Acting for the climate, a categorical imperative

France is experiencing one of the hottest summer solstices in nearly a century. With daytime temperatures reaching 38°C in some places, tropical nights not dropping below 20°C, and many departments on heatwave alert, the weather event is not unprecedented, but its early occurrence and intensity constitute a new warning about the climate disruption at work.

Once extremely rare, these phenomena are becoming increasingly frequent and increasingly problematic for human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. The factual evidence of the effects of climate change, supported by science, is clearly not sufficient to provoke the mobilization that is required of everyone to both adapt to it and, above all, counter its consequences by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Climate inaction translates into the international community's inability to meet its own commitments. A group of renowned scientists has just confirmed that the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, set under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, will not be met. Rather than leading us into defeatism, this observation should, on the contrary, encourage us to redouble our efforts.

Certainly, the battle is off to a bad start. The US administration is living up to its climate skepticism by ramping up attacks on science and low-carbon policies. Global coal and oil consumption continues to rise. Increasing numbers of voices in Europe are calling for a slowdown in the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In France, ecological planning is floundering, the global warming adaptation plan is falling behind schedule, and climate measures are being unraveled one by one.

A segment of public opinion, encouraged by the prevailing populism, has fallen into denial and renunciation. Faced with a complex issue, it is not difficult for demagogues to guarantee our immediate comfort by clinging to obsolete models, to the detriment of the planet's medium-term habitability. The moratorium on renewable energy, passed on June 19 in the National Assembly by the right and the far right, in the midst of a heatwave, shows that there are no limits to cynicism, demagogy, and blindness.

To overcome this difficult period, it is essential to understand the reasons behind it in order to build a narrative capable of driving new momentum. This narrative must place greater emphasis on the benefits associated with the transition (energy savings and therefore gains in purchasing power, a more pleasant living environment, energy independence), encourage the progress already made in reducing greenhouse gases, and more concretely assess the cost of climate inaction.

Finally, the acceptance of public policies must involve adapting efforts to the constraints of each individual based on income and place of residence, which requires freeing up resources to implement genuine social support despite budgetary constraints. It is under these conditions that the ecological debate will be able to emerge from the polarization in which it is trapped. The increase in extreme climate events reminds us that this is becoming increasingly urgent.