This article is part of a special operation, in collaboration with Les Shifters, an association of volunteers who support the think tank The Shift Project, a specialist in energy transition.
Are the programs of the 2022 presidential candidates compatible with the Paris agreement? As global warming intensifies, this is the question franceinfo wanted to answer, in collaboration with Les Shifters, an association of volunteers linked to the think tank The Shift Project, founded by the member of the High Council for the Climate Jean-Marc Jancovici. Each of the twelve programs has been analyzed in detail. How did they work? What are the main lessons of this analysis? Three Shifters and Jean-Marc Jancovici detail their approach and draw up an initial assessment on franceinfo.
Franceinfo: How did you conduct this program analysis?
Marie Dumoulin, member of the Shifters: We first chose a benchmark to assess these programs: the National Low Carbon Strategy (SNBC), which is the French translation of the Paris Agreement and our roadmap, sector by sector. It’s a bit of the ba-ba to respect our climate commitments. The future president will have to initiate his reforms in line with this strategy.
We then decided to rely on the written proposals, presented by the candidates on their site or in their program, because these are the ones that engage them the most. We considered all proposals that had a favorable or unfavorable impact on the climate, regardless of whether they were labeled green or not.
We crossed with the SNBC. The idea was to see if it went in the direction of this strategy or if it was antagonistic. Then, we tried to qualify the measures, to see what levers the candidates relied on. For example, we looked at whether they bet on technology or sobriety, on incentives or obligations. About sixty volunteers worked on this project for two months.
What did you learn from this work?
Laurent Mercey, member of The Shifters: Many programs talk about decarbonization by 2050, but none covers all the orientations of the SNBC. With the lack of precision on the measures and the way in which they intend to implement them, one can still largely question the ability of the candidates to achieve their ambition. Have they given themselves the means to implement it? It doesn’t show. Conversely, we identify a certain number of mutually antagonistic measures. This shows that the subject is not taken in a global way.
Jean-Marc Jancovici, president of the Shift Project: What emerges from all the programs is that there are not many people who are beyond reproach in their understanding of the problem at hand. Where there are differences between them is in the understanding of the issues related to climate change. On the other hand, on the place of energy in our economy and the issues of sobriety, they are all on the same level: they have not understood. Afterwards, I am not able to tell the difference today between those who have not understood the issue and those who have understood very well, but do not want to say so. It’s probably a mix of the two.
We also do not feel among the candidates the ability to propose a program that resists one or two big blows of fate per mandate, such as a war in Europe or confinement. They continue to be in software where the crisis is the fault of bad luck, while climate change and energy supply will cause it. We can clearly see today with Russia that there is a subject on the supply of fossil fuels even though they would not cause global warming. This blind spot on supply is even stronger among the candidates than that on the climate.
Looking at your analysis, we can see that the candidates rely more on technological innovation and incentive than on sobriety and obligation. How do you explain it?
Jean-Marc Jancovici: In general, the candidates find it very difficult to promise “blood and tears”. It’s easy when you’re in power, but harder when you’re a candidate. The idea that we will have to do with less means is very complicated to put forward in the context of an election which is still an escalation of promises. It’s hard to say “I promise you less”. This requires a lot of tact and a very fine knowledge of the problem to be treated.
On the incentive and the obligation, it comes down to asking if we have the time to make this transition or if we don’t have the time and we have to plan, therefore constrain people a little. To plan is to restrict our degree of freedom in the short term against an increase in our freedom and our security in the medium-long term. We have all planned while studying. When you are a child, you are forced to go to school: you cannot play football or roll around in the mud all day. You go to school in exchange for greater freedom of choice for your adult life. It is exactly the same for our society. We have to agree to constrain ourselves in the short term to give ourselves more choice and comfort in the longer term.
>> Ona scrutinized the programs of the presidential candidates to see if they respect the Paris agreement
Which sectors are the least covered by the candidates in their programs?
Pierre-Louis Vernhes, member of the Shifters: The candidates did not take the measure of the important issue on the forest-wood sector, on carbon capture or the materials of the future. The other element that doesn’t show up in a lot of programs is the idea that you need an organized plan to resolve this issue. The transformation must be done quickly and requires organization. Another lack that can be mentioned is training. These changes will require a large number of professional retrainings, and we do not see in the programs the means to support the sectors that will have to retrain. Finally, on the agriculture side, few candidates are aware that meat is the main component of the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Conversely, which sectors are the most tackled?
Pierre-Louis Vernhes, member of the Shifters: For buildings, thermal renovation is present in most programs. For transport, the promotion of the electric car is fairly widely shared. Several candidates are also proposing to invest in rail. On agriculture, there is an awareness of the fact that half of our fruits and vegetables are imported and that there is the possibility of repatriating this production to France. Industrial relocation is also present for many. Afterwards, does it completely cover these subjects? No, that’s where the limits are.
Marie Dumoulin, member of the Shifters: The sectors treated are those where there is a little consensus, where there is already an awareness and which are the least harmful in terms of changing habits. Mobility is extremely important both in terms of emissions and on a daily basis. We have clearly seen that we cannot increase fuel prices like that. It is therefore necessary to accompany him, but the candidates are very cautious on these questions.
Looking at these programs, are you optimistic that France will achieve its climate goals?
Laurent Mercey, member of The Shifters: If we were completely pessimistic, we would not have embarked on this work. Corn it is not by watching the programs that we are optimistic, it is rather by looking at what is happening around. The change will not come so much from the president or the president in place as from the pressure which will be exerted on him or her, the pressure of public opinion or crises. We must keep hope.
Find below the climate analyzes of the candidates’ programs:
>> Ona scrutinized the programs of the presidential candidates to see if they respect the Paris agreement
>> The programs of Nathalie Arthaud, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, Anne Hidalgo, Yannick Jadot, John Lassalle, Marine Le Pen, Emanuel Macron, Jean-Luc Melenchon, Valerie Pécresse, Philippe Poutou, Fabien Roussel and Eric Zemmour are they in line with France’s climate objectives?