Do we live in a country championing ecology?
If we are to believe the global Green Future Index, established by the MIT Technology Review, yes: France would be the fourth most “green” country in the world, progressive and committed to the environmental issue, behind Iceland, Denmark and France. Norway.
It surpasses Finland, New Zealand and even Costa Rica, the most virtuous state in the world in terms of biodiversity and a pioneer in decarbonization.
"France is a world leader in the production of hydrogen and is committed to exceeding the EU targets for hydrogen-based energy by 2030", explains the review, which unveiled its ranking January 25.
It therefore went unnoticed for more than two months, before the majority seized it ... In the midst of the debate around the controversial climate and resilience bill.
On Tuesday, some members of the government did not fail to advertise it, on social networks and in the National Assembly.
"This is a ranking that pays tribute to all the efforts that have been made, in particular in this term, greets Emmanuelle Wargon, Minister for Housing, who shines the government's measures:" The 30 billion stimulus plan euros in the ecological transition, the closure of coal plants, investment in solar, wind power, offshore wind power, the 750,000 tonnes of CO2 avoided this year in the industrial sector, energy renovation in buildings ", Etc.
Bruno Le Maire, Minister of the Economy, Finance and Recovery, puts forward “an energy mix based on nuclear power and a hydrogen strategy”.
A recovery plan for the ecological transition, an energy mix based on nuclear power, a hydrogen strategy: YES, our environmental policy is ambitious!
France comes in 4th place in the MIT Green Future Index ranking.
https://t.co/b9IMCYaibm
- Bruno Le Maire (@BrunoLeMaire) April 6, 2021
However, the good position of France is surprising, in view of the context: the administrative court of Paris having indeed condemned at the beginning of the year "the failings" of the French State in the fight against global warming ... The government had to pay a symbolic euro to a group of environmental associations (Oxfam France, the Nicolas Hulot Foundation, Greenpeace France, Notre Affaire à Tous).
Because greenhouse gas emissions are falling, but too little for France to meet the objective it had set itself, namely carbon neutrality by 2050.
"The study is based on promises"
For some observers, the conclusions of the study are distorted by the method of calculation.
In this index are 76 countries, which received a score out of 10. As explained in the review in the introduction, the ranking is
“On their progress and their commitment to building a low-carbon future.
It measures the degree of pivoting of their economies towards clean energy, industry, agriculture and society through investments in renewable energies, innovation and green finance ”.
It is therefore based, in part, on promises.
Thus, New Zealand, Denmark and France are considered “pillars” in terms of climate policy.
In these three countries, “actions have been reinforced by new spending in favor of green recovery and an acceleration of investments”.
Apart from France's hydrogen strategy, the authors of the ranking highlight the support of the French state for Air France, which has paid 7 billion euros in aid to the airline in exchange for its commitment to reduce CO2 emissions. .
Morning essentials newsletter
A tour of the news to start the day
Subscribe to the newsletterAll newsletters
READ ALSO>
Climate emergency: the entire “Affair of the Century” file
"The problem is that the study does not look at whether these objectives are on the way to being achieved," deplores Armelle Le Comte, responsible for climate issues at Oxfam France.
It is based on objectives, promises.
Where we border on fake news on the side of the members of the government who have taken it up, it is on the pillar of the energy transition.
France is ranked in 62nd position out of 76!
On this theme, which is the big black spot, the ranking goes in our direction because the development of renewable energies is extremely slow.
"
The criterion of CO2 emissions not sufficiently taken into account
But the energy transition is not the most important criterion of the scale.
Neither carbon emissions, “green society” or clean innovation.
It is climate policy, the fifth parameter, which alone represents 40% of the final mark.
The first four criteria share 60% of the rating.
The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, a criterion which therefore represents only 15% of the scale, is nevertheless one of the pillars of the Paris agreements to curb global warming.
So much so that the general Green Index ranking may seem inconsistent.
According to data from Our World in Data, taking into account the sole criterion of CO2 emissions would shatter the entire ranking: Luxembourg, whose carbon emission is one of the highest in the world, emitted more than 15 tons of CO2 in 2017. Against 5.3 tons in France and only 0.47 tons in Ghana, which despite everything appears at the end of the list, in 71st place in the Green Index.
Since the index favors progress over the actual quantity of CO2 emissions, Luxembourg still appears in the top 5. And in 13th position in the general ranking.
France, it disappears from the top 10 to find accommodation in 13th place.
2021 ranking of the best performing countries in reducing carbon emissions MIT Technology Review
“We know that France's carbon footprint is twice as high as its territorial emissions, which is precisely what the study is based on,” underlines Armelle Le Comte.
However, it would have been fairer to look at the carbon footprint of the French through their consumption, imported products.
Because the United States is ranked higher than Ghana, that does not make sense.
"
"Gloubi-boulga to be taken with caution"
On Twitter, Olivier Fontan, director of the High Council for the Climate, is also extremely severe.
He speaks of study (the word is in quotes) "gloubi-boulga to be taken with caution, tech-oriented".
With "scattered criteria, an arbitrary weighting".
“The ranking is strange: the former are countries with a very high carbon footprint - even producers of fossil energy for some.
In 13th, Luxembourg and its delusional carbon profile;
in 14th (but still in the “green”), Canada and its tar sands.
"
“My humble opinion is that the best thing this journal could have done with the study is not to publish it,” he continues.
I remain in doubt as to the fact that it should be claimed;
we must be able to better choose our references.
(...) Disappointing from MIT ”.
Paradoxically, progress 🇫🇷 up to 2018 (data deadline) is not affected by the assessment;
and those taken into account (ambition 🇪🇺, recovery) cannot yet be assessed.
The rest: number of "foodtech startups", green patents, but nothing on biodiv, water ... https://t.co/PF66Gid2aR
- Olivier Fontan (@olivier_fontan) April 6, 2021
Patrick Criqui, research director at the laboratory of applied economics in Grenoble (CNRS UMR GAEL), is more nuanced: "It is a fairly common methodology, already applied by the World Economic Forum, Yale University ..." other studies with different methods, the researcher noticed that European countries also occupied the top ten places, and that France was still in the middle of this leading pack.
For him, the results of the MIT review therefore show "a certain robustness".
And even if the methodology is open to criticism, "you have to agree to aggregate different indicators, you don't fly an airplane with an aerometer".
“There is the whole question of the weight we give them, it's an intrinsic difficulty, concedes Patrick Criqui.
In the case of the Green Index, one could imagine equal weighting, and research to what extent that would change the results.
The relevance of the climate policy criterion depends on the reliability of the commitments, but it is also a way of looking into the future.
"
