L‘humanity “opened the gates of hell”. This is the lucid observation made by the Secretary General of the UN, Antonio Guterres, during the summit which should have been that of climate ambition, on September 20 in New York. However, his words, no more than those of the NGOs, do not seem to be heard. Too alarmist to influence decision-makers in “real life”?
If politicians struggle to change paradigm, can business actors play a role other than supporting an untenable situation, which consists of pressing the brake pedal on climate action at the same time as they sign decarbonization commitments to 2050?
There is no shortage of illustrations of this cacophony. On the financial side, confusion is maintained by the European Commission, which is reluctant to allow an investment to be distinguished “ light green” from a “dark green”, fuels the ambient vagueness regarding so-called “sustainable” funds, while no regulation is sufficient to slow down the financing of climate bombs.
On the mobility side, pollution standards are weakened at European level, when the question of putting thermal vehicles on the market is swept aside in the United Kingdom. On the agricultural side, if the setback regarding the ban on glyphosate attracts all the attention, other scourges for biodiversity and our health continue to infiltrate the soil and public policies. And the pioneers of organic agriculture, without support, are discouraged.
Overton’s window is wide open
On the real estate side, while in France we are considering stepping back on the rental of thermal sieves, in Germany we are relaxing energy efficiency rules for new residential construction. On energy: in addition to the political blank check for new oil exploitation offered to our national champion on a number of continents, announcements of new offshore exploitation permits de facto open Pandora’s box at the European level.
The Overton window, as defined by the American political scientist and jurist Joseph P. Overton (1960-2003) – that is to say the perimeter of what can be discussed, and therefore possible, since considered at the within society – is nevertheless wide open. What if we took advantage of this current of air to choose to radically change the ambient discourse, and therefore the fields of possibilities?
The fight against climate change would cause citizens to suffer heavy economic and social consequences? Certainly. The problem is that the more we delay action, the more serious these consequences will be, with a double penalty: on the one hand, citizens will ultimately have to pay for the damage; on the other hand, they will also have to pay for the adaptation.
You have 53.52% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.