“The last chance meeting”, “avoiding a global catastrophe”, “saving humanity”… At the opening of the traditional annual UN climate conference – the famous “COP” -, the pattern is always the same: weeks of warnings about the climate emergency before the event. Then endless negotiations and an agreement often adopted in extremis. And, in the end, few changes. So much so that François Hollande believes that there is “not much to expect” from the 27th edition, which opens this Sunday in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.
Yet it was the former President of the Republic himself who had worked on the Paris agreement, sealed in 2015 at the end of COP21. The text, signed by 197 countries, had set the ambition of limiting the rise in global temperature to below 2°C compared to the pre-industrial era. Seven years later, we are still far from this commitment. Global warming could reach 2.6°C by the end of the century given current commitments to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the UN said last week. This raises questions about the very usefulness of COPs.
The countries sitting at one and the same table
If François Gemmene recognizes that the objectives are still far from being achieved, the political scientist, co-author of the latest IPCC report, is formal: these annual conferences are absolutely necessary. “They are to climate governance what the Council of Ministers is to governance in France,” he gives as an example. Especially since these meetings still have good years ahead of them: “We can criticize the format, because there are a lot of improvements to be made, but it is a negotiation that will last over time. We will suffer from climate change at least until the end of the century. There will be COP30, 40, maybe even 50”.
For the one starting in Sharm el-Sheikh, as for the next ones, the challenge – and the interest – is indeed international cooperation. “If France reduces its emissions but not China, it does not change anything, the impacts will be the same. We need coordinated action from all countries,” says Aurore Mathieu, international policy manager for the Réseau Action Climat (RAC). According to her, these annual meetings establish a kind of accountability between the countries, which can force them to act: “The important thing is the implementation of the objectives of each country. They meet around the same table and must present their report. Inevitably, they push each other.
Arguments brushed aside by Greta Thunberg. Describing these conferences as “greenwashing machines and communication operations”, the Swedish environmental activist said that she would not be attending this 27th edition. “The time for small steps is over and we need drastic changes,” she said in London during the presentation of her Climate ledger, on October 30. But for Jérôme Santolini, director of research at the Commissariat for Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies (CEA), the COP cannot be reduced to a communication operation: “The countries of the South are not there to play the role, they have vital stakes , urgent, ”he protests. For the scientist, the urgency is no longer so much to convince governments as to constrain them.
A gap between urgency and responses
By wishing to establish this notion of constraint, the expert actually points the finger at the lack of will of the political powers. “If nothing is done, it is neither the fault of the scientists, nor citizens, but those of States and politicians”, he explains. Because between the climate emergency and their actions, there is a real gap, according to him. “The political time is too long, does not give immediate results; this creates a feeling of frustration or inaction”, also considers Aurore Mathieu.
A time lag, therefore, but also on the content of the discussions. One of the “successes” of COP26 in Glasgow, in 2021, was the inclusion of the responsibility of fossil fuels in global warming, recalls François Gemenne. “It was considered a major victory. However, it has been obvious to everyone for several years. There is a complete discrepancy”.
A gap particularly badly experienced by scientists, explains Jérôme Santolini: “They feel betrayed by the extent of their alerts, their commitment to the climate cause, while the decisions of the public authorities do not follow”. Worse still, there is almost a form of guilt for these experts who have been sounding the alarm, often for years: “It’s a lot of work and mental load to think about the future of humanity, a lot weight on the shoulders. Behind, if the public authorities do not act, we feel responsible”. “Today, the alert was understood and heard. It is no longer a question of shouting fire, we must extinguish the fire,” adds François Gemenne.
Admit “a public failure”
Faced with this impasse, some scientists have decided to change tactics. If François Gemenne will make it to COP27, Jérôme Santolini will not. And for good reason, the specialist is part of the “Scientifiques en rébellion” collective, the French little brother of the American group “Scientist Rebellion”. Since 2020, experts from all disciplines have been mobilizing against inaction in the face of climate change through civil disobedience.
Last action to date, October 29 in Munich. That day, about fifteen researchers took over a showroom at BMW headquarters to unfurl banners and throw paint before sticking to an exhibited car. “They first mobilized within their professional framework, produced reports, alerted, but nothing helped. We are inaudible, so we have to make more noise”, justifies the CEA specialist. More radical actions also adopted by environmental associations. In recent weeks, activists from the organization ‘Just Stop Oil’ have attacked works of art, throwing soup, mash and fake blood on paintings, in museums in London, Paris and Berlin.
Describing the COPs as “great masses of self-satisfaction, self-justification, self-indulgence”, Jérôme Santolini asks the public authorities to show action and honesty. Starting by admitting “a collective failure”. “We have to stop saying that we are going to reach 1.5°C, that is not true. With the current commitments, it is more than 2.8°C. We can’t tell that, a form of false confidence in the future and blindness. When we have accepted it, perhaps the warning signal that we are drawing will be really taken seriously by the public authorities”.