Donald Trump does not mince his words to demonize the green transition which would be nothing less than a “transition to hell”.
Empty words? Oh no.
As the planet suffocated last summer, Republicans were carefully planning their “Project 2025” that will shred green energy programs and put the pedal to the metal on fossil fuel production if they resume power1.
This political climate does not bode well for the COP28 which opened this week in Dubai, while elected officials from around the world are questioning measures to combat climate change.
United Kingdom, Germany, France… Even Scandinavia is not immune to this worrying backlash. Under pressure from the coalition government’s right wing, Sweden cut its gas tax, tore up its high-speed rail plan and used the money for roads2.
In Canada, Justin Trudeau, who was overtaken in the polls by Pierre Poilievre, himself sabotaged the carbon tax which was nevertheless one of his greatest legacies. By exempting oil heating to please Atlantic voters, he triggered the anger of Alberta and Saskatchewan who cry injustice by demanding an exemption on heating methods more used in the West.
Result of this failed operation: Trudeau exacerbated the division that was already too great in the country and seriously undermined the credibility of the carbon tax, which will now be perceived as a measure that can be dismissed when it becomes too disturbing, instead of modifying harmful behaviors. for the planet.
How can we explain the global decline in the fight against climate change?
After immigration, the energy transition is becoming the new scarecrow for populists. Some newly elected officials flatly deny global warming, like Javier Milei and Geert Wilders, two other populists with unusual hair recently elected in Argentina and the Netherlands.
Other less right-wing politicians believe in it, but do not want to make sacrifices if their neighbors do not… starting with China, which is accelerating the opening of polluting coal-fired factories.3. It is true that China is responsible for nearly a third of the planet’s GHG emissions. But let’s not forget that CO emissions2 per capita are almost twice as high in Canada4. So, there is no excuse for inertia.
The invasion of Ukraine also changed the situation by providing justification for restarting drilling to secure national supplies. This summer, the British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, granted around a hundred new exploration permits in the North Sea.
Except that by wanting to reduce their energy dependence on dictatorships, democracies will increase global production of fossil fuels. We hear them reply that, in any case, it is consumption that must be reduced. Okay, but it’s not easy to impose sacrifices on people who are tightening their belts with inflation, interest rates and recession on the horizon.
Remember the yellow vests who chanted: “The elites are talking about the end of the world, when we are talking about the end of the month5. »
It is this credo that Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre takes up when he denigrates “Trudeau’s ideological obsession with taxing the working class, the elderly and suffering families.”
This political recovery on the part of Mr. Poilievre is pure demagoguery, because the carbon tax, in which he promises to “deal with the ax”, is in reality a fee which brings more to the less well-off than it does to them. cost.
To make the energy transition easier to swallow, American President Joe Biden is banking on technology, with hundreds of billions, which has triggered a global bidding war, including in Quebec with the Northvolt factory.
This is all going to cost a fortune.
The International Monetary Fund estimates that a strategy based on subsidies will increase a rich country’s public debt three or four times more than a strategy focused more on a carbon tax.6.
Right now, decision-makers face a triple dilemma: they must achieve climate goals without putting public finances at risk or crossing the political red line.
We can see to what extent Ottawa is walking on eggshells, constantly postponing its plan to cap GHG emissions from the oil industry, which will undoubtedly put Alberta on the rocks.
Quebec also refuses to displease. This week we had to hear the boss of Hydro-Québec, Michael Sabia, say that residential electricity rates would not increase by 2035, although he thought the opposite very recently. By adopting the electoral message of the Coalition Avenir Québec, which is allergic to any eco-fiscal measure, he is taking on a role that is not his and sending the wrong message.
It is not by subsidizing household consumption that Quebec will make consumption more efficient, as we can and must do. After all, consuming less energy is good for our wallet and for the economy which will be more productive.
But we must be realistic: the transition will not be achieved solely through technological progress. And it will have a cost, particularly for those who will see their livelihoods disappear. Trumpism has taught us that we must not neglect those on whom we impose a program that disadvantages them, otherwise they will come back to haunt the political landscape like those who have borne the brunt of globalization.
To avoid the backlash against the transition that we are already seeing emerging, it will take a clever mix of sensitivity, listening, transparency, pedagogy and leadership. Let’s hope for a good dose of it this week at COP28.
The position of The Press
To avoid the backlash against the transition, it will take a clever mix of sensitivity, listening, transparency, pedagogy and leadership.