Posted23 avril 2022, 22:09
Following the debate between the two rounds, the Zurich climatologist Sonia Seneviratne reacts and warns of the impact of a “nationalist government” in the fight once morest global warming.
Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen exchanged seventeen minutes on the climate, Wednesday April 20.
REUTERS
On Wednesday April 20, the two presidential candidates Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen exchanged seventeen minutes on the climate over more than two and a half hours of discussion. As part of this debate, the «Courrier International» interviewed Sonia Seneviratne, professor of climatology at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, author of several reports from the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The scientist recently coordinated the chapter on extreme events caused by global warming such as droughts, heat waves and extreme precipitation. Switzerland, like France, is “part of a region of Central and Western Europe, particularly affected by these events”, underlines the expert before alerting on the importance of acting as soon as possible. quickly to limit global warming.
To return to the debate, the “Courrier International” recalls that “several NGOs consider the programs of the two candidates for the French presidential election insufficient on ecology”. “Emmanuel Macron has made more commitments than Marine Le Pen, but it is true that more should be done if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C”, notes Sonia Seneviratne while adding that “ we cannot afford to waste five years”.
A nationalist government facing the climate emergency
If Marine Le Pen were elected in France, would the effects be as harmful for the climate as the Trump presidency, questions the “Courrier International”. Yes, according to the climatologist, since the candidate “has already indicated that she would like to disengage from agreements concluded with other European countries, but for the energy transition, it is absolutely essential”. In short, “a nationalist government would be completely counterproductive”.
In the end, she recalls that to rapidly reduce CO₂ emissions, all countries must make “more progress” because there are still “too few real successes in terms of political actions”.
(kaa)