François Gemenne deplores “a certain form of anti-green populism”, “almost everywhere in Europe”

While the European Green Deal advocates a fairly radical ecological transition to become the first continent in the world to be carbon neutral, voices are raised against restrictive measures which, according to them, make life impossible, such as the thermal sieves called into question by Édouard Philippe, or the Zero Net artificialization law limiting the concreteization of soils, which Laurent Wauquiez does not want for his region.

>> EDITORIAL. The anti-green positioning of Laurent Wauquiez for the 2027 presidential election

Thus François Gemenne shares with us his concern and his annoyance in the face of an increasingly uninhibited climate skepticism which is rising in Europe.

franceinfo: This week, François, you are a little worried…

François Gemenne: Indeed, because I see, everywhere in Europe, a major offensive against ecological policies. In France, Édouard Philippe says he is opposed to the ban on thermal strainers, Laurent Wauquiez wants to get the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region out of the Zero Net Artificialization law, and it’s not just in France. Almost everywhere in Europe, we see a certain form of anti-green populism flourishing, a real resentment against climate policies, and more generally against environmental protection measures. It is undoubtedly in the Netherlands that the movement is most marked, with an openly anti-green party, the BBB, which is benefiting from excellent polls in the run-up to the elections on November 23.

“Conversely, when we look at the first polls in view of the European elections, it’s a disaster for the environmental parties, while the climate situation is getting worse every day…”

François Gemenne

at franceinfo

What explains this paradox?

There are several explanations I believe. Firstly, a certain form of resentment, particularly among the working classes, faced with the impression that effort is unequally distributed, that we always aim for the same people while others do nothing, and that ecology does not would only be a series of efforts, prohibitions and taxes whose effects we would hardly see. And it is certain that here, we are hardly helped by the physics of the climate…

How so ?

The climate system imposes on us a very large gap in time and space between our actions and the effects of our actions. Because climate change is a problem of stock, of accumulation of greenhouse gases, rather than a problem of flows, and also because the climate does not care whether the emissions come from Paris, New York or Shanghai . So there is no connection between the greenhouse gas emissions that we produce today in Paris, and the impacts of climate change that will occur in Paris tomorrow.

“We do not have the opportunity to directly experience the consequences of our actions, and that is a very big obstacle to overcome…”

François Gemenne

at franceinfo

To say the least ! To change, we need to see the results of the change, right?

Exactly: we are not helped by the physics of climate. Another reason which explains this anti-green reactionary wave, I believe, is also the rise of climate skepticism.

This raises questions, nonetheless. We have the impression that the more visible the impacts of climate change are, the more denial increases. How can you be climate skeptic today?

In any case, the polls are quite clear. According to the institutes, between 34% and 45% of French people do not accept the scientific consensus on the climate: 37% according to Ipsos last April, 43% according to the OECD in June 2022… It’s enormous. And this is particularly marked on Twitter: according to a CNRS study, 30% of active accounts on the subject carry a discourse of denial, which can be very violent and sometimes borders on harassment.

How do you explain that?

First, I believe that we were naive enough to think that the concrete manifestation of the impacts of climate change would naturally extinguish climate denial. It was a mistake, because the climate skeptic offensives of the 1990s and 2000s bore fruit: they did not seek to convince public opinion that climate change did not exist, but that there remained doubts in the scientific community. And so, when we brought the contradiction to the climate skeptics, as they were called then, we added grist to their mill: we gave people the impression that there was a real debate in the scientific community, that there was no consensus. And this remains today: the 35% or 40% of people who say they are climate skeptics do not all deny the reality of climate change, but think that we are not sure of the responsibility of human activities, that there is an element of natural variation, etc.

There are also people who flatly deny reality, right?

It’s certain: some of them are conspiracists, and live in an alternative reality, sometimes thinking that the fight against climate change is the Trojan horse for the establishment of a fascist totalitarian regime.

“There is a very strong political narrative behind the conspiracy, it is not just stupidity.”

François Gemenne

at franceinfo

We can fear that the more marked the effects of climate change are, the more these people will lock themselves into an alternative reality, completely detached from reality… And they will obviously rely on isolated events which reinforce this story: a rainy day will be the a sign that there is no risk of drought, and snow at Christmas will be a sign that climate change does not exist.

You also talked about a third reason: ideology.

Yes. In recent years, the discourse on climate in the public space, including scientific discourse, has sometimes become more militant, more ideological. We saw the instrumentalization of the IPCC’s work, and also a great relativism of expertise, with activists who were willingly presented as objective experts, even as researchers… I think that sometimes, ideological debates on the climate take take precedence over the pragmatic search for solutions, and above all lead a part of the population to reject the scientific consensus: “As I do not share the ideology of those who speak about it, I will reject the climate discourse altogether, including the science on which they are based.” If science becomes a matter of belief, we are on a very dangerous slope, in a democracy…