Politique Internationale — What are the elements that permit us to gauge the climate emergency? What historical perspective do we have in the matter?
Jean Jouzel — It is in effect useful to recall on what we base this. We have now accepted the certainty that our activities modify the composition of the atmosphere. So, through transport, housing and what we eat… we generate greenhouse gases that have the attribute of trapping some of the rays of the sun once they have been reflected on the surface of the Earth and this has an impact on our climate. In terms of calendar, we had to wait until the 19th century to see scientists take an interest in the subject. In 1896, the Swedish scholar Svante Arrhenius went further: he explained in concrete terms that the use of coal, a source of carbon dioxide or CO2, would lead to significant warming. As far as its concentration in the atmosphere is concerned, the first continuous analyses only began in 1957. This is therefore relatively recent but studies of polar ice have allowed us to reconstitute the evolution of the greenhouse effect on the past 800,000 years, and to show that it has never been so pronounced as at the current time and to illustrate its link to the big climatic cycles. Going back even further, we know that 50 million years ago, a period that was much warmer than our own, there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere. Today, the scientific community bases its work on an accumulation of data that are permanently enhanced. Some of these indicators, by the way, are not of an absolute precision. Let us take the case of China: looking at the latest figures, we can see that the sum of CO2 emissions of each Chinese province does not correspond exactly to the total published for the whole country. The gap is even rather significant…
P. I. — What does this mean? That the indicators are manipulated? That the different actors do not agree on the statistics? Does all this play into the hands of the climate deniers?
J. J. — The fact that countries are opening climate negotiations and are making great commitments shows that the horizons have been prepared and the quantified markers validated. For example, a growing number of observers agree that a rise in temperatures of 4 to 5 °C between now and the end of the century — if nothing is done to fight global warming — would be catastrophic for a wide swathe of populations. This perception of the risks has not always been so clear. The reason is that we do not give enough credit to the word of scientists. As the causes of warming precede its effects by several decades, the scientists have difficulty sounding convincing about its reality before it comes into effect. But I am not discouraged nevertheless: if we scientists start to say that everything is lost and that the struggle against climate change will never evolve favourably, then what is the point in continuing working? As for the climate deniers, whatever the situation, they will always be there. Last autumn, some 500 “scientists” sent an open letter to the United Nations to proclaim the absence of a climate crisis. Let us say that gives us a little food for thought…
P. I. — To go back in history, at what moment did the climate emergency come to light?
J. J. — Until 1950, to be truthful, not much happened. The point of departure for the climate emergency corresponds to the first work of climate modellers. Thanks to better and better calculators, climate scenarios were devised which incorporated changes in the makeup of the atmosphere. As these studies proceeded, anxiety started to emerge and it was realised more and more that these modifications were not neutral for the environment. In 1979, the Charney report, named after an American climatologist, developed the hypothesis of a climate warming of between 1.5 and 4.5 °C for the doubling of quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere. The 1980s were a pivotal period for climate studies: in 1987, analyses carried out on the Vostok drilling site in Antarctica illustrated the link between the greenhouse effect and the climate over the 150,000 previous years and brought to light the fact that because of our activities the concentration of CO2 has never been as high as today. From that time, scientists really began to ring alarm bells and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was put in place in 1988. Since then, we have never stopped sounding the alarm through our successive reports stressing the dangers of this warming linked to our activities: higgedly-piggledy, the acidification of the oceans, the growing frequency of climatic extremes and the decline in rainfall in some regions… These phenomena have a very strong impact on the daily life of populations: in some regions, this could lead to threats to the security of food supplies, to the preservation of water resources and to the respect for biodiversity… People now measure just how great a catastrophe the disappearance of coral reefs would be.
P. I. — In this struggle against global warming, have we wasted time? Does the current situation leave you pessimistic or defeatist or do you seen reasons for hope?
J. J. — Neither pessimistic nor optimistic, just realistic. As it happens, we got working too late to tackle the problem head-on. And yet, the Kyoto protocol enacted in 1997, itself in line with the framework convention of the United Nations on climate change adopted in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, prompted the awareness of political decision-makers. If this protocol, which foresaw a drop of some 5 per cent in the emissions of developed countries, had been respected, a much more virtuous dynamic would have been set in motion. That said, we could not foresee that the United States, under George Bush, would turn out to be so recalcitrant with regards to this climate policy. In parallel, China’s economic boom surprised by its astounding intensity. Between 2000 and 2010, the volume of that country’s CO2 emissions more than doubled. This extra pressure on the climate had clearly not been anticipated.
P. I. — Energy is today considered the main element in the struggle against global warming. For you, is this appraisal justified?
J. J. — Totally. Out of the 50 billion or so metric tons of CO2 equivalent sent into the atmosphere in 2018 (this figure takes into account emissions of methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases), about 37 billion, or nearly three-quarters of the total of these emissions, result from the consumption of fossil energies. This is not a reason to reject in totality this production: economic growth is closely dependent on it. It is also thanks to the benefits of energy that people live better across the world. This is not a reason to validate the “all-energy” model: a reasonable recourse is absolutely necessary to keep to the objectives of COP21, that is to say the long-term limitation of temperatures well below 2 °C — even 1.5 °C — with regard to pre-industrial conditions. And we have already gained 1 °C…
P. I. — Precisely, has the agreement ratified in Paris at the end of 2015 brought about an operational application on the ground?
J. J. — Firstly and above all, it is an excellent thing to have succeeded in gathering together so many countries around an ambitious environmental objective. We have the proof that the protection of the environment is a subject shared by all, even if there always can be a little political posturing. This Paris agreement is very interesting but it nevertheless remains a sum of voluntary commitments. The approach is not compulsory and we can see today that several countries — including our own — are late in applying their roadmap. Some others have fixed themselves goals that are not demanding enough. If we refer to the goal posted by COP21 — a limit to 2 °C — we shall have to, between 2020 and 2030, make three times as many efforts to cut emissions than was foreseen. And if we want to limit the rise in temperatures to 1.5 °C, commitments will have to be multiplied by five over the same period. We must therefore seriously raise the ambition of this Paris agreement at a time when the withdrawal of the United States of Donald Trump has put it in difficulty.
P. I. — In this context, what energy mix do you favour? Are you an all-out partisan of renewable energies? How do you see the share of nuclear power developing?
J. J. — I was, at the CESE, the co-rapporteur of the law on energy transition (Editor’s note: passed in 2015). So I saw how the outlines of the authorities’ tendencies were being drawn and I have to say that I am fairly favourable to the scenario that was retained, that is a rise in the place of renewable energies combined with a gradual drop in nuclear, which would account for no more than 50 per cent of electricity production by 2035 as against 75 per cent today. In passing, too many people think of electricity in the place of energy: they forget that mobility and heat production are two very important sources of consumption that still give prominence to fossil fuels, the main contributors to our energy mix. Nuclear and renewable energies have, in their operation, the advantage of not emitting CO2. On the scale of the planet, nuclear power provides about 5 per cent of primary energy needs and it is not seriously envisaged for this share to exceed 10 per cent by 2050. Renewable energies are a considerable resource with an enormous potential to add value. On condition that sufficient investment can be assigned to them. We often hear of the billions needed for the construction of a new nuclear power station, but the development of renewable capabilities also requires a huge financial effort. Whatever, a cost-effective energy policy is not limited to the search for a balance between means of production. It also implies better energy efficiency with, and this is indispensable, real sobriety at all levels.
P. I. — On paper, France is widely promoting green energies but, on the ground, projects take a long time to come into effect…
J. J. — This is a real problem and, in this precise case, opposition to renewable energies has reached an exaggerated level. I am obviously in favour of respect for the law, but it is clear that, with regard to applying current texts the many legal recourses amount to freezing green projects. In Germany, a planned windfarm or solar project can be completed in five to seven years. In France, some affairs are so controversial that they can remain in a drawer for more than 10 years. The example of offshore windfarms is revealing: whereas the first were decided on in 2012, no site has really got under way. The ecological transition, of course, needs rules — and I am in favour of that — but also simplification: if not, we can look again in 10 or 15 years and nothing will have moved.
P. I. — Nobody has forgotten in France the Yellow Vests crisis, which was perceived as the response to punitive ecological tax measures. In your work, Pour éviter le chaos climatique et financier [How to Avoid Climate and Financial Chaos], co-authored with the economist Pierre Larrouturou, you try to show that the struggle against global warming could dynamise the economy. In the light of recent events, do you still defend this thesis?
J. J. — I am sure that the ecological transition will translate into a benefit for the economy. The countries that will be the first to adopt this approach will be the first to profit from it. When will these benefits be felt? We have to be cautious, but a band of 10 to 20 years seems plausible to me. The current situation is difficult because people have the feeling — and they are not wrong — that this phase of transition will begin by destroying jobs. For example, the closure of a coal-fired power station mechanically affects the economic and social fabric. But the construction of new renewable means of production, the development of energy efficiency, town-planning changes or improvements to transport infrastructures are projects that create work. Once the transition between a largely fossil-driven economy and one that is more respectful of the environment is on the rails, the impact of the struggle against global warming will be seen to be very positive.
P. I. — And for ecological taxes…
J. J. — The rise in the carbon tax came at a very bad moment. This episode at least allowed us to note two things: the first is that ecological taxation must be fair. And the second is that it must also bring compensation, especially for the people whose purchasing power is the most impacted. In other words, politics has an essential role to play. In 2009, we contributed to the compilation of Michel Rocard’s report on the carbon tax: he had made some balanced proposals that were unfortunately thrown out by the Constitutional Council. If they had been accepted, they would have favoured a soft landing for this question. Fair measures, then, and compensation, but that is not all: transparency must be guaranteed and assurances given to the consumer that the taxes he is paying really benefit the environment. But the Finance Ministry is a bit of black box: there is not much signposting allowing the tracing of ecological taxation.
P. I. — What do you think of Greta Thunberg, who has become something of an inspiration to the young?
J. J. — I am in favour of this sort of contribution. The climate debate must not be confiscated by one or other corporation. It is good that the most distant fringes of society can express themselves. We are talking about Greta Thunberg, but we must also stress the mobilisation of associations. Elected officials in the provinces should be more on the frontlines: they are in direct contact with people and know precisely how plans to protect the environment can be applied. Climate pedagogy also passes through them: since the beginning, Greta Thunberg has achieved this effort of awareness. How can we not support a line that calls on youth to put their trust in scientists? In France, the Education Ministry, which has not been deaf to the mobilisation of the young and to the recommendations of the climatologists, called on the Higher Curriculum Council to ensure a better treatment — from primary through secondary schools — of the environmental debate. I welcome this initiative.
