The debate between the two rounds between Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron was no exception: the theme of global warming was once again mistreated. Not only has the subject been dispatched by the two candidates, but it has been the scene of several aberrations and untruths which will probably not have surprised associations and scientists who are experts in the climate, since none of the programs of the two candidates – and in particular that of Marine Le Pen – does not respect the objectives of the Paris Agreement, which aims not to exceed +1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels. Wind turbines and solar which would be a “bad choice”, reduction of VAT on fuel, gas and fuel oil, slowing down the energy transition… Review of the approximations and untruths of the candidates.
Marine le Pen: wind turbines and solar are a “bad choice”
Regarding these two energies, the National Rally (RN) plans to halt all existing projects. Marine Le Pen also proposes to dismantle the wind turbines already installed once the EPR nuclear reactor in Flamanville (Manche) has come into operation. Wind energy would be “the worst”, “ecological, economic, biodiversity nonsense”, she said. The far-right candidate is betting everything on nuclear power, the only one capable, according to her, of helping us in the face of global warming.
However, it suffices to look at the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to see that no scenario offers a 100% nuclear solution to combat global warming. On the contrary, they all present the development of solar and wind power as solutions for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
“To say that we must stop renewables is in total contradiction with the IPCC, confirms Professor Pierre Friedlingstein, researcher at the University of Exeter (United Kingdom) and main author of the Global Carbon project. The scheme [ci-dessous, NDLR] shows that solar and wind power are even the technologies that make it easier to reduce GHGs”. The experts on the subject are unanimous: in the field of electricity production, the best solution consists in relying on an energy mix composed mainly of hydraulic, wind, solar and nuclear energy.
Diagram from the work of the IPCC showing the “potential for contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gases” in each sector. At the very top (energy sector), wind and solar are the two energies with the highest potential (blue bars).
IPCC
In France, the national operator of the electricity transmission network has calculated that we will not achieve our targets for reducing GHG emissions and will not guarantee our security of supply if we do not implement this energy mix. We must therefore continue to deploy renewable energies and not stop these sites… and even less dismantle them. Emmanuel Macron was therefore right when he replied that “there is no exit strategy from fossils that goes through all nuclear”.
Marine le Pen wants to lower VAT on energy products
Asked about her proposals to improve the purchasing power of the French, the RN candidate repeated one of her flagship measures aimed at lowering VAT on energy products (fuel, electricity, gas and heating oil) by 20% today. today at 5.5%. However, this is a false good idea in terms of purchasing power, since this measure will mainly benefit those who consume the most, and therefore the richest.
Above all, it amounts to subsidizing the purchase of polluting fossil fuels, such as gas, fuel oil and oil. “I prefer a measure aimed at giving checks to help the most needy people, while continuing to tax fossil fuels, because we have to get out of them, believes Pierre Friedlingstein. The objective is to accelerate the energy transition while helping citizens to get on a mission, rather than helping people consume polluting energy, that’s obvious.”
While it is difficult to measure the precise impact of this proposal for a reduction in VAT on energy consumption, which depends on many other factors – household income, lifestyle, world energy prices -, it seems likely that it would lead to a significant increase in CO2 emissions. “This measure, isolated from the others, would delay the achievement of the carbon budgets of the National Low Carbon Strategy (SNBC) for the transport and building sectors by around two years”, tackles the Institut Montaignea liberal think tank whose positions on the environment are far from being radical.
Emmanuel Macron: “We have doubled the rate of greenhouse gas reduction during this five-year period”
Indeed, over the first four years of the five-year term, the reduction in GHG emissions was 6.9% (- 4.1% in 2018, – 1.9% in 2019, – 9.2% in 2020, and + 9% in 2021), against – 5% during François Hollande’s five-year term (2013-2017). The data for 2022 is not yet known, but it is already likely that the drop in GHGs is not as significant as Emmanuel Macron claimed.
Above all, the president-candidate forgot to say that a very large part of these reductions are linked to the Covid crisis and the first confinement, which drastically reduced travel (planes, trains, cars), consumption and, more largely, slowed down the French and world economy. “Ideally, the year 2020 should be removed from the equation and replaced by an average of the years 2018-2019 or 2019-2021, for example”, agrees Professor Friedlingstein. By performing these calculations, France would show either a neutral balance (0%), or an increase (+6.2%) in GHG emissions between 2017 and 2021.
Ranking of countries according to their greenhouse gas emission reduction promises. Green: sufficient, greater than or equal to 40% Yellow: partially sufficient, 20 to 40% Orange: partially insufficient, less than 20%, and up to 50% conditional reductions. Red: insufficient, either because of a lack of promises or because more than 50% are conditional. Black: no promise
The Truth Behind The Climate Pledge/Universal Ecological Fund
On a global scale, France and Europe are rather the good students in the race to reduce GHGs. But no country in the world is doing enough to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement anyway, as shown by the Universal Ecological Funda group of researchers including a former president of the IPCC.
Marine Le Pen: “Yes to the transition but over time”
If this is not an untruth, all the climate experts will have jumped out of their chairs. The climate emergency is such, today, that it is a question of reducing greenhouse gas emissions more quickly and not of slowing down a transition which is already too slow. “Of course, this shocked me, Europe – and therefore France – is committed to respecting the objectives of the Paris Agreement, which aims to reduce GHG emissions by at least 40% of here 2030. To say that we are going to do it at our own pace is the assurance of not keeping our commitments”, underlines Pierre Friedlingstein.
More generally, the researcher is disappointed by the debate on global warming, which is too short for his taste. “Objectively, Emmanuel Macron’s remarks were not too bad, since he nevertheless mentioned, in a few minutes, the essential points on which we must work, that is to say the insulation, the solar, wind and promised a Prime Minister responsible for implementing the energy transition, he nevertheless underlines. But neither of them spoke of ecological sobriety, even though it is also very important.