The UN climate conference (COP27) which opens on Sunday in Egypt will be held in an international context that is not conducive to a burst of international collaboration. But beyond the failure feared by many, a question comes up year after year: why is it so difficult to fight against the worst environmental crisis in history?
On October 27, more than a thousand scientists dared to tackle a taboo subject at climate conferences. In an open letter, they stated bluntly that it is now impossible to limit global warming to 1.5°C, contrary to what governments and environmental groups repeat. “Not only does this suggest that we can still avoid widespread climate collapse, but it provides an excuse for politicians to keep dithering, and for polluters to keep polluting,” summed up one of the signatories, Bill McGuire, professor Emeritus of Geophysical and Climatic Hazards at University College London.
It must be said that this objective, which made it possible to limit the damage, was mainly included in the Paris Agreement at the request of States very vulnerable to the impacts of future disruptions, in order to convince them to sign the agreement in 2015. However, since then, the catastrophic climatic trajectory has hardly changed, according to the most recent data from the UN. The warming is already 1.11°C, compared to the pre-industrial era, and it could reach almost 3°C.
Researcher at the Center for International Studies and Research at the University of Montreal, Erick Lachapelle points out that this observation of failure stems from a misunderstanding of what slows down action. “We have considered climate change for too long as a physical, economic and technical problem, as when we talk about the necessary decline of fossil fuels. But there are also socio-political obstacles that slow down action, for example certain lobbies, as we see in the United States, and the game of politics. »
A particularly unequal game, he adds. “There are a large number of sovereign states that have divergent interests on the issue. That’s part of the problem. But not all of these states are equal. There are a handful of wealthy countries and corporations that are a big part of the problem. For example, China, the United States, India and Russia alone account for more than 50% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Faced with them, several dozen countries feel increasingly left behind, says Eddy Perez, of the Canada Climate Action Network. “The fragility around the Paris Agreement is that we agree that everyone will respect their promises, but that the rich countries have not done so for their climate plans or for their commitments. funds to developing countries. Many see this as a broken promise and a betrayal. »
According to him, this kind of situation could derail COP27 and further undermine confidence around the negotiating table. “The issue of climate justice will be key at COP27. It will make it possible to understand even more to what extent the impacts of the climate crisis are drivers of injustice. »
Lack of ambition
Holder of the Canada Research Chair in Climate Change Mitigation at McGill University, Catherine Potvin already predicts that the will of States will remain insufficient, beyond a conference that should not give birth to progress. notables. “There is not much appetite among governments to take risks and do new things. I’m not even sure they understand the scientific portrait and the extent of the changes that need to be made. If we take a single example, that of the Ministry of Transport in Quebec, do you think that it understands that the regulations should be changed so that the car is no longer king everywhere? »
The most recent international data once again bears witness to the lack of ambitious action. As part of the report State of Climate Action 2022, published at the end of October, a consortium of researchers analyzed 40 indicators that make it possible to measure the progress made in respecting the Paris Agreement (energy transition, transformation of industries and transport, changes in the food sector, deforestation, finance, etc.). Result: None of the 40 indicators is on track.
Things cannot improve without a profound questioning of our way of life, rightly warns the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The document, a reference tool for international climate negotiations, insists on the necessary decrease in the demand for energy and resources, on the need to redevelop cities, on the imperative nature of reducing the need for motorized transport (including plane) and on the essential shift towards a “plant-based” diet.
“Sacrifice”
If the possible solutions are so well known and documented, why do we refuse to follow them? From the point of view of developed countries, climate change remains too abstract, believes the president of the Quebec Association of Physicians for the Environment, Claudel Pétrin-Desrosiers. “There is a form of psychological distance. The threat is never as direct as another situation for which it will be necessary to decide to act now. It often seems like a problem that can be acted on later. »
She criticizes in the same breath those who associate climate action with a form of renunciation of comfort. “The necessary changes are often presented in the form of sacrifices, which gives a scary image. It feeds the idea that we are heading towards something unknown and difficult. We could have a different vocabulary. We do not talk enough about profits and gains. Climate action is not only a question of financial investments, but also a question of benefits, in particular for the protection of natural environments and for human health. »
To change perceptions, it will be imperative to transform the education system to include these subjects, argues Laurence Brière, researcher at the Center for Research in Education and Training relating to the environment and eco-citizenship at UQAM.
She recalls that even the IPCC sees it as a vector of transition, but also of questioning the values specific to our societies. “The more people have altruistic values, the more likely they are to engage in the climate field. These are also values associated with a greater level of concern about these issues and a better perception of the impact of their actions in favor of the environment. On the other hand, people who are more hedonistic and selfish are less inclined towards commitment,” explains Ms.me Briere.
Between the two, we have more the luxury of waiting to choose, says Catherine Potvin, who has studied the climate crisis for more than 40 years. “I am extremely pessimistic. We’re starting to see nature’s tipping points everywhere. I don’t want to venture on what awaits us. I’ve seen too many climate models to want to talk about them. »