries say they are doing or want to do, and the reality of a planet that responds with physical processes that are obvious.
El momento en que la Dra. Celeste Saulo, directora del @SMN_Argentina, es elegida como secretaria general de la @WMO
Es la primera mujer y primera americana que lidera esta agencia de @ONU_es. ¡Gracias a la Cancilleria y a representacion argentina en Ginebra por este gran logro! pic.twitter.com/4kM4l1Xij0— Daniel Filmus (@FilmusDaniel) June 1, 2023
Climate denial has been on the rise for years. At the same time, we are witnessing a new trend of climate delayers. That is, although its proponents don’t deny the existence of climate change, they do everything possible to diminish its importance and delay any action. How should we approach this rhetoric, or how would you do it?
I’ll say it again: an engaged society is the only answer to these splinter groups that try to impede action. They do not stop being splinter groups. The issue is how much weight we give them.
In many fields, there is this denialist or hateful rhetoric that contributes absolutely nothing. The reality is that there is no downside to taking action to preserve the climate. There is no “other side.” So why would anyone decide not to act? Only for economic reasons? I believe we must strip bare the rhetoric that encourages paralysis, inaction or denial. We must make clear what they stand to lose by acting this way.
The question of economics is usually one of the main excuses.
Sure, but then that must be denounced. We cannot sit back and allow the economic interests of a few to determine the planet for us all.
In Spain, the State Meteorological Agency (AEMET) and its members are being harassed by deniers, conspiracy theorists and extremists. Is this something that only happens here, or is it spreading to other countries?
I see it spreading. I follow our AEMET colleagues, whom I deeply respect, on social media. This experience that they are going through causes great concern. We are attacking the messenger.
I find it appalling that, as a society, we have these kinds of reactions. It is completely outdated. This is taking hold in a culture where the immediacy and anonymity of social media make us lose sight of our greater social and ethical principles, which are essential for our existence. So of course, those who act this way must be decried because they do not contribute to anything. Any destructive message is destructive in general.
When a destructive message sets in, it destroys everything. It does not destroy selectively, it destroys the most important values of society. One of those is respect; in this case, respect for our men and women of science.
Is the WMO aware of this increase in hostility and hate speech?
You spoke earlier of communication. This is where communication has a role. It cannot be the case that a few very malicious voices receive more press and more space than many well-intentioned voices. We are doing something wrong.
The WMO holds, of course, some responsibility for this. The media does, too. And society as a whole. That is to say, we [the WMO] must go out to protect the meteorological and hydrological services, support their work and openly denounce the hidden or obscured interests behind efforts that insult the work of institutions that have existed for over 100 years. It is thanks to those institutions that we know what we know today. This is not only in regard to climate change; we could have a predictive or early warning system to safeguard and protect our society when extreme weather occurs, be it a heat wave, severe storm or period of drought… The problem is we just don’t place a priority on that [potential warning system]. What’s going on with that? It seems to me that we all have to go out and answer that question. The Meteorological Organization first and foremost.
To finish with the matter of AEMET, its professionals complain they lack the resources to do a better job, both internally and in their communications. This gives the impression that meteorological agencies are not valued highly enough. Is this a one-time problem, or a chronic one?
It is a widespread problem. The World Meteorological Organization was first concerned about this in the least developed countries, as they had the least support to conduct the work of their meteorological and hydrological services. And now we find ourselves with this negative domino effect, where the meteorological services of the entire world – the least developed, developing countries and, eventually, developed countries as well – find it difficult to maintain their budgets, improve them or align them with the demands of these times.
It is a very serious problem. And it is extremely important that, as a society, we understand that when countries endorse common global objectives – like the Sustainable Development Goals, the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction or the Paris Agreement – behind that endorsement, each government looks internally to determine who and what is in charge of these tasks. When governments turn back to the global stage, they must find their meteorological and hydrological services strengthened. Because disaster risk reduction is unfeasible without a good early warning system and a good meteorological and hydrological service. The transition to clean energy is only possible if we have good systems in place to measure and forecast wind, sun and rain, which are the bases for clean energy.
It is a mistake to think of these global agendas and objectives as disconnected from the need to strengthen meteorological and hydrological services. I believe this is one of the issues that must be prioritized in this debate. That is to say, it is not that all the Sustainable Development Goals will be fulfilled through a meteorological service – I don’t want to convey that. What I mean is that there are agencies in every country that have specific roles. In particular, meteorological and hydrological services can make a significant contribution towards achieving many of the Sustainable Development Goals, if we have the right funding.
The Bonn Conference ended last week, and COP28 kicks off in five months. For the first time in history, COP will be hosted by the leader of a major oil company. Don’t you think that the presence of these participants diminishes the conference’s credibility and hinders potential progress?
I think it’s what the countries have agreed to. In this sense, as an agency, the World Meteorological Organization is a bystander. Why governments choose one country or another [to host] is beyond me. I believe, in any case, that there is always time to make bold decisions to adapt to and mitigate climate change, to make the agreed economic assistance as effective as possible. Let them meet wherever they want, but make it effective. If not, we will continue to have declarative meetings but we won’t have results.
This June, for the first time, the 1.5ºC limit was surpassed for a few days. There is still a long way to go before that threshold of the Paris Agreement is overcome, but not as long as we think.
To give you an idea: in many places in Argentina, the temperature in May was almost 3ºC above reference values.
These are, of course, fluctuations. They are not the established average. But they are peaks that will cause the average to rise. If we have more hot peaks than cold ones, the average will rise. And this is what the situation of the past month is telling us. In general, it is all cause for worry. The anomalies in the polar zones and especially in the North Pole are immense.
Author: Eduardo Robaina
Periodista y fotógrafo. Es coordinador de ‘Climática’, ‘La Uni Climática’ y el Magazine 2023. 360 partes por millón (ppm) de CO2 al nacer.
Credits: This article by Eduardo Robaina, https://www.climatica.lamarea.com is published here as part of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now.
