“European side and French side, we have a conservative, apathetic approach” of the fight against global warming “which is not likely to print a positive dynamic” in the COP26 negotiations, said Friday, November 5 on franceinfo Clément Sénéchal, climate spokesperson for the NGO Greenpeace France, at the end of the first week of the conference. According to him, the European Union and France “should lead by example and line up announcements that are positive to take the negotiations to the top.”
franceinfo: Is the COP26 already a failure, as the Swede Greta Thunberg denounced?
Clement Sénéchal: No, we will have to wait until the end of the second week when the negotiations will get tough. This week, we still had some positive signals on the fossil fuel front, which is the big issue at this COP. We are waiting for a final decision which points to an exit schedule for greenhouse gas emissions that coincides with an exit from energy. And we have had several initiatives from States which are gradually committing to phase out oil, coal and gas. Afterwards, in detail, we realize that these commitments are not robust enough to fully comply with the objectives of the Paris agreement. We also had a first week marked by a special guest who was the greenwashing. We had these billionaires who came, like Jeff Bezos, the boss of Amazon, to green the image of their business by doing a little climate charity. What is needed now is rather firm political decisions by states. What pulls the negotiations upwards is the unfailing mobilization of youth for the climate. There is also the mobilization of small island states which are the most vulnerable and the most exposed to the impacts of climate change. In particular, we had a very noticed speech by the Prime Minister of Barbados, who recalled that the difference between limiting the rise in temperatures to 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees is the very existence of its territory and the survival of its populations. Afterwards, we have the United States, which is trying a little to get back to the forefront of climate negotiations, which is rather a good thing. On the other hand, on the European side and on the French side, we have a conservative and apathetic approach which is not likely to impart a positive dynamic to these negotiations so far.
Why do you say that the EU and France are apathetic?
Because the European Union has decided to stay a little bit back from this deleterious clash between China and the United States, considering that it was up to them, the two biggest polluters on the planet, to make efforts additional. It cannot work in a context of political and diplomatic crisis. Because the Paris agreement was signed six years ago. The rules of application are still not finalized and greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. And when we look at what is on the table, we see that they will increase by at least 16% in 2030, while the UN says that by then they should be halved. We have a context which is extremely tense and which requires all stakeholders, including the European Union, to make amends and put new things on the table.
Has Europe already made efforts, and should we regret the absence of China from this COP26?
We can point out the absence of China. We can also point out that Emmanuel Macron, president of the so-called international climate champion, was absent during the last three COPs. At some point, you have to put all of that into perspective. The European Union hides disparities between states. For example, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, these are actors today who have a positive role in climate diplomacy, who are making efforts that are notorious. When you look at France, the panorama is very different. Emmanuel Macron came to this COP by being a sort of climate justice critic. The French state has been condemned twice by the Council of State and by the administrative court for faulty failure in the fight against climate change. The reality is mixed within the European Union. It is a block that should lead by example and line up announcements that are positive to take the negotiations to the top.
So should the European Union take the lead?
The European Union should take the lead. She has instruments at her disposal. She announced a green deal. It adopted a climate law which has an objective which is rather ambitious on paper, to reduce 55% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. After that, there are tensions within the European Union, particularly on the issue of energy issue. And this is where France plays a game which is perfectly deleterious. France has deployed pro-gas diplomacy for several years. It is now pushing in a frenzied manner so that, in the green taxonomy, the nomenclature of future energy financing, nuclear and gas are included. So much so that today, she finds herself refusing to sign what was perhaps the most interesting initiative of this first week, that is to say the end of international funding for fossil fuels, only big polluters like Canada or the United States have signed on. France should also be a positive vector in these international negotiations. It is no longer, because it has a completely hazardous energy diplomacy within the European Union.