In response to a climate threat attributed to human activity, the 2015 Paris Agreement stipulates that ongoing warming should not exceed 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Attributing the main cause to concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere, only policies aimed at reducing emissions of these gases are considered. Although adaptation to warmer global conditions is possible, as our ancestors already experienced, it is seen as a poor second-best solution, since it would not correct this global warming at its root. The political management of this causa climatica is unprecedented in its means, scope, and implications. The intention to bring the climate under control obviously relates to the usual political hubris, but the policy aimed at eliminating greenhouse gas emissions reflects a desire to exert control over people.

First stage: sounding the alarm.

To implement such a program, a more rigorous framework had to be defined, which the IPCC hastened to do by publishing its SP15 Special Report in 2018. Rather than providing a better understanding of the state of climate science, this report is the manifestation of a political act on the part of engaged scientists. Two strokes of genius in public communication contribute to exacerbating the perception of a situation of crisis and urgency.

The first was to demonstrate the obvious, but under scientific guise. Assuming the axiom that any warming of the climate would be accompanied by harmful consequences, it is logical to think that limiting it to 1.5°C is less bad than 2°C. Living in a warmer climate is therefore deemed intolerable. This is no longer debatable, since “it’s scientific”.

The second stroke of genius was to introduce as a key concept the notion of carbon budget, a term that only technically appeared in the AR5 report of 2013. Models are used to estimate the accumulated mass of CO₂ emissions (or the equivalent of other GHGs) since the beginning of the industrial era that would result in 1.5 °C of global warming. To exceed this budget would be to cross a red line, a violation of the climate code. Why is this brilliant? Because the notion of a budget is deeply ingrained in bureaucracies; here, at last, are quantities that are understandable because they are extensive and manageable, whereas a difference in temperature (e.g., 6°C average difference between Barcelona and Oslo, two livable cities) has never really impressed anyone, not an accountant, not a lawyer, not a politician.

Since every human activity is inextricably linked to the carbon cycle, no one is innocent when it comes to triggering a climate catastrophe. Ton by ton, pound by pound, each of us contributes to the depletion of this budget. Guilt is widespread and measurable, from poorly controlled flatulence to reckless consumption.

Time is running out, whether at the current rate of human activity or at a reduced level, only a few years remain before the irredeemable is committed. Worst-case scenarios, so unrealistic as to be misleading, are presented to paint this devil on the wall. 

Mobilization and surveillance

The time is ripe for mobilization, starting with the invention of a new form of accounting that attributes carbon to everything that is touched or made; even colors are being associated with it, an idiotic and unmusical synesthesia.

Our “1.5 °C budget” is well-defined: as of January 2013, the world still had 250 billion tons of CO₂ to emit, or 31 tons per capita, with a 50% chance of success (climatechangetracker.org). That left two years for the United States to make amends or continue living on credit, as per their habit, six to seven years for the World, eight for the Swiss and 173 for the Ethiopians if they stop developing.

No one can ignore the silliness of these figures, except that they show that the budget will certainly not be met, and by a long shot. That does not stop governments from organizing a carbon chase rather than reviewing their objectives and choice of means; even recently, a court of incompetent – and therefore ill-intentioned – judges blamed Switzerland of not having drawn up a carbon budget, which would have helped this country to comply with human rights. Only the adepts of surrealism do not take offense.

The organization of such tracking system is complex, because it means avoiding double-counting at borders, integrating “carbon content” into every act of daily life and into all investments according to their lifespan and purpose. We are promised a surveillance state, with exact, precise monitoring of our individual consumption, of every move we make, and of the harmful influences we can exert. The most sophisticated technologies and algorithms will be deployed in this manhunt, a form of policing that runs counter to most fundamental rights.

If, for example, on the 20^th of the month you received a message telling you that the distances you had traveled exceeded your monthly budget, you would have to remain confined to your home – the 2020-2021 experiment having shown the feasibility of this coercion – or you could buy a “km credit” from an Ethiopian on a duly taxed exchange platform. These are not unexpected consequences, but rather the intention of their instigators to establish such a surveillance state. The Komintern will be succeeded by the “Climintern”, with technology added.

Results are still a long way off.

In itself, this accounting does nothing to modify the evolution of the climate. There is no guarantee that this Orwellian world will enjoy milder global or local temperatures. Nothing suggests that you and I, the guilty party, can change at will our energy supply patterns, because we are all captives of an established market, made up of large infrastructures with great inertia. To build today a solar panel, a wind turbine, a heat pump, an electric car or bicycle, 88.7% (World average, Energy Institute 2022 figures) of the primary energy consumed must come from fossil fuels.

In short, this carbon surveillance serves no purpose except to hold people hostage and create anxiety. That is what the planet-saving do-gooders are aiming for. Thus, we must be wary of them like the plague.

Rather than counting the number of legs, ears and teats of the herd to assess its size, a simpler metric can be used, counting only what is important: heads. To track progress in building a low-carbon energy infrastructure, simply track trade in coal, oil and gas, and record deforestation. There is no need to blame and shame everyone for this. But it sounds too easy, too simple, and requires no global governance, bureaucracy, or other COP.

However, measuring and budgeting is no action. To make new decarbonized infrastructures available to consumers, the broadest possible regulatory framework must be offered – lifting restrictions rather than imposing idiotic ones. This will ensure that the best solutions can compete fairly. The others can disappear with no regrets: those that without massive and ongoing subsidies are not viable and merely increase the cost of energy supply. However, adequate and affordable solutions are only partially known; these include widespread electrification with the use of nuclear power. In other areas – chemicals, cement, plastics, metallurgy, aviation, and maritime transport – decarbonization requires new technologies that are not yet known or affordable.

Never mind, time and human intelligence will work their wonders. Until then, we will have to adapt and tolerate crossing an illusory red line that was set unreasonably.

Merci de partager et de diffuser cet article !