As the planet comes together at the 26e UN climate conference, one observation remains: the lack of ambition is leading us inexorably towards a crisis unprecedented in the history of mankind. Voices are therefore being raised to demand a real transformation of our societies, but also a questioning of the infinite growth of the economy. Are citizens ready to change the world, so as not to sink with it?
In order to hope to fight effectively against the climate crisis, it will be essential to implement “fundamental changes” that will profoundly transform our daily lives, our diet and our communities. These upheavals also make it necessary to break with the all-out growth model which is the norm today.
These findings do not stem from one of the many environmental groups that have been advocating for such changes for years, but rather from a preliminary version of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is expected during the winter of 2022. This “summary for decision makers”, which has been the subject of a media leak, focuses on the means to be implemented on a very large scale to “mitigate” the global warming.
Noting that global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will have to be reduced to zero in less than 30 years, scientists believe that this goal implies a marked decrease in the demand for energy and resources, which would be “Possible and consistent with the idea of well-being for all”. The IPCC estimates that by acting effectively, global energy demand could be reduced by 40% by 2050 compared to 2018 levels.
This demand, which is still largely met by fossil fuels, will also have to quickly change course, so that 100% of electricity will be produced by sources with a low carbon footprint by 2050, against less 40% today. In this context, the report underlines that investments in fossil fuel infrastructure are financially risky, if we want to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
The report also highlights the need to densify cities, to build neighborhoods as a priority for active mobility and public transport, to protect green spaces in inhabited areas, to promote urban agriculture and to rely on various measures to adaptation, in particular green roofs and green walls. In short, scientists are finding that the vision of urban development that has dominated for decades, including in Quebec, must be discarded.
Finally, the IPCC calls for an unprecedented change in our diet, so that it is based on a “plant-based” diet. This shift “can lead to a substantial reduction in GHG emissions”, of the order of 50% “compared to the current Western diet”, where products of animal origin are ubiquitous. The environmental gains would be enhanced if we reduced “waste”, which represents more than a third of all world food production.
“Decrease”
These numerous challenges to the status quo by climate science have prompted negative comments from some countries who have a say ahead of the adoption of the final report in March 2022. Saudi Arabia, Australia and l India notably called for watering down recommendations on phasing out fossil fuels, while Brazil and Argentina criticized passages focusing on diet change.
Professor in the Department of Management at HEC Montreal, Yves-Marie Abraham on the contrary welcomes the findings of the IPCC. “If we take the ecological problem seriously, the solution is to produce less. So, for the first time, in this report, we tackle the basic idea of degrowth. We need to reduce the quantity of materials and energies we use, but also the quantity of waste we will produce. In short, it means producing less goods and services. As long as we do not offer this, we will be very far from the mark. “
In short, it means producing less goods and services. As long as we do not offer this, we will be very far from the mark.
He also notes that the IPCC notes that there is still no “decoupling” between economic growth and the pressure exerted on the ecological level. “We are not capable of having an economic growth which does not translate into an intensification of this pressure. They keep promising us that it will be for tomorrow, but what we see is that we have never been able to do it globally. When we revive the economy, we revive destruction. “
Researcher at the Institute for Socioeconomic Research and Information, Bertrand Schepper also recalls that the IPCC relies on the most recent scientific data to question the current economic system, based on “infinite growth” in the consumption of energy. energy and raw materials, but also the production of waste. He also underlines that several sectors of the economy would benefit from the proposed transformations, including those related to energy efficiency, public transport, production of vegetable proteins, etc.
The political leaders who will run for the 26e UN Conference of Parties (COP26) will not, however, discuss the idea of breaking with this dogma of growth, adds Mr. Abraham. “Our leaders are very far from that, for reasons that we can understand and which are not simply ideological. Our societies are built on this race for growth. They need growth to function. It is therefore understandable that the leaders hesitate to question it. What does it mean, to produce less and to embark on the path of a decrease in production? It necessarily means reorganizing and profoundly transforming our societies. “
This question of decrease, and therefore of profound upheavals in the economy, must nevertheless arise quickly in the fossil fuel industry. According to the International Energy Agency, all new exploration and exploitation projects should now be banned in order to possibly reduce the place of this heavyweight in the global balance sheet of greenhouse gas emissions.
For now, however, Canada refuses to move in this direction, as the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (at a cost of $ 12.6 billion) progresses and 40 marine boreholes were authorized earlier this year. . The new Minister of the Environment, Steven Guilbeault, also said this week that the Trudeau government did not intend to impose a “cap” on production on the oil and gas industry, but rather a limit on GHG emissions.
However, the industry is currently developing projects, including carbon capture and storage, that would reduce the climate footprint in Canada, in order to maintain and increase production. It even promises to be “carbon neutral” by 2050. A “false” speech, according to Yves-Marie Abraham. “We are in a world which is based on an ever-increasing production of goods and we are told that the solution is to produce green goods so that everything goes well. But this is not true. However you go about it, when you produce more, you degrade more. “
Room for change?
Professor of the Environment Institute of UQAM, Louise Vandelac believes that, to get out of what she considers a “denial” of the reality of the climate crisis, “governments should be more accountable. Of their commitments. According to her, this could make it possible to force them to conduct a science-based assessment before promoting projects such as the “third link”, but also to respect their climate targets. In both Quebec City and Ottawa, no GHG emission reduction target set in recent years has been met. “It is a situation which can only arouse cynicism among citizens”, deplores Mme Vandelac.
What is more, there is still a lot of educational work to be done in Quebec on global warming, notes Pénélope Daignault, professor in the Department of Information and Communication at Laval University. “There is a great lack of knowledge of the issues and the impacts of actions taken by individuals. One in five people say they know nothing about climate issues and the impact of certain actions on the climate. People also tend to overestimate the contribution of their individual actions in favor of the fight against climate change ”, explains the one who heads the project of the“ Climate action barometer ”, which is based on consultations carried out in different regions.
Mme Daignault argues that citizens very often take action to relieve themselves of guilt. “People may, for example, think it’s okay to fly a few times a year because they recycle and buy local products. But it is not an equivalent compensation. “
People may, for example, think it’s okay to fly a few times a year because they recycle and buy local products. But this is not equivalent compensation.
At present, it therefore appears difficult to convince Quebecers to fundamentally change their habits, as suggested by the IPCC, notes Pénélope Daignault. “Beyond one-off individual actions, certain necessary actions would involve changing lifestyle habits. It is a major brake. It’s not like recycling a plastic bottle. For example, people are generally not ready for the idea of not owning a car, ”she explains.
A finding shared by the holder of the chair in energy sector management at HEC Montréal, Pierre-Olivier Pineau. “When you look at vehicle sales, real estate purchases, the proliferation of objects in homes, and even the bacon craze in chicken sandwiches and other sandwiches, I have a hard time picking up the signal that citizens are ready for change. On the contrary, we seem ready for more, ”he said.
When you look at vehicle sales, real estate purchases, the proliferation of items in homes, and even the bacon craze in chicken sandwiches and other sandwiches, I have a hard time picking up the signal that citizens are ready for change.
According to him, however, this is not inevitable. “If we give ourselves the means to unite around different lifestyles, we will find many advantages: better health, less payment constraints for vehicles that are almost always parked and more money to consume services. without environmental footprint: education, culture, vegetarian gastronomy, psychological care, personalized health care, etc. In short, enough to have a more balanced and green society. “