The fight against global warming is not moving fast enough. The populations of the North as of the South are however not as opposed to it as what their governments say. But to be effective, the latter will have to better conceive and explain their means of action.
The trend is not at all good. Already +1.2°C compared to the pre-industrial era, global warming will have reached the threshold of +1.5°C between 2033 and 2035, reported this week The duty based on new scientific analysis. At this rate, the planet could have exceeded +2°C before 2065 even if we end up achieving the famous carbon neutrality. But at the rate things are currently going, we could be at a catastrophic rise of 3.5°C to 4.4°C between 2081 and 2100.
And for now, Canada is more part of the problem than the solution, according to its own record of its own greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2020, these per capita emissions (17.7 tonnes) were still four times higher than the global average and almost ten times higher than what would be needed to limit damage to +1.5°C. And that was when the COVID-19 pandemic had shut down entire swathes of the economy, noted last month. The duty.
Despite everything, the Trudeau government assures that the reduction measures already deployed and to come will make it possible to achieve its climate objectives for the current decade, i.e. a 40% reduction in GHGs by 2030 and the achievement of carbon neutrality. by 2050. Among these measures are a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, investments of 9 billion in the reduction of emissions from various sectors, including transport, and the imposition of a carbon tax which will pass this year from $50 to $65 per ton of GHG and which should rise to $170 by 2030.
The price of pollution
Considered by experts to be one of the simplest and most powerful ways to get consumers and businesses to reduce their climate footprint, carbon pricing is still largely shunned around the world, the firm noted last month. Oxford Economics analysis. While experts have estimated that it should be between US$50 and $100 per tonne by 2030 to help stay below the +2°C mark, still less than a quarter of global emissions are subject to any pricing, and the rates applied often turn out to be quite insufficient.
In fact, when the two are combined (rate and proportion of emissions affected), Canada is a leader in this area, with an “effective tax” of US$93 per tonne by 2030. , behind Norway ($212), but slightly ahead of other European leaders. That’s far ahead of big emitters like China and the US, with effective carbon taxes of just $30 by 2050, let alone India, Russia or Saudi Arabia. , where there is still no question of such pricing.
Not the fault of the people
How can we explain that the world cannot move faster when the means to fight exist and when we know that the environmental, human and economic damage of global warming will be much greater than the cost of the required corrective measures? One of the explanations often heard is that the populations are not ready to do more and that they are opposed between the North and the South. But this is largely untrue, the International Monetary Fund reported Thursday after a large survey carried out in 28 countries with nearly 30,000 respondents.
Wherever the question is asked, people say that climate change is a “serious problem” that the world and their own families are already experiencing, or will be within 5 to 10 years. Support for key control measures varies from country to country, but is generally highest for clean technology subsidies, followed by tighter regulations on its pollution and carbon pricing.
In the latter case, the level of support is still around 50%, which is a lot considering that the other half is mostly made up of people who say they don’t know, the opponents representing only a small minority. Reviews are generally more favorable in Asia, such as China (55%) and India (67%), but not in Japan (39%). Faced with an energy crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Germans (29%), the French (44%) and the British (41%) are suddenly less warm to the idea, while Canadians (50%), Americans (44%) and Brazilians (62%) are somewhere between the two continents.
This degree of support decreases when we mention the direct costs (gasoline prices, job losses, etc.) and indirect costs (risk of corruption, risk of distorted competition, etc.) that the measures of struggle in question. Conversely, it increases when it is explained, for example, that the revenue from the carbon tax could return to society directly to households, especially the most modest, or in the form of investments in the green transition or in services. public. In fact, the degree of support strongly depends on the perception that one has of the effectiveness of the proposed measures, their fairness and the other positive effects they could have in terms of, for example, the quality of air, improving health, creating jobs and reducing traffic congestion.
With regard to the question of the fairness of these measures, the governments of emerging economies have often said that it was first and foremost up to the rich countries to reduce their GHGs, because they are the ones who polluted for 150 years. But their populations still believe that it should be all countries that bear the burden of reducing GHG emissions, and this is also true in China (68% support against 21% who answer “only the rich” ), India (59% versus 28%), Brazil (65% versus 23%) or Egypt (51% versus 28%).
The devil
This leads the IMF to say that governments should pay more attention to clearly presenting the possible options in the fight against global warming as well as their costs and benefits. They should also take more care in the design of their control measures so that they are well adapted to the particular reality of their country and that they generate the most positive effects possible.
“The devil is in this conception of the measures”, observe the authors of the report, taking up in their own way a well-known English expression.