France has four radically different paths to achieve carbon neutrality in 2050 – Les Échos

It is an imperative that appears in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as in the law. By 2050, France must have achieved “carbon neutrality”. That is to say, in practice, no longer emit more greenhouse gases than it can absorb. If the objective is clear today, the road to take to reach it, in less than thirty years now, remains much more nebulous, while the country must accelerate .

One month after the vast prospective study published by the manager of the national electricity network (RTE) on how France could produce and consume electricity, the Environment and Energy Management Agency (Ademe) in turn sheds light on a debate that is sure to gain momentum within a few months of the presidential election .

70% renewable energies

In a study provided made public on Tuesday, the experts of the public agency describe four possible paths: some are betting on great sobriety, others are based on technology. If all lead to this famous carbon neutrality and integrate more than 70% of renewable energies, they draw radically different projects of society, which modify as well the diets, the way of producing, of moving, of housing or of consume, with a more or less strong impact on the environment and natural resources.

Because “carbon neutrality is not just an energy issue, especially in our country where electricity is already quite highly carbon-free, it would be a big mistake to stop at that”, insisted the CEO of Ademe Arnaud Leroy presenting the study.

The Ademe has developed in parallel a scenario that extends the trends that can be seen today in society. “It sends us into the wall,” assures its executive director foresight and research Valérie Quiniou. “We arrive at a net emissions balance in 2050 of 130 million tonnes of CO2 per year… This is not neutrality. Hence the challenge of quickly thinking about these paths. We still have a choice, but we must act quickly ”.

Sobriety versus technology

The first scenario, the most “frugal”, sees nature as a whole to which humanity belongs, explains Valérie Quiniou. The French consume three times less meat there – one third no longer eat it and another third are flexitarian. Large towns are being abandoned in favor of medium-sized towns and rural areas, and the use of existing buildings is optimized – second homes are, for example, re-appropriated into main residences. Half of the daily journeys are made on foot or by bicycle, the employment policy has been rethought: proximity to hiring is particularly encouraged. The country consumes less, industrial production is contracting and refocusing on “Made in France” and “low tech”.

On the exact opposite, in the “restorative bet” scenario, lifestyles change little. To compensate for the needs, biomass is very widely exploited to produce energy, which transforms the forest landscape from 2030. France gives pride of place to energy efficiency and technical innovation in housing and transport . We travel more (+ 28% of kilometers traveled) with connected cars. The industry is largely carbon-free thanks to the capture of CO2, and the recycling of materials very advanced. This scenario also makes the “bet” that countries will specialize in the production of carbon-free gases that we import.

As for the intermediate scenarios, one relies on shared governance and “pragmatic” solutions found through consultation between public institutions, civil society and the private sector. The consumption of meat is halved, the size of housing is adapted to that of households, the transport of goods is reduced by 35%, with the reduction in volumes and distances, key sectors are “reindustrialised” in connection with territories.

The other scenario, the third, relies on new innovative technologies and digital technology in all sectors, with a large-scale “deconstruction-reconstruction” of housing and a decarbonization of industry which uses electricity. largely imported hydrogen.

In the end, according to Ademe’s calculations, the first scenario would cut energy consumption by more than two compared to 2015, and the fourth by 23%. The agency does not advocate one scenario more than another, but it considers the latter “riskier”, as it emits 2 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent compared to the first, the equivalent of five years of emissions. The first is perhaps just as much, but “for reasons of desirability, of social feasibility”, nevertheless warns David Marchal, the deputy executive director of Expertise and programs.