Everyone agrees: Prime Ministers Trudeau and Legault, Canadian oil companies and the chambers of commerce too: carbon neutrality must be achieved by 2050.
It has become a prerequisite for being a responsible leader. But do we really achieve what we promise? Not quite, we conclude by reading Escape from Overshoot by Canadian economist Peter A. Victor. He demonstrates, with supporting figures, that the required energy transition would amount to a quasi-revolution.
“It will be more difficult than our elected officials let us believe,” summarizes in an interview this former deputy minister of the Environment in Ontario, who became a professor at York University and a sought-after speaker at UN climate summits.
Carbon neutrality is the stage where the greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted are equivalent to those absorbed by ecosystems such as forests.
To achieve it, our governments promise green growth. This can refer to an absolute reduction of GHGs. But we also use the term to talk about a relative reduction in GHGs – for example, a technology that reduces emissions per barrel of oil while increasing the total production of barrels, which nevertheless translates into a total increase GHGs.
For the moment, it is this second scenario that is being observed.
Optimists hope that technological progress will accelerate. Enough for GDP to increase at the same time as GHGs decrease. This phenomenon is called “decoupling”. In Quebec, it exists. But at a rate that remains insufficient to achieve carbon neutrality.
“The longer we wait, the greater the effort required,” explains Mr. Victor by videoconference.
How much? Here is his calculation of what is required to achieve carbon neutrality in 2050. If GDP increases annually by an average of 3%, this means that emissions must fall by 10.6% each year. With 2% growth, the annual reduction is expected to be 9.7%.
What Quebec took 35 years to accomplish, it should now do so every year, until 2050. As for Canada, it should annually beat the reduction obtained during the pandemic. A monumental feat when you know that each additional reduction becomes more difficult.
For comparison, only one OECD country has already reduced its emissions by 10% in one year. This was Romania, and it kept this pace for only three years.
No country today comes close to this pace. And the more we postpone the effort, the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. And therefore, the greater the reductions required to stabilize the climate will be.
The English daily The Guardian surveyed 380 collaborators of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Barely 6% of them believe that the 1.5 degree target is still achievable. The majority – 77% – predict warming exceeding 2.5 degrees.
Even if everything indicates that 1.5 degrees will be exceeded, every degree counts. Especially since the climate is not a linear system. It is very complex, with feedback loops and tipping points. For example, if the ice cap melts, ocean levels rise, which absorbs more of the sun’s rays and accelerates warming.
The colors of growth
To avoid the confusion of the expression “green growth”, Victor broadens the color palette. He distinguishes between these different growths:
- Dark green: relative reduction of GHGs compared to GDP and absolute reduction of GHGs to remain below the level of 350 ppm.
- Pale green: relative reduction of GHGs compared to GDP and absolute reduction, however exceeding the level of 350 ppm.
- YELLOW : relative reduction in GHGs compared to GDP and absolute increase.
- Red : relative increase and absolute increase in GHGs.
If we measure since the 1990s, Canada is in the yellow and Quebec, in the pale green. None comes close to the dark green required for the carbon neutrality promised.
And neither seems willing to speak frankly about what reaching that target requires. Nor the cost of its failure.
“There is a sort of generalized denial,” laments Mr. Victor.
Who to blame? The usual answer goes something like this: Our leaders are incapable of thinking beyond the next election.
Without being false, this criticism is too easy. After all, elected officials respond to citizens’ demands. And even if scientists are right to think in the long term, elected officials also have an immediate responsibility towards citizens. Every spring, as a journalist, we experience it. Governments table their budgets which expose the difficult choices made to finance public services.
The welfare state is crumbling everywhere. How can we protect education and health and help the poor while moving closer to carbon neutrality?
Peter A. Victor takes this challenge seriously. “As an economist, my role is to clarify the choices available to us. »
The first step, according to him, is to get out of the false choice between the status quo and a green shift. “It’s an illusion. There is no neutral position. Our current model comes with a cost. And the more time passes, the more this cost increases. »
To be convinced, we only have to trust the projections of insurers, who foresee billions in losses due to the intensification of floods, forest fires and disrupted harvests.1.
In his work, Mr. Victor models scenarios for unemployment rates, development of renewable energies and debt which would be compatible with carbon neutrality. Its curves go out to 2070. “I spent a lot of time calculating that! You can’t just scare people. We need to show what a serious solution would look like. »
The key is to take it one bite at a time, highlighting each concrete step forward, instead of only thinking about a long-term goal that seems unattainable and then giving in to discouragement. But more concretely, what do we start with?
First, set a “carbon budget”, i.e. a cap on global GHG emissions.
Then, distribute this effort between countries. And also between citizens within countries. Because not everyone has the same responsibility, and therefore the same duty.
The richer an individual is, the more he tends to consume, and therefore to pollute. François Delorme, former chief economist at Industry Canada and professor at the University of Sherbrooke, recalls in an interview the extent of these inequalities. “The top 10% of emitters are responsible for 45% of global emissions,” says Mr. Delorme, who collaborates on Mr. Victor’s research.
2X
Between 1990 and 2019, the richest 1% of humanity emitted twice as many GHGs as the poorest half.
French economist Thomas Piketty recommends progressive carbon pricing. It would exempt people with low income and moderate consumption. But she would punish the gluttons.
MM. Delorme and Victor are in favor. They also remind us that for poor countries, growth remains necessary. For them, degrowth is not an objective. Instead, they suggest focusing our attention on something else.
Even if growth is linked to quality of life, it is not the only factor, recalls Mr. Victor. Consumption should take up less space in the economy. In return, investments should increase. Especially those that help reduce our carbon footprint.
The market alone will not find the solution, Mr. Victor insists. The State must support investments in research and development.
The best minds should solve the collective problems of humanity instead of developing schemes to enrich themselves on the stock market or to plunder Internet users’ data for the benefit of advertisers and thus turn the wheel of consumption.
To those who see heresy in this economic dirigisme, he responds that this is how the United States created the ancestor of the Internet in the early 1970s.
The fact remains that technology will not be enough, warns Mr. Victor. “Politicians are relying on future technologies to achieve carbon neutrality. They will indeed be crucial. But as my calculations show, they won’t arrive fast enough. »
And they will be extremely expensive, adds François Delorme. The average cost to capture a ton of CO2 is valued at around $1,000, he recalls. This is 15 times more expensive than the price currently imposed by our carbon market. Economically, it is not efficient.
MM. Victor and Delorme warn of the rebound effect – when efficiency makes energy less expensive and thus encourages us to use it more. One example among others: since our cars consume less gasoline, manufacturers have taken the opportunity to make them bigger, which reduces or eliminates the energy savings.
According to Mr. Victor, current technology could be enough to achieve carbon neutrality. What is missing is, first of all, social innovation. Or to imagine new ways of inhabiting the territory, of feeding oneself, of sharing resources and of organizing the economy. In short, consume better and consume less.
Getting this shift accepted is a colossal challenge. The yellow vest crisis in France shows the danger of imposing reform without protecting the most vulnerable. Misinformation, discouragement and denial are also pitfalls.
“But I take some optimism from the COVID-19 pandemic,” says Mr. Victor. It showed that we were capable of profoundly and quickly changing the organization of our societies, based on the common good. It is this feeling of shared duty that we need to rediscover. »
1. Read the Insurance Bureau of Canada report
Escape From Overshoot – Economics For A Planet In Peril
New Society Publishers, 2023
320 pages
The Canadian economist surveys the genesis of the debate on economic growth and then evaluates, with supporting figures, the ecological consequences. It then has the great merit of modeling crisis exit scenarios. This textbook-like book stands out for its clarity and conciseness, with numerous tables to facilitate reading.