The Climate Conference of the Parties, better known as the COP29, will open on November 11, 2024 in Bakuin Azerbaijan, with the ambition of shaping the global climate future. Discussions will intensify around how the energy transition will be financed.
Billions of dollars are already invested in technologies supposed to stop global warming, but, paradoxically, these same technologies could worsen social and environmental inequalities. Could COP29 be an opportunity to question this logic of growth at all costs?
A double-edged sword
The concept of techno-solutionism, that is to say the idea that technology is the key to the energy transition, has dominated discussions at previous COPs, and COP29 may well follow this trend. This paradigm is based on the illusion that‘Clean energy production technology and CO2 capture will be enough to solve climate problems without calling into question our current economic way of life.
But these solutions pose a fundamental problem: they risk failing to keep their promises in the long term and could even make the situation worseby locking humanity into a cycle of dependence on innovations whose consequences are still uncertain.
Take the example of electric carsintended to replace thermal vehicles. If the latter do not emit greenhouse gases, their manufacture requires rare materials whose extraction causes major environmental destruction, not to mention the social impacts in producing countries.
Paradoxically, instead of reducing our ecological footprint, this solution could intensify imbalances, which is a real evolutionary trap : a solution initially perceived as beneficial, but which, in another context, becomes counterproductive.
An evolutionary trap is a phenomenon where a behavior or solution that was once beneficial becomes, over time and environmental changes, harmful.
The example of plastic is also enlightening: once, it seemed to be the solution to everything, but today it pollutes our oceans, threatens our health and that of marine wildlife. Same for intensive use of pesticides or fertilizers to increase agricultural yields which now leads to serious environmental impacts.
So, by applying this concept to our society, he becomes obvious that our excessive reliance on technology and continued economic growth could lead us to a environmental cul-de-sac.
A little equation to better understand
In order to understand our environmental impact, we can turn to a formula proposed in 1972 by biologist Paul Ehrlich and physicist John Holdren: I = P × A × T. Ici, I represents the environmental impact, P la population, A consumption per capita, and T the technology used.
This equation shows that our impact depends on several factors. Simply reducing CO2 emissions through capture technologies, for example, does not take into account population growth or ever-increasing consumption. Furthermore, some of these technologies often require scarce resources and have environmental consequences, such as intensive extraction of materials.
Safe technological temptation?
The strategy favored by the COPs recent ones are essentially based on Tthe technologyin the IPAT equation, careless other levers such as sobriety in consumption (A) or population stabilization (P). However, this technological approach has its limits.
By focusing on CO2 capture technologies or new energy sources, the COP29 risks encouraging a model that does not sufficiently reduce the overall ecological footprint. Worse, these technologies can become a new evolutionary trap, locking us into a unsustainable economic model, based on increasing consumption of natural resources.
What possible alternative?
Faced with this impasse, some voices are being raised to propose more radical solutionslike the “collective sobriety” recommended by the IPCC in its sixth assessment report, or the “prosperity without growth”an approach developed by economist Tim Jackson and his colleagues. The idea is to reduce our material consumption, to favor well-being rather than quantity, and of redirect investments towards sectors such as education, health and sustainable infrastructure.
The challenge here is convince a global population hungry for economic growth and material comfortbut this is perhaps the only viable solution if we want to avoid the devastating effects of inaction.
COP29 could mark a decisive turning pointwhere it will no longer just be a question of discussing financing the energy transition, but of‘adopt a truly transformative vision, based on international cooperation and a compatible economic model with the preservation of the planet.
References : COP29: the human species trapped in its techno-solutionism?
Related News :