It is in the legendary café Les Ondes, located a few meters from the imposing Radio France building, that we find the comedian Guillaume Meurice. On June 30, the columnist, like his colleague Charline Vanhoenacker, had to say goodbye to the France Inter daily, “It’s us again! “, benefit of a two-hour Sunday broadcast. However, despite reduced airtime, the one who had collected some sponsorships during the 2022 presidential election, has had a busy start to the school year. So between the release ofa book on vegetarianism and participation in Atmospheres festival on sustainable development, which is being held from October 11 to 15 in Courbevoie (Hauts-de-Seine), Guillaume Meurice spoke about 20 minutes for an hour, speaking in turn about his vision of the capitalist world, the blinders of political decision-makers in the face of the climate crisis and his ambitions for 2027 (or not).
You are sponsor of Atmospheres festival which highlights, by mixing science with art and cinema, ecological solutions and alternatives to the capitalist system. When we talk about today’s world, what annoys you the most?
What pisses me off is what pisses everyone off a little, I think. The fact that we have, as our only compass, money. Any extraterrestrial who saw this from their distant planet would find it completely stupid! The fact that we dare to present ourselves as the most evolved species in the biosphere and that we act in this way seems absurd to me. It is unprecedented, in human history, to have an economic structure that leads us towards our own finitude. Sometimes I tell myself that either the political decision-makers are not aware that this is a disaster. In this case, they are incompetent and that is a problem. Either they know about it, and in this case, it’s worse because it means they’re doing it knowingly.
Is everything really worth throwing away?
No not at all. There are plenty of things to keep. If I had to remember just one thing, it would be the freedom of association of the law of 1901. It is thanks to this that structures like the Restos du coeur and its thousands of volunteers exist, which we are talking about a lot at the moment. . If these people did not exist, there would be no more French society in two weeks! Because we must not be fooled, if the human species still exists today, it is thanks to cooperation between individuals. However, we live in a world that values competition excessively, in all areas.
In your column “The Meurice moment”, then in your “2022” show released at the time of the presidential election, you tackled the climate problem by adding a good dose of humor. Is laughter the best weapon to address this subject?
I have the impression that humor allows you to distance yourself from reality. Which allows for not disgusting breathing. Because ecology and climate are very anxiety-provoking subjects. It’s very “we’re all going to die”, which doesn’t really make you want to laugh. Humor allows you to detach yourself from that a little. And also to make fun of climate skeptic or techno-solutionist speeches.
We often talk about awareness, but I think it’s good, everyone is aware. Now, even Éric Ciotti and Jordan Bardella are forced to take a stand on ecology. However, it was completely out of the media spotlight not so long ago. What is needed now is action, even if I am very wary of the injunction to make efforts. I think we especially need to stop getting up at 5 a.m. to go produce things that are useless. I would tend to advocate naps, discussion, contemplation and sharing.
You are also sometimes much more serious, especially when you talk about the animal cause. You have just released a book entitled “Can we love animals and eat them? “. This question is not obvious…
Smashing animals with rod guns, electrocuting them or gassing them is frankly not very fun. But if you say to people, “Can you please stop doing this?” “, you immediately come across as the boring guy who destroys the barbecue. However, I have been on both sides myself. I haven’t always been vegetarian. I am therefore neither in the judgment of one, nor in the judgment of the other. Even if, clearly, I find it totally contradictory to raise animals and then eat them. We’re still talking about meat production, which is completely crazy! I also tend to say that I have more respect for a hunter who kills his hare and eats it as a stew, than for the person who goes hunting in the frozen section of the supermarket, and who considers himself to be descended from hunter-gatherers. Although, of course, there would be things to say about hunting!
You were present when the glaciologist and paleoclimatologist, Jean Jouzel, addressed the members of Medef on August 29. An intervention from which he emerged exhausted. Is this type of exchange necessary, in your opinion?
It’s a real debate. When Patrick Pouyanné (general director of TotalEnergies) spoke, he was applauded, while when Jean Jouzel spoke, people rolled their eyes. How could it have happened otherwise? I understand Jean Jouzel’s strategy and I find it courageous. Maybe I just wouldn’t have the courage and would be lazy. But there is still little chance that the people opposite, in this forum, will end up saying to themselves, “but yes, obviously, he is right, let’s stop looking for profit”. I can’t imagine them getting off their yachts and admitting to having screwed up. For things to change, constraints will be necessary, it is obligatory. Because capitalism is still a cruel system of domination.
When you released your documentary “Dolphinariums: game over? », last year you described him as “militant” but “not boring”. Has activism become boring today?
You should ask a sociologist! Above all, I think it’s the word that has become boring. When you tell someone “I’m an activist”, the person in front will say: “That’s it, he’s going to try to convince me of something. » This is also why I don’t consider myself an activist. I’m not trying to convince people. I prefer to confront arguments and ideas, because I think we need everyone. Scientists who accurately describe reality, but also activists.
Since Sainte-Soline, last March, a debate emerged on the use of sabotage rather than non-violent actions to push the government to act. If you had to choose, what would it be?
My limit is the physical aggression of being human. For example, I consider that even the boss of TotalEnergies is not completely responsible, philosophically. I am simply for removing his capacity to cause harm as boss of TotalEnergies. But as a person, I have nothing against him. We could even go for a drink.
Afterwards, we live in permanent power struggles. Sabotage is an interesting means of action that allows us to constrain our leaders. And those who use it are quite courageous, because when you see repression in the face, you have to dare to do it.
Guillaume Meurice as a saboteur, what would that look like?
(Laughter) I think there would definitely be humor because it puts everyone on an equal footing. The king is naked and you can make fun of him. This is what we did in the morning on France Inter, with Charline Vanhoenacker, in front of the politicians. And that’s why we don’t do it anymore, anyway. Because it was quite effective. If it was taken away from us, that means we were doing our job well. All this just makes me want to continue doing what I’m doing, to deconstruct these old seized cogs of the Fifth Republic. And who knows, maybe I would run in the 2027 presidential election. I already have some ideas…