Divergences, uncertainties and political choices. The row over the EU's position on climate is getting worse, to the extent that it is at times becoming quite disagreeable. It is not opinions that are being exchanged but rather curses and insults; it is more of a holy war rather than a debate. It is true that the stakes at play are enormous: the future of humanity, life on Earth and the destiny of our miniscule planet in the immensity of space. Sometimes, however, we get the impression that these challenges have become a pretext for pursuing personal agendas, political rivalry and indeed, financial interests. Our publication has respected a balance in the news by presenting the different positions objectively. Developing a personal opinion is not easy because the opposing arguments are definitely in no short supply, with both schools of thought drawing on scientific studies and empirical evidence. Experts who have been studying climate problems for decades can reach a range of radically different conclusions.
Certain political choices are, nonetheless, possible and even necessary. We can prioritise economic growth or criticise the way in which this growth is calculated. We can consider free trade as a priority objective but that in the agri-foods domain, quantitative criteria are not the most appropriate and that ecological requirements applied to imports are justified. I believe that the European Commission and the commissioner for the environment, Connie Hedegaard, in particular, have made the right choices by presenting the results of detailed studies into the conditions and effects of additional EU commitments (increasing greenhouse gas emission objectives from 20 to 30% by 2020), whilst illustrating different possible options and avoiding a formal recommendation on what decision should be taken. It will be up to the European Council on the 17-18 of June to decide, in light of the discussions at next week's Environment Council. Different analyses prove that the jump to 30% is economically sustainable (on the condition that there is reciprocity) and that it may even have a number of advantages. Our publication has provided a clear summary of the Commission's position (EUROPE 10146) and the reactions that this has provoked (EUROPE 10147), while at the same time demonstrating that each of the different parties has claimed that the Commission document supports aspects in favour of its own thesis. We therefore end up where we started out: evaluations of the possible different choices, whether this is with regard to the future of oil, nuclear energy or certain alternative energies (wind energy in particular). This makes it practically impossible to define comprehensively definitive political solutions that take into account all the different aspects and which are likely to lead to general consensus.
Limited objectives. And where does this leave us? I think that a certain pragmatism is inevitable. No political leader can affirm that he is in possession of the absolute truth. The decisions to take, and the different directions in which to go, must essentially respond to the practical problems encountered and provide a number of operational objectives based on available knowledge and which put an end to existing or expected excesses and abuse: this is an immensely vast subject area, which ranges from the destruction of forests to marine pollution, the protection of biodiversity (too often neglected or treated as if it were not to a large extent linked to the question of energy), without leaving out the sometimes ignoble financial interests at play (wind turbines manufactured at high cost in areas where there is practically no wind!). Nevertheless, we also need to be aware that it is not just up to the Council or a majority vote at the European Parliament to clarify to what extent global warming is man-made or whether it depends on terrestrial or extra-terrestrial developments on which humanity has very little influence. Since the beginning of our planet's existence, its climate has suffered radical transformations, millions of years before the existence of Homo Sapiens. The peaks of the Alps were under the sea, dinosaurs dominated the Earth for 60 million years, whereas the predominance of man is an altogether recent evolution, just a few seconds in the history of the Earth. Some experts have calculated the time when the sun will burn itself out and our planet will disappear.
In such a contest, it appears presumptuous to imagine that the destiny of humanity and the Earth depends on percentages (20 or 30%?) to be set over the next few weeks for greenhouse gas emissions and the exact number of euros the EU should pay in the next few months or years to help a group of countries fight against climate change. Nonetheless, it is necessary to make these decisions.
Another essential element should also be added to ongoing discussions: reflection upon the appropriate and balanced place of man in nature. This column will be returning to this subject.
(F.R./transl.fl)