Jean Jouzel: “We are going against the wall because we already know that emissions will continue to increase between now and 2030”

What is your assessment of this COP26?

The results are mixed. On the one hand, there has been no progress on the two main objectives of COP26: raising the ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and finding funding for adaptation in developing countries. . The lack of progress on crucial subjects erases progress on some technical points. In addition, these results are weighed down by the atmosphere of this COP26, which we note the lack of momentum. We saw it at the end with the last-minute turnaround on the elimination of the coal. Instead of aiming for the end of coal, which is nevertheless one of the major challenges in the fight against greenhouse gases, the final text mentions its reduction. Obviously, China and india did not accept that this relates specifically to the coal and not on all fossil fuels.

What are the weaknesses of the Glasgow Pact?

This COP is a failure on greenhouse gas reduction targets. It is terrible to write in the text that it is necessary to reduce them by 45% while knowing that they will increase by 15% by 2030. We are going in the Wall, because we already know that the emissions are going keep increasing by 2030. Before COP26, with the announcements leading up to the summit, we were on a path of warming below 3 degrees. However, COP26 did not lead to any new reduction announcements. In 2030, all the possibilities of CO emissions will have been exhausted.₂ to which we are entitled to limit warming to 1.5 ° C. By 2030, we will have twice as many emissions as we need.

Despite everything, can the consideration of methane and the call to reduce the use of coal be seen as progress?

Sector commitments on deforestation, the methane and transport are positive, but the advances of COP26 mainly concern the rules ofapplication of the Paris Agreement. They are finalized, it was not won. These are technical points on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, on the credit problem carbon or on the transparency. These are very important technical points and this is what matters to negotiators.

I would also like to underline that this COP26 marked a change because we went from 2 ° C which was at the heart of the Paris Agreement to 1.5 degrees. TO Glasgow, we only talked about limiting the warming to 1.5 ° C. This shows that the scientific observation is fully accepted, at least on the front, by political decision-makers thanks in particular to the IPCC report on the difference between a world at 2 degrees and a world at 1.5, published in 2018 at the request of the COP21 from Paris.

It shows that it will indeed be more difficult and costly to adapt to a world at 2 degrees. This ambition was passed on in speeches and announcements since to achieve this, the objective of the carbon neutrality by 2050 is developing, whereas it was not included in the Paris Agreement in 2015. The carbon neutrality was formalized 3 years ago and today 80 countries have subscribed to this objective of carbon neutrality.

The possibility given to States to propose new contributions decided at the national level next year, is it a step forward to enhance ambition or on the contrary a smokescreen to “save time” by promising to do better later?

This risks being a smokescreen since, despite the commitments, we are already heading towards a 15% increase in emissions. Not to mention the fact that everyone is based on the assumption that the commitments made will be kept. There is currently no certainty on this. For 15 years, specialists in weather say that 2020 will be a pivotal year and that the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions must begin.

I would like to see in a positive way, but each time the reality is that it does not move forward. All efforts are worth taking. However, it is not because there is an invitation to revise climate commitments upwards that the States will be there next year. Let’s wait and see how it turns out at the next two climate conferences, knowing that the dynamics of reduction of fossil fuels may not be present in Egypt in 2022 nor in the United Arab Emirates in 2023. We cannot blame countries in advance.

What do you think will be the top priority for the next climate negotiations?

Now that the rules for applying the Paris Agreement have been established, the next COP will be based on commitments and the very tense relations between developed and developing countries. The latter will come back to the aspects of compensation, loss of damage as well as the promise of 100 billion per year to finance adaptation. Discussions on how to mitigate the consequences of global warming in the most vulnerable countries will take on more importance.

Does the fact that adaptation occurs in the Glasgow Pact text before mitigation have any special significance?

Yes, because we have fallen a little behind on adaptation issues. The invitation to double funding for adaptation is good news. I understand very well the developing countries which want adaptation. Indeed, if these countries developed on an intensive carbon model based on fuels fossils, even if developed countries stopped emitting, we would go up against the wall.

In fact, we are all united, which is why it is imperative that the developing countries also orient themselves as quickly as possible on a low carbon. We can not say “you have issued, it’s my turn to issue “ because, despite the historical responsibility of the rich countries, we are now all on the same boat. From a climatological point of view, unfortunately, greenhouse-effect gas accumulate. We must therefore train everyone towards a low-carbon society.

Do the 6^e IPCC Groups 2 and 3 reports, scheduled for 2022, can bring new elements to climate action and negotiations?

I believe so because these two IPCC reports will be at the heart of the debates and discussions in February, March and September 2022. Once again, these reports will put countries facing their responsibilities. The Group 1 report of the IPCC published in August 2021 does not contain details of consequences and mitigation. It outlines what to do, but not how. These aspects will be at the center of the next IPCC reports. The IPCC does not issue recommendations but analyzes possible and potential solutions in different areas.

Despite a disappointing result once again, what do you say to people who criticize COPs for their uselessness?

COPs are essential. They make it possible to maintain the pressure and getting messages from scientists to politicians. Without COPs and without IPCC reports, we would still be in climate skepticism. Finally, the COPs are useful because they bring together all the countries of the planet and not a minority which would decide in its corner. All countries are affected by the consequences of global warming, so it is important that they get together to talk about it and find solutions.

Interview by Julien Leprovost