Global warming will soon have disastrous consequences on living things , including human beings. However, society seems incapable of putting a stop to everything that causes this increase in temperatures via greenhouse gas emissions . How can we act, individually and collectively, to limit the damage?
Can we stop global warming?
There is unfortunately no suspense, the answer is no. In practice, if we stopped emissions completely today, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would drop very little, and it would take at least a few thousand years for this concentration to return to its 1850 level. The lifetime of greenhouse gases is unfortunately very long. Depending on the scenario, around 15 to 40% of the CO2 emitted will remain in the atmosphere for more than 1,000 years.
Unfortunately, society and its industries, but also our daily lives , are extremely dependent on oil, gas and coal: we cannot stop everything at once, we then speak of transition. Unfortunately, as long as certain financial interests weigh more than the interests of life, avoiding climate chaos for future generations will be complicated.
How to mitigate global warming?
Whatever is set in motion will have consequences for a few thousand years, no matter what we do from now on. This does not mean that nothing should be done, but that there is urgency and that only drastic and coercive measures can hope to slow the rise in temperatures. Only a comprehensive and global approach will be able to realize global ecological ambitions .
We need to rely on legislation that requires companies to include global warming in their constraints, regulations on the financial investments of institutional investors, in addition to a change of social and societal direction including providers of goods and services, but also consumers. And above all, an energy transition that takes into account the need for an energy mix that includes nuclear power, the only energy source powerful enough to meet demand and which does not emit (or very little) CO 2 , in addition to renewable energies which also emit very little CO 2 .
What can states do about global warming?
Today, more than 80% of the energy consumed in the world of fossil origin therefore emits CO2 . A figure that has not changed or has barely changed since the year 2000. Worse, between 2002 and 2012, oil consumption increased by almost 15%, gas by more than 30% and coal, the most polluting energy, by 55%!
Despite awareness, economic and demographic growth continues, particularly for countries such as China, India and the countries of the South-East which have accelerated their development. It would indeed be necessary to move to decreasing lifestyles and production… while these countries have not finished their “growth”. Developed countries have also persisted in consuming increasingly without a long-term vision: even more oil for Canada and Australia, even more gas for the United States, Canada, France and Japan, and even much more coal for Poland and Italy. At the same time, to compensate for the intermittent production of renewable energies , fossil fuels have been favored, including coal-fired power plants! Many countries are thus pursuing policies that directly or indirectly support the production/consumption of fossil fuels, when it should be stopped.
Why aren't countries actually taking action?
We are acting, but too little and too slowly. States are wary of imposing drastic measures that do not please citizens and industrialists because of the restrictions they create. These countries seem to spend their time committing to measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in agreements such as the "Earth Summit" or the "Conferences of the Parties", the famous "COPs", which are also attended by non-state actors such as NGOs, local authorities, and scientists.
The problem? The states make commitments, yes, but nothing then obliges them to implement their commitments, because these agreements are not or only slightly "binding", in the legal sense of the term: they do not provide for any sanctions. It seems that only political constraint, applied by certain countries on those who do not keep their commitment, can change things.
Citizens mobilized against global warming
It is through legal channels that citizens are mobilizing today to attack states and force them to act. This type of legal action is multiplying all over the world. In France, in response to the Climate Appeal filed in December 2018 by the municipality of Grande-Synthe and its former mayor Damien Carême, the Council of State ruled for the first time on the state's performance obligations with regard to the objectives set by the European Union and by the law for the energy transition and green growth of 2015, in application of the Paris Agreement. Constraints could well finally see the light of day! In the same vein, there is the case of the century? An appeal brought by four environmental organizations (Notre affaire à tous, the Nicolas Hulot Foundation for Nature and Mankind (FNH), Greenpeace France and Oxfam France), to attack the state for its climate inaction. In February 2021, the state recognized the ecological damage and deemed illegal the failure to comply with the ecological commitments that had been made. Historic!
What individual actions are effective in combating global warming?
- Change banks to an ethical bank that does not finance fossil fuels. Indeed, few people realize it, but our savings can unknowingly finance fossil fuels, which are among the most profitable short-term investments, and therefore very popular with bankers. Head for ecological banks like Onlyone, Banque Française Mutualiste, Hélios, Green-Got which guarantee ethical, ecological or solidarity investments and refuse to finance projects linked to the exploitation of fossil fuels.
- Buy fewer things and favor second-hand , local and small producers and artisans
- Minimize air and car travel. Favor trains and bicycles on a daily basis.
- Drastically reduce your consumption of meat and industrial products
As many specialists have been saying for years, global warming is becoming more inevitable every day. We now know that life on Earth will not be the same in about twenty years. If governments are struggling to slow down, caught up in the economic whirlwind of globalized consumer societies, citizens can change their consumption patterns in favor of a decreasing and sober lifestyle, and if possible "decarbonized", that is to say, not dependent on fossil fuels. A lifestyle that one day our children will have to adopt anyway, but which immediately implies a 180° turn in our habits.
