We have to be realistic “.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
This is what too many politicians repeat to justify doing as little as possible in the face of climate change.
This posture comes in an unbearable litany of excuses.
We must be realistic, the planet will still need a lot of oil.
You have to be realistic, people care about their car.
We must be realistic, red meat will remain in our diet.
We have to be realistic, air travel is part of our way of life.
To be clear, I have nothing against realism. It is a rich philosophical school. Basically, it posits that reality exists independently of our minds. Regardless of our moods, there is something outside of us: the physical world that obeys its own laws.
One can accuse a melting glacier of lacking pragmatism, but it will continue to liquefy with its usual insubordination.
So-called realists should have the courage to finish their sentences.
It would look something like:
Let’s be realistic, we prefer to still consume a lot of oil, even if part of Miami or the Dalhousie sector in Old Quebec will be submerged and even if millions of refugees will leave countries like Bangladesh, which have become uninhabitable.
Let’s face it, the right to a burger is sacred, even if it will make droughts worse and inflate food prices.
Let’s face it, solo driving will remain the preferred mode of transportation, even though it will accelerate urban sprawl, destroy farmland and weaken our food sovereignty.
And let’s be real, people won’t cut back on their trips abroad, even if it does increase the number of extreme episodes like the recent wildfires in British Columbia and 40-degree summer days in Montreal.1.
Formulated in this way, our choices would at least be accepted.
A bit like people in mourning, climate skeptics have walked.
At first they denied climate change. Then they recognized them, but doubted that the human was responsible. Now they admit the phenomenon while minimizing its consequences.
Do not be “alarmist”, they say. But it is not alarmism if the threat is real.
True, alarmism can become a problem. Beyond a certain threshold, fear paralyzes.
This is why this new IPCC report is crucial. It shows concretely what can be done2.
It is both a source of hope and anger. If the solutions are known, why don’t we adopt them? Especially since the crisis is not linear. A small rise causes big damage. Every tenth of a degree of warming avoided is a victory. Every gesture counts.
In a new analysis, the Chair of Energy Management of HEC Montreal considers the plan of Quebec “appalling”. The measures in place have “largely failed to achieve their objective”, it reads.3.
Pierre-Olivier Pineau, holder of the Chair, is not impressed by the federal plan either. On average, a 10% increase in the price of gasoline results in a 1% drop in consumption. Carbon pricing, which will be $170 in 2030, will not be enough. It will not even match the green taxes already in place in Europe.
He also regrets the lack of action for rail transport, carpooling and energy efficiency. Canada does not require owners to disclose building performance. It’s hard to improve what you don’t measure.
Our elected officials do not even dare to enforce the current laws. The CAQ government lets megapigsties bypass the BAPE – since the limit is 4,000 head, a promoter has submitted three projects in Saint-Adelphe with 3,999 animals…
Of course, realism demands that we also assess the cost of green policies. The IPCC report talks about it.
In paragraph C.12.2, it is specified that limiting warming to 2 ℃ will lower GDP by 0.14 percentage points on average per year. And that’s without considering the savings thanks to natural disasters avoided. In “most of the studies reviewed”, not acting would therefore cost us more.
However, this “we” is not inclusive. Wealthy people have the means to protect themselves. They will be less victims while being more responsible. The richest 10% of humanity are responsible for about 40% of historical greenhouse gas emissions.
If well designed, green policies can target them. The Parliamentary Budget Officer calculates that when the price of carbon triples in 2030, the poorest quintile will still receive a check for more than the extra cost at the pump4.
This should be said to those who claim to speak for the ordinary world.
Our attitude makes me think of a village facing a bridge-dam about to give way.
The local elected official says: we must be realistic, people will not stop driving on the bridge, and even if they did, motorists from the neighboring town will continue to pass by. He is thinking of creating a shuttle bus to circumvent the obstacle while promising not to “pollute” the lives of motorists. He then distributes a few bags of sand in anticipation of the disaster. Either way, his constituents live up the hill.
Then, like a modern Moses, he stands against the dam, ordering the waters to recede. In his head, it works. Just long enough, at least, to win his next election.
From the height of their pragmatism, these self-proclaimed champions of moderation condemn fatalism and impotence. They offer only one rhythm of action: the one that goes at the speed of their interests.
Our collective failure comes partly from there. But alas, it also comes from deeper causes. The inability to project ourselves into the future to imagine the consequences of our actions.
It is both a lack of realism and imagination.
1. Thanks to Alain Bourque, CEO of Ouranos, and Eddy Pérez, from Climate Action Network Canada, for helping me find these examples.