© COP 21
On the occasion of the CNES summer universities, the Centre national space studies center, Presse-Citron was able to speak with Bruno Millet, deputy director of CNES in charge of sustainable development. He is particularly concerned about climate change and the general public's still colossal misunderstandings on the subject.
Presse-Citron a The Earth is experiencing global warming, yet the weather this summer is not great, how do you explain this ?
< p>Bruno Millet:It is very important not to confuse weather and climate. People tend to confuse them and politicians like Mr. Trump play on this point. It is not because it rains in the middle of July that global warming does not exist. Scientists, what we look at are long-term trends. And they are unanimous. There is no scientific doubt about their existence, and their origin. It is human activities that have created climate change.
Presse-Citron: You don't like to talk about “climate change”, you prefer “climate change”. explain to us why ?
Bruno Millet :I find that the word disruption that he is talking about. It leaves its mark on the mind. It is something that is no longer right. When we say “climate change”, it is softer, it is an evolution, there is almost normality in it. But that is just my opinion, I know that many colleagues like this terminology. I do not find it striking enough with regard to the climate emergency that we are facing. With the expression “climate disruption” we understand better, I find, that the climate is getting out of its framework, is getting out of control.
Presse-Citron : The space industry contributes to 1% of greenhouse gas emissions, this may seem very little, but you are already sounding the alarm…
Bruno Millet:Of course! Because space pollutes. No pollution is good to take. We cannot be satisfied with polluting at a rate of 1% and ask others to make an effort. This is the triangle of inaction. If we consider that we must wait for the big contributors to make the effort for us, to take action, in reality no one is moving.
Especially since space is growing, today it is 1%, but tomorrow it will be 4 or 5%. And yet, there are many things that we do not know. The 1% only measures known matrices, but we do not know the consequences of a space launch on living things, on the biosphere.
We could very well approach the problem the other way around and apply the precautionary principle. As long as we do not know precisely the extent of the pollution, we do not act. And the day we demonstrate that the pollution is low and reduced to a minimum, then we will be able to resume normal activity.
Presse-Citron: we should therefore make space inactive, for environmental reasons ?
Bruno Millet : No, just like we do not stop going to the dentist even though it also pollutes. We accept an environmental footprint from the moment it meets a societal need. Some space activities meet these needs. Let's list them together and then I want to say that we “evacuate” the rest.
But for that, we have to make concessions. We are developing satellite constellations for millions of people, but for what purpose. It is not because a need is shared by many that it is “vital”. Numbers do not and have never made interest.
Presse-Citron: So we have to end manned missions, and to Mars ?
Bruno Millet: For me, this is absolutely of no interest. But other scientists think that on the contrary, the search for the origin, especially on Mars, could lead to making an equivalence, a similarity between what would have potentially happened on Mars and what awaits us on Earth.
It's an interesting question, but I'm not sure it's a priority when we see the upheavals that we have to face. But in any case, the human presence is really not necessary.
200% Deposit Bonus up to €3,000 180% First Deposit Bonus up to $20,000Presse-Citron: Nevertheless, you propose several solutions to get out of climate change, or at least reduce the environmental footprint of space…
Bruno Millet: In my eyes, there are 4 solutions. The first, utopian, is to drastically and almost immediately reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This is the “rosy” vision of things.
The second solution, which seems dangerous to me, would be to wait for engineers and scientists to come up with technical solutions to combat climate change. It's a gamble and by definition it could be lost. Even without knowing the odds, would we be willing to risk our planet ? Our lives ? In the hands of a few.
I don't believe in this “repair bet” for a second. The engineer is a “predator”. If tomorrow he discovers clean, cheap energy, what are we going to do?? We're going to take trawls, scrape the ocean floor, produce like never before, destroy biodiversity and ruin the planet even faster.
The engineer will find a solution to solve a problem, but he will inevitably, by rebound effect, create others elsewhere. The third option, the least optimistic, would be to let the status quo continue, with unequal and insufficient national efforts. If humanity follows this path, it may not survive long on a sick earth.
Presse-Citron: But there is a 4th hypothesis, which you put forward as “the one to follow”?
Bruno Millet: Yes, it is “international cooperation”. Even if politically I have a hard time believing it, it is the solution that seems to me to be the best. Yet this is the only example of an effective fight against climate change that we have had.
In 1987, all the countries of the world (or almost) came together, sat around the table and said no to CFCs. If today we had a global awareness that matched that moment, then perhaps we would have a chance.
Editor’s note: In 1987, 24 countries signed the “Montreal Protocol” banning the use of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). These gases were responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer, creating a “hole” in it. Today, the famous “ozone hole” is closing, thanks to the cessation of the use of CFCs in the world.
Presse-Citron: Don't you think that the Paris agreements of COP21 can be this new unifying element??
Bruno Millet: Of course not! The Paris agreements are already outdated. The Earth has already reached +1.6 °C (on a peak). The Paris agreement is +1.5 °C by 2100, we have already exploded this ceiling. We will exceed these figures in a few years.
Yet on paper, it’s a very nice agreement. I was there at the time and I sincerely believed in it. I was project manager of a greenhouse gas monitoring mission, and I presented the mission at COP21 and I believed in it. But today I don’t believe in it anymore. It’s factually lost.
Presse-Citron: but should we worry about the future of the Earth ?
Bruno Millet: No, we don’t need to worry about the planet. The Earth will do very well without humanity. It knew how to live with dinosaurs, and then without them, it will be the same for us. I just find it very unfortunate that the human species is destroying itself like this, knowing what it is doing. We are not dinosaurs who are going to take a meteorite on the back of the skull. I have children and grandchildren, I hope they can live in a decent world.
Presse-Citron: Do you think that the effects of climate change will be visible so quickly, on the scale of one or two generations? ?
Bruno Millet: It’s the great unknown. We don’t know when we’re going to hit the wall. We know that humanity is heading straight for it, but we don’t know the precise moment of impact. After climate change, it’s already a reality. We already have climate crises, floods, tsunamis, extreme heat waves, like we’ve never experienced before. We will lose the notion of a temperate climate.
📍 To not miss any Presse-citron news, follow us on Google News and WhatsApp.