La conférence sur le climat (COP21) peut-elle réussir? Ou va-t-elle échouer, faute de trouver un financement solide pour les pays en développement et un consensus entre les grandes puissances? Un scénario possible. Mais la réalité diplomatique pourrait être très différente. A la table des discussions, il est probable que les négociateurs contourneront l’idée d’un accord contraignant, comparable aux ambitions de Kyoto. La voie est trop risquée. Ils privilégient un autre chemin, plus pragmatique: la mise en place d’un processus politique permanent, transparent et ouvert à la discussion. Qui laisse concrètement aux Etats une liberté dans le choix des objectifs, la méthode et les moyens pour parvenir à réduire progressivement leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre. On le regrettera peut-être mais c’est un fait: la diplomatie climatique a besoin de temps et de souplesse pour avancer. Les engagements pris à ce jour placent la planète dans la trajectoire d’un réchauffement de +2,8 degrés Celsius. C’est trop, beaucoup trop. Mais, sans doute, a-t-on déjà sauvé l’essentiel. L’objectif des 2 degrés est maintenu et fixe définitivement le cap à tous les plans nationaux.

Si les diplomates parviennent à éviter les derniers écueils et à combler les promesses de financement, la lutte contre le réchauffement pourra entrer dans une ère nouvelle, comparable à celle menée pour préserver la biodiversité et protéger les océans. Le lobby pétrolier et charbonnier devra s’y résoudre. Il a perdu la bataille des idées et des technologies. La transition énergétique (deux tiers des émissions de gaz à effet de serre sont liés à l’énergie) est en marche et se déploie à un rythme très soutenu.

Dans les pays scandinaves mais également au Portugal, la moitié de l’électricité est déjà renouvelable. Elle l’est déjà dans la quasi-totalité en Norvège. Selon l’Agence internationale de l’énergie (AIE), vers 2030, les nouvelles centrales électriques alimentées par des énergies vertes auront dépassé les capacités investies dans le charbon. Soit dans quinze ans, c’est-à-dire demain. Certes, tout ne sera pas résolu et l’adieu aux énergies fossiles prendra encore plusieurs décennies. Mais, pour peu que le processus qui suivra la COP21 ne soit pas stoppé, l’humanité peut imaginer un meilleur avenir énergétique, moins gourmand en ressources, plus respectueux des écosystèmes et neutre au plan climatique.

Les écologistes ont eu le grand mérite d’attirer l’attention sur l’impasse environnementale dans laquelle nous fonçons tête baissée. Mais ils ont échoué à démontrer que la transition pouvait être dynamique au plan économique, innovante au plan technologique et parfaitement compatible avec la croissance économique. Les pays scandinaves en font la démonstration éclatante, avec des taxes incitatives, un système totalement libéralisé et ultra-compétitif. Et preuve que cela fonctionne: si la coalition rouge-verte a été contrainte d’abandonner le pouvoir cette année au Danemark, nul ne s’attend à des changements majeurs dans sa politique énergétique. A peine "quelques ajustements mineurs", comme le relevait récemment notre confrère Les Echos. Avec l’Allemagne, les pays nordiques ont construit une nouvelle industrie exportatrice qui a déjà dépassé, en nombre, les emplois de l’industrie automobile. Enfin, fait majeur, pour la première fois, on assiste à un net découplage de la croissance économique (PIB) et de la consommation d’énergie fossile. Certains économistes avancent même l’idée que le prochain krach pétrolier sera inversé: ce ne sont pas les cours qui exploseront mais l’inverse, un effondrement, qui nous attend.

Can the climate conference (COP21) be successful? Or will she fail, because no solid financing for the developing countries can be found and no consensus between the powerful countries? A possible scenario. But the diplomatic reality could be very different. At the discussions table it is probable that the negotiators will circumvent the idea of a coercive treaty comparable to the ambitions of Kyoto. The course is too risky.

They prefer an other, more pragmatic route: putting into place a permanent, transparent political process, open to discussion - which leaves the states effectively a freedom in the choice of objectives, the method, and the means to achieve a progressive reduction of their greenhouse gas emissions. One will maybe regret this but it is a fact: the climate diplomacy requires time and flexibility in order to advance.

The existing engagements are putting the planet on a global warming trajectory of +2,8 degrees Celsius. That's too much, far too much. But, without doubt, we have already saved the essential.

The objective of 2 degrees is maintained and definitively settles the maximum in all national plans.

If the diplomats manage to avoid the last cliffs and to fulfill the financing promises, then the fight against global warming can enter into a new era, comparable to the track for the protection of biodiversity and the oceans. The oil and coal lobby will be nullified therein. They have lost the battle for ideas and technologies. The energy transition (two thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions are linked to energies) is on the road and maintains a very steady rhythm.

In the Scandinavian countries, but also in Portugal, half of electricity production is already renewable. It is already renewable in virtually the whole of Norway. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), by 2030 the new power stations powered by green energies will have overtaken the capacities invested in coal. That is in 15 years, which is tomorrow. Certainly, not everything will be solved, and the adieu to the fossil energies will still take a number of decades. But if at least the process that follows COP21 is not blocked, humanity can imagine a better energetic future, less resource gluttonous, more respectful of ecosystems, and climate neutral.

The ecologists had the great merit of drawing the attention to the environmental deadlock into we are running full-speed, our heads down. But the failed to demonstrate that the transition could be dynamic in the field of economics, innovative in the field of technology, and perfectly compatible with economic growth. The Scandinavian countries present the brilliant demonstration thereof, with inciting taxes, a totally liberalized and ultra-competitive system. And the proof that it works: If the red-green coalition in Denmark has this year been forced to abolish power, nobody expects major changes in its energetic policy. Barely "some minor adjustments", as our colleague Les Echos pointed out recently. Including Germany, the Nordic countries have established a new export industry that has already exceeded the automobile industry in numbers of employees.
Finally, as a major fact, for the first time we see a clear decoupling of economic growth (GDP) from the consumption of fossil energy. Certain economists even posit the idea that the next oil crunch will be reversed: the oil prices will explode but we can expect an oil price collapse.

The climate conference (COP21) cannot be successful. No agreement will be reached, because of the financing discords.
A "permanent, transparent political process, open to discussion - which leaves the states effectively a freedom in the choice of objectives, the method, and the means to achieve a progressive reduction of their greenhouse gas emissions" means that nothing at all will happen.
Fact is that "climate diplomacy" has been ineffective since their beginnings in 1995, Berlin, twenty years ago.
"The existing engagements are putting the planet on a global warming trajectory of +2,8 degrees Celsius." That is theoretically only.

"But, without doubt, we have already saved the essential." Nonsense! The national plans are plans only. Climatologists openly state that we will trespass the 3.5 degree C warming.
The comparison with the areas of biodiversity and oceans is nonsensical. Nothing at all has be reached there

Oil and Coal have lost nothing. Our modern society is fully dependent on fossil energies. They are needed in all areas of life, including the construction, maintenance and replacement of so-called "renewable energies". These renewables are electricity "only", which cannot replace fossil fuels in many areas. We cannot save the world with technologies that still have to be invented.
The IEA is part of the club of HOT-men - the Hope-Optimism-Technology people.

Humanity can "imagine…" - but reality falsifies illusions.

Why could the economists not see the dead end road of resource depletion and environmental destruction? Did they live on a different planet, or did they only read the papers of their colleagues? A child understands that the earth and its resources are finite. Once the resource fridge is empty, no technology will be able to recreate resources, recreate extinct species, or clean up the environment.

Mr. Veya and his colleagues need not be afraid of the reds and the greens. Those factions adhere to the same HOT illusions. Admittedly they want a bit more social equity than the right and that's enough for the right to oppose them on principle.

Which new export industry exactly would have overtaken the automotive industry? This statement bears no credibility at all. The economists are totally wrong in their claims of "green growth" and "decoupling".
Economic growth is material, always.
Dematerialization is an economists' fairy tale. GDP growth always increases material resource consumption and environmental degradation.
The often claimed decoupling of fossil fuels use and GDP growth in Denmark is a statistical artifact. It fails to consider that the reduction of fossil fuels consumption is a result of the delocalization of heavy industries to Asia - where the labour costs and social conditions, and the environmental controls are lower.
Measuring emissions per country is a denial of the physical fact that the airs have no borders.