In the third part of its sixth report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) devotes a whole new chapter to options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that target demand, and therefore consumption (and not just production). He assesses the effect of citizens’ sobriety behaviors on climate change. “Playing on demand would reduce 40 to 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions”, explains Nadia Maïzi, co-author of this chapter and researcher at Mines ParisTech. She says more to franceinfo.
Franceinfo: This is the first time that the IPCC has looked at solutions linked to demand, on the consumer side therefore. Is it an essential lever to fight against climate change?
Nadia Maizi: Until now, we were very focused on solutions related to the offer [comment produire en émettant moins de gaz à effet de serre], but that will not be enough to limit global warming. We must initiate a general movement that associates the potential levers stemming from demand. What must be remembered about our analysis of demand is that, if we manage to put in place a combination of effective policies, improvement of infrastructures and access to technologies which would make it possible to modify the behaviours, then acting on demand would reduce 40 to 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The message is clear: we must exploit these levers and think about what this would lead to in terms of changes in behavior and lifestyles.
Reducing demand means activating the sobriety lever…
We don’t use that word to be more concise. Our analysis is based on the triptych avoid-shift-improvethat is “avoid-change-improve”. That is to say, avoid certain consumption – I limit long-haul flights for example –, keep uses but use less emissive modes to satisfy them – I continue to travel short distances, but instead of using a car, I go on foot or by bike – and finally, satisfy the same demand, but thanks to more efficient technology – I replace my old one car by a less emitting vehicle.
You cite the example of transportation. The IPCC report mentions sixty individual sobriety actions that could limit greenhouse gas emissions from various sectors. What are they ?
In terms of food, it means considering the type of diet or the supply of food through short circuits. It also involves bringing workplaces closer to housing and bringing together basic needs in more concentrated areas. Recycle, repair rather than buy back.
We absolutely have to put things in perspective. What is highlighted is that the 10% of the richest households in the world contribute to around 40% of global emissions, while the poorest 50% contribute to around 15%. So there is a disparity in accountability. Sobriety is conceivable in rich countries, but not in countries where demand is not excessive, where the population simply seeks to satisfy basic daily needs.
To implement these actions, the IPCC report emphasizes that “the motivation of individuals or households (…) is generally low”. In recent months, however, the news has imposed reductions in consumption on the French. This week again, a power outage was avoided in particular thanks to the mobilization of consumers. It’s encouraging ?
Indeed, reducing your consumption does not seem that complicated, since you see fairly quick results. But if the Covid caused a dip in consumption and emissions, habits quickly resumed. The crisis in Ukraine is also generating reductions in consumption, but we do not know whether this is a cyclical or structural change. We see here that these are two crises that affect people, it shows that triggers are needed for us to feel concerned and to act.
We must note that the climate issue does not trigger a change in behavior commensurate with the challenges. The Giec has existed since 1988 and the alerts are a little music that returns to each report. There is a shudder, and then it falls quietly. I wonder how come changes haven’t been implemented for ten or twenty years…As we see that current events can induce change, I am appalled by the fact that the climate crisis does not induce them, except perhaps among younger generations.
Politicians themselves do not seem to take sobriety as a lever for action in the face of this crisis. The analysis of the programs of presidential candidates also shows this. Why do you think?
The political mandates are very short term, the subjects we talk about are very long term. There is undoubtedly an incompatibility between these two temporal dynamics, which makes the debates what they are.
How to change the situation then?
In this report, we also sought to understand what specific type of triggers could bring about these behavioral transformations. Education, information is very important. You have to explain in an educational way what is happening, convince people to take the subject into consideration so that it becomes a priority. It can be for example through influence groups, a proportion of people who push to trigger a general change, with charismatic figures. We can think of Greta Thunberg, who, for example, was a driving force for her generation and older people. And then the pressure will go up to the decision-makers, to the many levels of governance involved, to set up a virtuous circle.