One day in June 2022, François Gemenne suddenly went “from the camp of the good guys to the camp of the bad guys”, as he told us himself when ordering a glass of prosecco in a café in the Madeleine district, in Paris. The fault of the professor at Sciences Po, member of the Giec and ex-adviser of Benoît Hamon then Yannick Jadot, in the eyes of some of the activists of the climate cause? Having taken a Nice-Paris flight, and incidentally being the father of three children. Choices emitting greenhouse gases, incompatible with its commitments, say the activists. A “click” for the researcher, who therefore clearly assumes his differences with the most radical circles of the ecological microcosm.
Five months later, Ecology is not a consensus (Fayard) – a nervous essay of 84 pages – completes the transformation of the university. In this book, François Gemenne, 41, nevertheless defends the action of “determined minorities”, a sort of transposition to the ecology of the political avant-gardes praised by Lenin. These enlightened spheres would be the only ones able to influence “representative democracy”, whose springs – the inclination of voters for their short-term interest, the preference of leaders for what will favor their re-election – combine badly, according to him, with a resolute climate commitment. Along certain lines, when the professor opposes the “urgency” of the situation to the inability to “raise awareness” of the “majority of the population”, one could easily glimpse convergences of analysis with the partisans of “disobedience civil”. A practice that he does not reject completely. However, the researcher calls for getting out of the obsession with “militant purity” and the rejection of capitalism, the effects of which can only be counterproductive, he assures.
L’Express: You defend the influence of “determined minorities” on the climate. The spectacular actions carried out against paintings, such as The sunflowers of Van Gogh, or installations considered ecologically harmful, like the mega-basin of Sainte-Soline, isn’t this exactly the activism you are calling for?
Francois Gemenne: The soup on The sunflowers of Van Gogh caused me a misunderstanding. Of course, it attracts attention and it makes clicks on Internet sites. But activists need to ask themselves the question: is it effective? I think not. This type of action speaks only to privileged circles. We have fun, we reinforce the popularity of his association in environmental circles, but that’s all. When I discuss with Malian or Ethiopian colleagues, they do not understand that we are attacking culture in this way. Ultimately, it would have made more sense ten or fifteen years ago, when the climate issue was unknown. But today, 85% of French people say they are worried about the degradation of the environment. The problem is not knowledge but what I call a state of apraxia: we are aware of the problem but unable to really act to solve it. It is therefore no longer a question of alerting but of convincing that we must evolve.
These activists sometimes draw a parallel with the suffragette movement in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the 20th century. These women obtained the right to vote by dint of sometimes virulent and violent actions.
Would the suffragettes have taken longer or shorter to obtain the right to vote if Mary Richardson had not attacked with a chopper a painting by Velázquez? I think that this type of action can be misunderstood in the population, that the fact of antagonizing is completely counter-productive. You have to talk to hesitant people, rally as many people as possible. It’s like the blocking of the A6 motorway: what relationship with people? What do we want to tell them by making them waste their time? The message is not clear.
These activists believe that individual behavior must change.
I understand that people attack opinion leaders, but I disagree with this way of making people feel guilty. Even the activists who puncture the tires of SUVs, I disagree: we assume that the owner is very rich, but we never know the life of people. The person may have put all of their savings into that car. Basically, this stigma brings this left closer to the neoliberal right: just as the unemployed should be made to feel guilty about their situation, people should be made feel guilty about their practices. But it is up to the political power to lay down the rules, not to the activists to teach the lesson. Besides, one can never be totally pure, totally lead by example. All specialists know that having a dog is disastrous in terms of carbon footprint. The day when the “good guys” go over to the “bad guys” side because they have a pet, it will be weird for them.
Can’t “civil disobedience” prove effective despite everything? In Notre-Dame-des-Landes, the activists obtained the abandonment of the airport by showing their power of nuisance.
The fight against Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport was a success, but not thanks to the black blocks, in my opinion. What worked was that a minority was indeed very determined and that the ZAD attracted the sympathy of the local population. It was this support that made it possible to win the case. Clearly, we need radicality, but without the black blocks, because for a large part of the population they are a compass that points to the south: people do not want to be on the side of those who break, so they take the side reverse, in principle.
What about sabotage actions, such as the cutting of a pipeline on the Sainte-Soline site?
The only type of action that I could support is that which would, on its own, preserve an ecosystem. Prevent an irremediable extraction project, for example. Once again, symbolic sabotage seems very navel-gazing to me: we get people talking about ourselves, but we don’t advance the cause. Moreover, I ask the question: who advances the cause of the climate the most between a saboteur and Emmanuel Faber, the ex-boss of Danone, who tries to convince companies to integrate elements of sustainable development into their figure business? If he succeeds, it will be a major upheaval. On the climate, we must not be sectarian: the situation is too urgent, only the results count.
This discrepancy that you have with the actors of radical ecology, does it not come from the fact that you describe yourself as “liberal” and not them?
Yes, that’s for sure. Today, many radical ecologists are making the collapse of capitalism a prerequisite for climate action. If we have to wait for capitalism to fall, we will never get there. It is a privileged bourgeois reflex, who can bear the consequences of climate change. It is not responsible. I know that I am now seen as an “eco-traitor” by some, but I believe that any progress is good to take. If companies adopt virtuous behavior, even if it is in the pursuit of profit, then it is to be welcomed. That’s how we’ll get out of this.
How could this “climate liberalism” manifest itself?
My idea is that people should be left as much leeway as possible in their behavior, rather than being authoritarian. What would be interesting is to ask people to reduce their carbon footprint, but to let them decide what they want to invest this footprint in. If it’s the plane, if it’s the meat, if it’s a dog. We should also accept that the State cannot do everything, even in climate matters. We have to work with companies, and get out of a discourse of constraint: the practice of cycling has exploded, not because the population wants to limit greenhouse gas emissions, for future generations, but because people realized that it is good for their health. We need to multiply this type of discourse.