Climate change

Climate change has become a customary subject for most people in industrialized countries and a growing interest can be noticed in emerging countries such as China. This subject is discussed frequently in the news; there are numerous international negotiations on how to deal with it, as well as a heated scientific discussion…  

How had this theme been approached in the public debate? Who are the actors of the debate and to what extent?

  The first tensions generated by the recognition of the human society o the planet's limits are still not perceived in their generality. They offer, as a reflection on the man’s future, an obvious-interest topic. These tensions are multifaceted. Their interdependence makes them potentially a global character. We can organise their analysis around two categories: their sources - the human demography, the technical evolution - and their effects – the exhaustion or the lack of resources, the loss of biodiversity and the damage of the environment.

In the current state of things, the problem of global confinement is especially is manifested by disjoint phenomenon, apparently different from each other. The depletion of oil, or the scarcity of certain minerals, certainly generates reactions at several levels: discreet research of diversification by oil companies, evolution of technical ground or air transport, the consumers’ reactions... But the appearance of these events to a global phenomenon is not seen at this stage of their emergence.

The ozone hole, as the media names it, has the whole but its narrow technico-economic origin dry up its source.

The Scientific Debate  

The stormy exchanges practiced by the scientific community around the climate problem raises questions about the nature of the debate. Of course, what can push the well-known scientists to reach a rare level of vulgarity? 

First, we must be convinced that the motivation of the researcher is fed by two sources other than the joys of discovery: the quest for fame and the research of funding to fuel its research. The scientific reputation of the researcher is his oxygen. But, financing their field is a necessary food for hatching an individual or a team’s glory. Although the access to financing depends strongly on relations to political power. From this standpoint, the research of climate evolution occupies a very particular position: Its relation with the political power is made without any intermediate. Because even if scientific development is a powerful factor for society’s development, the scientist is not directly engaged in policy-making.

 The Economic Debate 

Actually, the debate that takes place in the economic backgrounds is sensibly more intricate and also more lasting than the scientific debate. The concept of scientific consensus is otherwise absent. Denying this anthropological origin of the changes observed, is based on the use of mechanisms over which man has no means to act, such as a variation in the intensity of solar radiation or the tectonic origin of the oceans’ rise. Without going further into the details, two approaches are possible to face threats: the adaptation of societal behaviors, and actions to slow or regress the phenomenon. 

In the case of a phenomenon that, as the climate, is at once global and reversible, the formulation of economic recommendations, that aim to reduce the alteration, runs into obstacles. The economist’s attitude is organized around a deep cleavage between two schools: One which recommends measures directly attacking the source of problems and another considering that the problem will be solved by itself as a result of the evolution of technical capacities, the market regulation and the adaptability of human. These two lines of thought are part of a common context which is the absence of market economy’s alternative. 

To tackle the economics of climate change, economists of all persuasions are using the tools tested by long practice, and particularly to the analysis Cost / benefit which consists essentially in approximating the expenditures made today and what it will yield or avoid tomorrow. Apparently, there is nothing more simple and common, but the use of this tool in the analysis of climate change, encounters an entirely new problem, in addition to the quantitative estimates, the rate with which climate change is occurring leaves no alternative but to overlook the cost / benefit strategy and opt for a faster solution.  

Whatever assumptions are about the physical dimension of the phenomenon, any economic analysis is based inevitably on two ethical presuppositions: the degree of solidarity with future generations and the degree of solidarity among nation-states in human society.

Climate Change on the Screen 

The appearance of the theme of climate change on TV or in the movies can sometimes shift the debate to the public scale. The media can indeed enhance the collective awareness, but it is most likely to weaken it by focusing on the most uncertain aspects of the phenomenon.

 Public opinion and political action  

Unlike the economic analysis and scientific knowledge, policy choices are constrained by the conditions of acceptability. It is not enough to decide, it must be followed. This dimension of the problem takes different aspects in democratic countries, where a public opinion tipping can sweep the government; in totalitarian countries, like China, where the risk is the rise of an insurgency, and finally in countries where the state is weak and does not have the means to act. In all cases, the criterion of acceptability and feasibility determines the limits of possible action.

Zeïneb Sahnoun