Politique Internationale — In recent years, major events have shaken the planet, starting with the health crisis and the Russian-Ukrainian war. Are they likely to relegate climate concerns to the background?
Jean Jouzel — If we look at the short term, these events obviously impact on the climate emergency. Take the example of the presidential election campaign in France: we were very much hoping that the candidates would be able to position themselves vis-à-vis the two reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published respectively in February and April 2022. But circumstances were such that the situation in Ukraine became the focus of all attention. From the outset, the environmental issue was notoriously absent from the electoral debates. During the recent march for the climate in which I participated, some of the placards reminded us that the candidates devoted only 3% of their speech time to addressing ecological issues. But an event like the Russian- Ukrainian war is not only worrying for its ability to monopolize debate. International solidarity is essential if we are to fight global warming. Without it, large-scale actions become much more difficult to implement.
P. I. — And the health crisis – has it obliterated climate action? Even if contesting the extraordinary nature of the situation is out of the question, hasn’t the environment been neglected on the pretext of having to protect the planet from a pandemic?
J. J. — Let’s look first at Covid’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Between 2019 and 2020, global CO2 emissions fell by 7%. We should say that they ‘only’ fell by 7%. This is proof that the slowdown in activity, particularly in transport, is not enough to become virtuous. You also need to be able to perform these activities differently. The operating mode of societies as a whole needs to be questioned. That being said, Covid will have enabled the sudden discovery of a world with less noise, less pollution, less contamination of all kinds. This prompted a number of people to move to the countryside. This desire to experience a greener world is not without significance.
P. I. — Between two IPCC reports, it generally takes five to seven years. Is this the right speed?
J. J. — The IPCC reports are important enough for us to remember perfectly their year of publication: 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, 2014 and most recently 2022. There would be no point in speeding up the reports: we are looking at developments that do not need diagnoses within timeframes that are too narrow. That does not prevent the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) from publishing annual reports, but they do contain more detailed data – on temperature, precipitation, extreme events ... – which are worth updating. I take the opportunity to remind you that the IPCC is made up of three groups of experts: group 1 works on the causes of global warming, on its physical aspects and on their projections; group 2 looks at the consequences of global warming and deals with adaptation; Group 3, finally, examines ways to reduce emissions. Let it be clear that the IPCC is not there to make recommendations on what solutions to adopt. Its goal is for political decision-makers to rely on its diagnosis in taking measures to effectively combat global warming, and adapt to it.
P. I. — At this rate, the next IPCC report will not be released before the end of the decade. Isn’t that a bit late if we have to sound the alarm once again?
J. J. — The IPCC’s activity is not limited to these reports that summarize the situation at a given moment. Several specialized reports are also published at regular intervals. About the oceans, land use or the 1.5°C scenario, to name only the most recent. This 1.5°C scenario is very interesting: initially, the Paris agreement signed at the end of COP 21 in December 2015 aimed to limit long-term global warming to a maximum of 2°C – we have already exceeded 1°C – with, in passing, a goal of carbon neutrality in the second half of our century. The aims were then refined: from now on, even without it being carved in stone, an effort to limit global warming to 1.5° C has become the norm. This is proof that the work the IPCC does is not static: specialized reports are a useful means for clarifying trajectories.
P. I. — Documents are one thing, political decisions are another. Do you feel that governments as a whole have understood the full extent of the climate emergency?
J. J. — In terms of stated objectives, in most countries there is no significant discrepancy with the conclusions of the IPCC. In the United States, the replacement of Donald Trump by Joe Biden was good news for climate defenders: with Biden, the American administration has the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 in its sights. Even a country like China, which we do not automatically place in the camp of the most virtuous, has set a course for carbon neutrality by 2060. Most states claim to be engaged in the battle against global warming. The COPs, those summits that are held every year, are milestones that allow us to assess everyone’s commitment and take note of the huge gap that remains between the proclaimed goals and the reality. This situation is very worrying: to keep to a trajectory compatible with the 1.5°C objective, greenhouse gas emissions should, compared to 2010, fall by 45% between now and 2030. Whereas at the moment, the trend is for an increase of 15% over that timeframe. If our ambitions are not seriously reassessed by then, then our emissions will be twice as high; and it will become difficult to avoid global warming close to 3°C after 2050. We are well aware of the magnitude of the task. This is a real challenge that we must meet with great urgency if we want today’s young people to be able to adapt to the climatic conditions they will experience in the second half of this century.
P. I. — As with high-level sport, when it comes to the fight against global warming, are there good and less good players? If so, which countries or regions of the world are at the forefront in the fight against carbon?
J. J. — Some countries are more proactive than others, starting with European countries. They forecast a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990, and have now committed to a target of -55%. This is indeed an absolutely necessary step to achieve carbon neutrality in 2050. I previously mentioned the United States and China, who have taken on board the need to free themselves further from fossil fuels. Conversely, countries like Russia, Brazil and Australia have a stance that is a lot less dynamic. In some cases, this is due to the attitude of the leader in office: in Brazil, for example, President Bolsonaro paid little heed to the climate emergency. As for India, it is starting from way back, with a very strong dependence on coal.
P. I. — Should we make a clear distinction between these good students and the less good ones? In several rather virtuous countries, many observers are wondering if it is really necessary to make so much effort while other countries are unwilling to join the climate movement …
J. J. — One has to remember that not everyone sets off from the starting line with the same chances. Some countries are so dependent on coal that it is difficult for them to change their energy mix with the same impact as those with a more diverse mix of resources. That is why it is good to work along the idea of a trajectory, compatible with the objective of carbon neutrality. But it is absolutely necessary that the stated ambition materializes, and this is not the case.
P. I. — What are the ingredients for a successful climate policy?
J. J. — A large number of initiatives have been approved by almost all leaders. For example, there is little doubt that the rise of the electric car will continue and that it will quickly constitute a solid alternative to the thermal vehicle. Similarly, developments in hydrogen are promising. Do we need to revisit the contribution of renewable energies to the energy mix? By definition, they embody the future. While we are at it, let’s establish the responsibilities. When we talk about politics, it’s understood that the state has an essential role to play. The State has an influence, for sure, it gives impetus, but it cannot do everything. The success of a climate policy depends on everyone’s commitment: regional and local elected officials, businesses, the education system, NGOs, citizens, the media ... No one can stand aside from the environmental challenge any longer. With regard to the public authorities, the role of decentralization is important: experience shows that the regions have the capacity to implement, on the ground, decisions taken at a higher level.
P. I. — You were talking about the need to change the way we operate. Is this an injunction to citizens?
J. J. — This change in our mode of operating means showing greater sobriety. Citizens have to do their part. For example, is it really necessary to drive an SUV (1)? I believe we can maintain our quality of life very well while having recourse to less polluting equipment, consumer goods or leisure activities. Those who systematically set defending the environment in opposition to the comfort of the population are mistaken: becoming sober does not mean depriving oneself, but above all taking a look at our behaviour.
P. I. — Citizens still need to be made aware …
J. J. — They are, or at least they should be. There are a lot of publications in circulation – documents, studies, surveys, reports, academic work, etc. – whose data, often set well into perspective, helps alert public opinion. In this regard, the scenarios set out by the Electricity Transmission Network (RTE) are very telling. Achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 implies a profound transformation of the electricity mix, with, first of all, significant development in renewable energies. Such data, and the changes that result from it, resonate with public opinion and motivate initiatives to adopt virtuous behavior. These days, when opening their window in the morning, no one can tell themselves: ‘There’s nothing I can do to improve the state of the planet.’
P. I. — The organizers of Paris 2024 want to make the event the first zero-carbon Games. Will such ecological signalling become the rule for major events of like this? With the risk of exploitation for marketing purposes …
J. J. — Paris 2024’s ambition is excellent news. We can almost call it a challenge, because things are not so simple to implement. Is it window-dressing? In the case of Paris 2024, I’ve noticed that Tony Estanguet and his team are paying considerable attention to this matter. More generally, what large-scale project in any sector can escape a sustainable development component?
P. I. — At the beginning of 2022, you submitted a report to the Minister of Higher Education, Frédérique Vidal. What exactly are its aims?
J. J. — This report was written by a working group whose rapporteur was Luc Abbadie, professor and researcher at the Sorbonne. It had one objective: to ensure that 100% of students, whatever their course, have a good understanding of what’s at stake in the transition. Raising awareness, and training with regard to the challenges of ecological transition are now part of the mission of higher education, as inscribed in the research programming law. The task requires a commitment from the public authorities, from all school directors, teachers and students. Content relating to ecological transition must be instilled at different stages of academic courses, above all during the first two years after the baccalaureate. It’s a weighty but crucial undertaking: too many members of our country’s elite are unaware of the implications of the climate emergency, of the protection of diversity and of the environment. By giving the rising generation the tools for better understanding, we are giving them the possibility of not suffering the events ...
(1) Higher, heavier and more powerful vehicles that emit approximately 25% more CO2 than mid-size cars.