The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the third part of its sixth assessment report on Monday. After a first publication consolidating evidence of the impact of human activity on climate change, a second alerting to its effects on populations and ecosystems – very vulnerable -, this third section focuses on solutions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases on a global scale. A highly political subject. The Institut Montaigne, a think tank of liberal allegiance, has rightly, for its part, analyzed and costed the proposals in terms of the environment of the candidates for the French presidential election. Overview of the programs with Victor Poirier, Director of Publications at Institut Montaigne.
L’Express: How do you perceive the visibility of environmental issues in this presidential campaign?
Victor Poirier: At the Institut Montaigne, we looked at them a little more closely than in previous elections. We consider this to be a fairly decisive issue. We realized that the subject is covered in a large majority of programs. I do not consider that there is an oversight of environmental and ecological issues, but they did not necessarily emerge at the start. Perhaps the ecological crisis has fallen behind the economic, health and geopolitical crisis.
It has been less debated, relegated to the background. And all the candidates do not have the same ecological fiber. It is difficult to make an overall observation on the fact that there is an agreement to change things quickly. But compared to 2017, a large part of the candidates took up this question from all the existing angles: food, mobility, energy, housing, etc. For the most part, there are fairly accurate measurements.
Are there candidates whose program is more complete?
Some have a more incomplete program than others. I’m thinking of Eric Zemmour (Reconquête!) and Marine Le Pen (Rassemblement national) who have on energy issues, and not only, several commitments that run counter to an effective fight against global warming. Which does not mean that all the others have complete programs. But there is, in general, no major misinterpretation vis-à-vis the climatic cause.
You have quantified several measures of the candidates. What do you get out of it?
There is not a very “long-term” vision on the ecological question. There are a lot of measures that are sometimes quite simple to put in place, not very structuring. They will however affect the daily life of the French on the issues of food, which are increasingly watched, of mobility, because this affects daily life, such as housing. There are also ways to encourage ecological transition that are being put in place: the tax incentive is the most important, in the sense of the climate ISF (solidarity tax on wealth, editor’s note) or, conversely, a reduction in VAT. There are sometimes incompatibilities between purchasing power and environmental issues. When purchasing power becomes the number one cause of a campaign, this can also explain why the environment is somewhat relegated.
In general, I deplore the link between the various environmental aspects. We can have a long-term vision on food issues, but this must go hand in hand with a global vision on an ecological project. This involves energy issues, thermal renovation, etc. Today we have few candidates whose trajectory we fully understand.
Were the candidates’ estimates on the implementation of their measures precise, correctly evaluated?
On these issues, we never talk about very large sums. Apart from the climate wealth tax, we are still between zero and two or three billion euros. This means that the differences are not huge. It is therefore not a subject on which we have seen the greatest disparities. Some, too, did not quantify these measures, which did not allow us to compare with our estimates.
Regarding the climate ISF, carried by Jean-Luc Mélenchon (la France insoumise) and Yannick Jadot (EELV) with different angles, you judged, in both cases, the measurements unreliable as they were made. Why ?
The degree of reliability of our analyzes depends very much on the data available, the precision of the measurements formulated and, possibly, the ability to compare with a similar measurement that would have been taken elsewhere or in the past. This is a fairly new measure. In most cases, we prefer to explain that the fork is more or less reliable. The mechanics of the measurement are quite clear, but the parameters are not always perfectly defined.
Our job is to dialogue with the campaign teams as part of this operation to ask them for additional information, sometimes pushing them to their limits. We want to avoid incantatory measures without real mechanical thoughts. We realize quite regularly that this allows the teams to review on the sidelines, rethink or delete a proposal that was in the program.
You have analyzed many transport measures. According to you, they will require either large State funding, or will have an additional cost effect for users…
In both cases, it is quite clear: the ecological transition, in particular mobility, will not be free. It is important to explain it. This does not mean not doing it, but being transparent about the cost of the energy transition. At the Institut Montaigne, we advocate a logic of objectives rather than means. The idea of banning this or that technology, on the pretext that it is more or less polluting, only makes sense if it is too much. Otherwise, the best way to achieve a goal is to set it and then let technologies and private sector players conform to it.
The IPCC has just released the third part of its sixth report. How do you assess the candidates’ proposals with regard to this publication which details the range of solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
This reinforces the need to act very quickly, to get out of certain fossil fuels – but I think there is a fairly clear consensus on the subject for most candidates. To invest, too, in renewable energies – there, the consensus is a little less strong. In particular for the candidates mentioned above, who are opposed for ideological reasons to a nuclear/renewable mix which we know is the future. I think the timing of this release is very interesting. It will force candidates to position themselves even more. I hope it can be a subject of debate in the in-between rounds. And let there be more vision.
This is what you expect from the next five-year term on these questions: more vision?
More vision, consistency and transparency towards citizens. This is not a trivial question. There will inevitably be a cost, and citizens are ready to accept it with support for those who need it most. But before accepting it, we have to explain to them what it means for their daily lives. It is interesting to see the alerts on the production of electricity, the call to lower the heating by one degree, not to use electricity from such time to such time. We realize the tangible challenges that the energy transition or the risk to the security of supply can represent. It is this type of fairly concrete solution that will appeal to citizens.