Politics

L'hypocrisie des pays riches sur le climat

Nov 15, 2021 Jayati Ghosh

NEW DELHI – Beaucoup de gens dans le monde considèrent déjà que la Conférence des Nations Unies sur le changement climatique (COP26) à Glasgow a été décevante. C'est vraiment peu de le dire ! Les dirigeants mondiaux – en particulier dans le monde développé – ne parviennent toujours pas à saisir la gravité du défi climatique. Bien qu'ils reconnaissent sa gravité et son urgence dans leurs discours, ils poursuivent pour la plupart des intérêts nationaux à court terme et font des promesses « zéro émission nette » sans prendre aucun engagement clair ni immédiat pour l'avenir.

Pire encore, les déclarations de nombreux dirigeants des pays riches à Glasgow sont en contradiction avec leurs stratégies climatiques actuelles et avec ce qu'ils déclarent dans d'autres contextes. Ainsi, pendant que les dirigeants du G7 au sommet ont publié des engagements verts décevants pour plusieurs décennies à venir, ils se sont chargés d'autoriser et de permettre davantage d'investissements dans les combustibles fossiles qui génèreront une production supplémentaire de ces produits et des émissions de gaz à effet de serre à moyen terme.

Par exemple, le véritable gouvernement américain peut-il vraiment annoncer sa position en toute franchise ? Dans son récent discours de Glasgow, le président Joe Biden a déclaré : « alors que nous voyons l'instabilité actuelle des prix de l'énergie, plutôt que de considérer cela comme une raison de revenir sur nos objectifs en matière d'énergie propre, nous devons cela considérer comme un appel à l'action ». En effet, « les prix élevés de l'énergie ne font que renforcer la nécessité urgente de diversifier les approvisionnements, de doubler la mise sur les énergies propres et d'adapter de nouvelles technologies prometteuses en matière d'énergies propres. »

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 2 Comments on this article

Mirek Fatyga Nov 15, 2021

and then, the reality bites.

Modern, technological civilization is a temporary pattern on the flow of energy. Break this flow and consequences become severe. No wonder that democratic countries talk big while acting small. If they start acting big too quickly, they may just cease being Democratic, as an example of Trumpism vividly demonstrates.

The reality in energy space is severe energy scarcity. To extend North American oil consumption per capita to 8 billion people, world oil production would need to increase by ~600%. To the EU level, by ~300%. This is the scale of the problem and the world population is still growing, even if more slowly than in the prior century.

We need realism and pragmatism, not hyperventilating ideology that characterizes the "climate debate" today:

1. There are no climate tipping points because of carbon dioxide. It is the figment of imagination in computer models which are too primitive to be used as a reliable predictor of anything whatsoever.
2. The planet is not burning. Frequency of adverse, weather related events has not increased.
3. Effects of customary weather events (like periodic droughts or floods) are amplified by the population growth, particularly in developing countries where most of this growth is occurring. If anything, carbon dioxide is helping as it makes plants more drought resistant.
4. Substitutes for fossil fuels need to be found and implemented commercially because there are not enough fossil fuels to go around.
5. The (4) above can be synergistic with so called "green agenda" as long as we guide this substitution by sound engineering and economic principles, rather than warped ideology. It is very unlikely that solar panels and wind farms can meet our energy needs in any near future.
6. Continuing, robust investment in fossil fuels is absolutely necessary. An energy crisis turns immediately into a political crisis that shakes the foundations of Democracies. I think we can agree that they have been shaken enough already?

7. In all likelihood, the green brigade needs to say "we are very sorry" to the nuclear power. Strong investment in the nuclear energy, to make it safer and cheaper to deploy, must be a part of the new energy mix.

We need to drop immediately climate catastrophism, forcibly retire the fear mongers and focus on real problems, which is overcoming scarcity caused by the population growth. Urgently, as in right now. Let's hope that the COP26 was the last climate conference ever, to be replaced by the AWAH1 conference, which stands for "Advancing the Welfare of All Humanity" in the world of 8-10 billion people.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adrian Wu Nov 15, 2021

Even the author here misses the point. Carbon neutrality cannot be achieved by a bunch of old men taking their private jets to sit around a table for two weeks, hammering out an agreement for political purposes that they will renounce at the drop of a hat (think Paris Climate agreement, Brexit, Iran nuclear agreement etc.). It is all about consumption, or rather, overconsumption, the linchpin of the capitalist economic model. You cannot promise to reduce CO2 emission while at the same breath talk about maintaining a 3% annual economic growth. At least, not in the timeframe that most climate scientists would like to see. There is just not the technology today that can sufficiently replace fossil fuel within that time frame while still maintaining the current model of economic growth. One can promise to throw money at the problem, but without any guaranteed result. Therefore, our only hope is to forego our present consumer culture and to accept some inconveniences, such as cutting back on air travel, taking public transport etc. Most governments are incapable of bringing about these changes through legislation, especially in liberal democracies. When I was living in the US, I was amazed to see drivers circling the few rows of parking next to the supermarket entrance to look for spaces while there were plenty of spaces further afield. How many of them are willing to give up driving and take the bus (or even walk, my goodness) ? How many of them are willing to forego air-conditioning in the summer ? How about using shoes until they wear out, and then repair them (as I do) ? This was what people used to do fifty years ago. It is really less about subsidising renewable energy (the market will take care of that), but more about policies that will disincentivise consumption (banning discount promotions, raising consumption tax etc.), and of course educating the public. For a country such as the US, this will have the added benefit of reducing the trade deficit and household debt. Economist must learn to de-emphasise GDP growth, but put more emphasis on quality of life measurements. Spending less, eating less and working less might even produce a happier society.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/5EwmsgLfr

L'hypocrisie des pays riches sur le climat

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

L'hypocrisie des pays riches sur le climat

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification