He is no longer at the helm of the WTO, the World Trade Organization. However, Pascal Lamy has never seemed so busy. President of the Starfish mission aimed at regenerating the European hydrosphere by 2030 – one billion euros in credits over ten years -, co-director of the Antarctica 2020 coalition, which works to protect the Antarctic through zones protected marine areas, the former senior French official also heads the Commission on Climate Overshoot, a body created two years ago, and of which the last report, presented in New York in September, provoked numerous reactions. While 2023 is the hottest year ever measured over the first nine months, approaching an anomaly of 1.5°C compared to the pre-industrial era, Pascal Lamy returns for L’Express on this text, which has the merit of seriously considering the possible non-compliance with the Paris agreements, and the possible use of technology to impact the climate.
L’Express: Isn’t the fact that there now exists a Commission on climate overshoot an admission of failure of the Paris agreements?
Pascal Lamy: It is true that the noose is tightening. Since 2015, numerous decisions have been taken to respect these agreements. And many more are in the pipeline. However, what will happen if we fail to limit global warming to 1.5°C by the end of this century? The risk of overshooting exists, with potentially catastrophic consequences. We clearly see the influence work carried out by countries and companies producing oil. We also note the limits of the Paris agreement, which is not a sufficiently powerful international governance system. We must therefore establish a strategy to reduce the risks linked to a possible exceedance. The Commission on Climate Overshoot was created for this purpose. We want to spark discussions but also explore solutions which, for the moment, are not the subject of consensus but which could be used one day, under certain conditions. I would like to point out that the members of the commission enjoy total independence and that, even if all continents are represented, the majority come from the countries of the South, which deserves to be underlined.
The Commission’s report emphasizes the necessary exit from fossil fuels. This isn’t really a new idea…
You are right. It’s not very original to say that. However, what is more important is to accept the fact that the North must come out before the South. This means that the South must benefit from a transition period and the North must be “net zero” in 2050 – its greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced to as close to zero as possible, the remaining emissions being absorbed by oceans and forests for example -, or even displaying a positive carbon footprint. The equation is therefore stated very clearly. We cannot afford to continue with unreasonable speeches aimed at stopping all exploitation – of gas for example – in developing countries.
Don’t you fear that this speech favors the development of fossil fuels at the worst time?
This is not a simple strategy indeed. For example, we can clearly see that China is trying to follow in the footsteps of developing countries on this issue. An unacceptable position: although this country has one of the best percentages of renewable energies, it still works a lot with coal, which represents 55% of the energy mix. We will therefore need more international governance on this subject. The UN and the COPs can help, provided they refocus the latter on the negotiation. Because if these large masses dedicated to the climate make it possible to advance a certain number of subjects, they do not generate enough concrete exchanges between States.
“The real subject remains the price of a tonne of carbon”
Another lesson learned from our reflections is that public funding only represents 5% of the equation. Of course, we are still talking about a hundred billion dollars (the joint commitment of developed countries made in Copenhagen in 2009). But this is nothing compared to the trillions of dollars that will have to be mobilized on the private side. The good news ? There are innovative financing formulas such as “debts for nature swaps” allowing debt reduction to be exchanged for preservation. However, the real subject remains the price of a tonne of carbon and the markets that go with it. They absolutely must be developed and coordinated. They are the ones who will truly allow us to move forward in the transition by, for example, offering an economic model for CO2 capture. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to have a global carbon price for a long time.
Exactly, is capturing CO2 in the atmosphere a good idea? Its concentration in ambient air remains much lower than in factory ducts.
And yet we will have to massively develop this technology, for a very simple reason: assuming that we manage to completely stop our emissions tomorrow, we would still have 300 years of CO2 – and therefore global warming – remaining in the atmosphere. From the point of view of developing countries particularly exposed to warming, this is unacceptable. Before being a technical or economic problem, CO2 capture is therefore a political question.
In our report, we also say that solutions based on natural carbon sinks are not necessarily the best. This has earned us a lot of criticism, but it all depends on how the trees intended to capture CO2 are planted, the species used, etc. Furthermore, these green lungs remain very sensitive to global warming. Scientists are already warning us that our forests are gradually losing their capacity to store carbon. Therefore, all other options must be considered.
Even solar radiation management (SRM), this controversial aspect of geoengineering?
Absolutely. Regardless of our opinion, these technologies are attracting more and more attention. Last spring, a group of experts commissioned by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) published a report on the issue. Discussions took place within the International Meteorological Organization. And the UNESCO Scientific Ethics Committee is preparing an opinion which will be released in early 2024.
For the moment, the different SRM techniques considered (sprinkling particles in the atmosphere, making clouds whiter, etc.) remain very controversial. Well Named. Not only would they undermine current efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, but they carry significant risks (worsening climate change in certain regions, impact of particles on the health of populations, etc.). However, we believe that we must continue to scientifically study these solutions and think about a governance system. What will happen if a country decides to embark on this path for its own needs? We are therefore proposing a system that very strongly regulates research, and a moratorium. Its principle is simple: from the moment a certain number of countries adopt it, this should put enough pressure on the nations wanting to play sorcerers’ apprentice.
Some countries are already embarking on cloud seeding to encourage rain. Some scientists also imagine modifying the chemistry of the ocean to store more carbon… Will this be the subject of a future report?
We have not looked at the options of changing ocean chemistry because scientific research in this area is not sufficiently advanced. Concerning cloud seeding intended to increase rainfall, it is not impossible that we look into the question. Because if a country ended up “stealing” the rain from a neighboring nation, there would then be a real problem of international governance. For now, we’ve been looking at cloud brightening, a technique that involves increasing the reflective power of certain clouds. Except that the amount of cooling obtained by this method remains very uncertain.
What we need to see is that all these geoengineering solutions produce complex effects. It is therefore not a magic solution. Moreover, if we managed to clean the atmosphere of all the particles that we identify as harmful, we would potentially add 0.7 degrees of global warming because of the reflective effect of these same particles. We may therefore face complex trade-offs in the future. Our mission is to anticipate them.