[PodRecs] Action vs Alarmism.

Today we explore a different format: we are recommending a podcast. Since it was recorded in French, we provide a summary of interesting ideas we have learned from it. We hope you will appreciate it.

The podcast has been recorded on March 13, 2024 by WeNow, a French company bringing solutions to companies willing to decarbonize their activities in sustainable mobility, employee engagement, and carbon footprint assessment and offsetting. The speaker is Dr. François Gemenne, a political scientist specialized in environmental geopolitics and migration governance. He is also a researcher and professor at HEC Paris, and a lead author of the 6th IPCC Assessment Report (i.e. from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

Feel free to listen to the podcast in French, either on WeNow's webpage or on the YouTube link at the bottom of this page. And if you don't understand French, here are some of the interesting arguments mentioned during the podcast recording and brought to you by The Greenery Herald!

Without any further transition:

1. Alert messages are not always productive. Obviously, this is how the mainstream media operate nowadays, as negative news captures our brain's attention much more effectively than positive news. It gives us a sense of urgency that positive news do not provide. But what comes after the bad news have passed? A sense of worry? Helplessness? Cynicism? (see our article on climate cynicism). The idea is that negative news end up reducing people's willingness to act, leading to paralysis rather than action. This is why The Greenery Herald focuses on positive news without compromising the actual facts, as we believe the most important is to act.
   

2. News does not focus on the real problem. Media often report increases in temperatures as a catastrophe, announcing every year, seasons, months, the new records. Even though the intention may be good, the news is inconsistent because the increase in temperatures is a simple consequence of regular every-day emissions, from individuals and industries, and almost nothing is really reported about those emissions. A good analogy is a person that would leave the bathtub tap open and would come back every minute screaming "the water level is growing again!". This is like discussing the consequences as if we would not know the original causes, despite the fact that we know very well the mechanical trends involved. This requires more insight and education from news media.
   

3. The IPCC reports do not provide political recommendations. Scientists working for the IPCC provide the best estimates they can and let the members of IPCC, the governments, make the political decisions. This is the main reason why the content of the reports is accepted by countries, even when their leaders are climate skeptics. The format of the reports itself is roughly the same at each publication to avoid renegotiating it, but it could be improved to emphasize solutions and encourage action. In other words, we are at a time when we know very well that climate change is a threat, probably one of the biggest we have ever faced, and it is now less important to look at the avalanche to estimate its power of destruction than acting quickly to reduce its impact.
   

4. The COPs (Conference of Parties) are useful. Despite what we can hear in the media about less than expected results of certain COPs and the difficulties to find common accords, the COPs have contributed to bring new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from countries and companies. These efforts have brought the climate from a +4°C trajectory to a +3°C trajectory. Obviously this is still far from the +1.5°C that we must reach to avoid significant disturbance of the Earth's climate, and the consequences on natural habitats and societies, but this is a very positive contribution showing that countries can work together and bring positive actions.
   

5. Climate reports should target a broader audience. In terms of reporting, the scientific approach should provide more metrics adapted to the general public perception. Climate projections for years 2050 and 2100 are adapted to the scientific reality of climate modeling, but not to people's perception and engagement. An other example is the understanding of the impact of a global average temperature increase of 1°C, which is not well understood by everyone as many people imagine a simple extra degree in ambient temperatures. In reality, such an increase of global temperatures can lead to several-degree increases in multiple locations, and devastating consequences that we start to see today.
   

6. Politics have to take the lead. Until now, the politics of many countries have taken positions simply to follow the general opinion of their populations, often for personal considerations and re-elections. The politics have to make decisions which are difficult and that may generate opposition from their populations, but this is unavoidable considering the contradictions between electors' opinions and consumer behaviors. Also, the consistency of deciders will confuse less the populations and encourage more people to act together, and innovate for the greater good.

This ends our quick coverage of this very interesting podcast and our understanding of it.

One should rejoice about the COPs and the fact that 197 countries with different languages, cultures and religions, can seat together and discuss about their common interest in reducing global emissions. More is to be done to improve what is in place, for sure, but a positive attitude is necessary rather than constant alarmist messages which finally lead to fear and paralysis. So stay positive, and stay active!

Listen to the podcast on YouTube: