To govern, it is said, is to foresee. Political leaders who pretend to realize, with as much acuity as suddenness, the lamentable state of the planet, do not comfort us in an overflowing optimism about the years to come. Indeed, Paris, as the press has echoed daily, can be proud of having hosted the meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This group, officially mandated by the UN, and whose report appears especially intended for “decision-makers,” predicts an inevitable warming of the planet of up to 4 degrees “due to human activities since… 1750”! Therefore, the damage inflicted by society on its environment is not a recent phenomenon. To be convinced of this, one need only read—or for the regular visitors of Nice-Premium, reread—the work of Jared Diamond (see www.nicepremium.fr from September 29, 2006: [Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed](https://www.nicepremium.fr/article/-effondrement-comprendre-le-destin-des-societes.1172.html)) about how societies, through their cultural attitudes and political directions, decide their demise or survival.
The validation, visible from 1989, of a globalization that gave the impression of a total emancipation of the economy from its political oversight should have alerted national leaders. Once the illusion of economic omnipotence was discovered—or pretended to be—the dependence on energy factors and environmental issues became a major concern for growth. Because that is indeed the crux. Who would dare today to constrict—and by what means, moreover?—China or India to limit their expansion to prevent a climatic catastrophe? It’s hard to consider such an idea ethically—as it would mean maintaining entire populations in exclusion and accommodating existing inequalities, imposing it otherwise by an international agency would be pure militaristic utopia. Despite the wishes of those who want, like UNESCO or WHO, to consolidate all environmental agencies within a specialized UN body, the enlightening failures of the WTO, to which this new agency would be indirectly linked by its effects, do not necessarily set a good example for international cooperation.
In an article in “Le Figaro,” former Minister Claude Allègre, a figure always controversial but never short on numbers and ideas, explains that the United States signing the Kyoto Protocol would penalize “the American economy by 370 billion dollars and one million unemployed.” Addressing his compatriots, he adds that drastic ecological measures in France “would mechanically create 200,000 unemployed each year.” One can guess the dilemma of presidential candidates. The visibility of jobs that could be offered by these planet-saving measures is still poorly discerned. The civic reflex of the 3 million French people who turned off their lights for 5 minutes on Thursday, February 1st is inversely proportional to the complexity of the stakes. Suffice it to say that it is as sublime in symbolism as it is negligible in technical consequences. Was it not recently explained in a CERCOM environmental conference by an engineer from the General Council of Alpes-Maritimes that the Nice region could face electricity shortages in summer? The reason? The refusal by the Conseil d’Etat, certainly ecologically argued, to allow the construction of the “Boutre, le Broc, Carros” very high voltage line. A particularly ambiguous victory of the environment over the populations!
Only technological discoveries on renewable energies, coupled with flawless global communication about experiences in this field and whose extensions could immediately benefit everyone, could reduce the risks of a catastrophe. It would still be appropriate to avoid, like in the automotive construction sector, the bitter industrial competitions, always sensitive national issues to the point of hindering these necessary political advancements.
