The most recent IPCC report of 3,949 pages, published last August, a synthesis of around 14,000 scientific publications, points to (some would say “once again!”) A climatic cataclysm.
In its report, the IPCC describes the evolution of future temperatures according to five different socio-economic trajectories. Remember that the Paris Agreement aims to limit the increase in global global temperature to 1.5 ° C by 2100. In four emission scenarios out of five, we will exceed the global warming threshold of +1.5 ° C in the near future (between 2021 and 2040) and will remain above this threshold until the end of the century.
The fifth and most optimistic scenario predicts that we will reach the 1.5 ° C rise in the 2030s, followed by a peak of +1.6 ° C, before dropping back to 1.4 ° C at the end. of the century. But this scenario assumes a gigantic amount of negative emissions during the XXIe century. The problem is that we know that the technologies needed to generate negative emissions (like carbon capture) in this order of magnitude do not exist, are extremely expensive (the equivalent of $ 800 per tonne), or never have. been tested on this scale (we are in pilot or specific projects).
Conclusion: limiting global warming to +1.5 ° C will no longer be possible without an immediate and general reduction in GHG emissions.
So there you have it for the facts.
What this situation implies is clear: we are no longer in a world of mitigation where, for example, impacts are prevented through carbon taxes, but now in a world of adaptation where, the extent of the damage is too far advanced. , we must now think about protecting the most vulnerable from climate disturbances and financing this social protection through substantial taxation.
We must therefore act urgently using levers over which we have control. These two levers are as follows: exit from fossil fuels and exit from growth.
The tyranny of GDP
Indeed, the various projections of the IPCC command us to abandon the objective of growth and especially the use of GDP as a gauge of collective well-being. GDP growth is strongly correlated with GHG emissions and the exploitation of natural resources. We must therefore get rid of the “tyranny of GDP” (according to economist Éloi Laurent) and measure the well-being of the population based on indicators promoting human well-being and a reduction in inequalities. This work on new indicators of well-being is moreover already well under way in a good number of international institutions.
A question remains, however: who should bear the burden of exiting the crisis? Remember that 10% of countries are responsible for 80% of global GHG emissions. The Earth does not warm up in the same way everywhere, and the vast majority of people most affected by climate change (heat waves, forest fires, tornadoes, floods, etc.) have more or less responsibility for them. GHG emissions. Responsibility is therefore not equal, it is a matter of basic climate justice.
This is where the unprecedented role that COP26 in Glasgow is expected to play in November lies. Faced with the urgent need to operationalize the three elements that I have exposed above (leaving fossil fuels, exiting growth, assigning responsibility for the transition), we need strong, immediate and permanent initiatives. The minimum results obtained at this climate high mass should therefore be as follows …
Agree on the principle of global CO2 taxation2, just as we did recently for the principle of a minimum global taxation of 15% of corporate profits. The situation is similar: global problem, global solution.
Agree on a distribution of the remaining emissions between countries (the famous remaining “carbon budget”, a simplified way of evaluating the quantity of CO2 that can be released before reaching a given warming level). These remaining emissions would, in turn, be distributed among the different socio-economic groups (individuals, rich, poor, businesses, etc.) in each of the countries.
As climate scientist Zeke Hausfather of the Breakthrough Institute rightly points out, “If we reduced emissions to zero tomorrow, the world would probably stop warming. The question of how quickly we can realistically reduce emissions is a question of politics and economics, not of physical science ”. The fight against climate change mobilizes unprecedented resources. We must go beyond the eternal “there is no planet B” and go well beyond cosmetic ecology.
Achieving a double consensus on the principle of a global carbon tax and a distribution of emissions responsibilities in Glasgow would finally represent a significant and unprecedented step towards a lasting resolution of the climate crisis.
Watch video
Reference-feedproxy.google.com