Netflix’s “Don’t Look Up” as seen by former IPCC vice-president Jean Jouzel – The HuffPost

CLIMATE WARMING – Like Dr Randall Mindy in Don’t Look Up, Jean Jouzel also had to fight against the skeptics. Not those who refused to believe in the arrival of a comet on Earth, as in the plot of the Netflix film, but those who doubt the global warming.

Since the 1970s, the scientist has been working on the subject and has been one of the first to model this increase temperatures. He has since participated as main author in the 2nd and 3rd reports of the IPCC (co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007), an organization of which he was vice-president between 2002 and 2015. For The HuffPost, the scientist watched the comedy-drama directed by Adam McKay and delivers his analysis.

The HuffPost: Did you recognize yourself in the role of Dr Randall Mindy played by Leonardo DiCaprio?

Yes on several occasions besides. What these two astronomers are going through is a bit like what I experienced when I started working on the issue of global warming. When we scientists said in the 1980s that if we continued to emit more greenhouse gases, we would be heading towards irreparable warming. And we weren’t listened to at the start.

In France, we have suffered greatly from the climate-skepticism of part of the scientific community itself, like Claude Allègre, which has done everything to deny the reality of global warming and human responsibility in this phenomenon.

This film also shows a very interesting thing: the fact that our leaders do not approach climate problems properly. The boss of NASA is an anesthesiologist and obviously does not master her subject. She has no capacity for judgment and is totally tossed about by the public authorities and lobbies. It is really important that our elites of tomorrow learn to speak correctly about the subject and understand it. Which is not currently the case. I am in charge of a working group with the Ministry of Higher Education to educate students about the ecological transition.

In the film, the private interests of a company (Bash) seem to take precedence over the general interest as well …

The other message of the film is the weight of the lobbies. On the comet, it is the measures they recommend that take precedence over those of scientists. It is a phenomenon that we also encounter in reality and it reminds me of geoengineering. These techniques aim to modify the climate to combat global warming, such as by playing on solar radiation or carbon, for example. To do this is to put a sword of Damocles on the heads of future generations. In the film as in reality, the leaders believe that solutions can be found later, while the scientists implore them to act quickly.

President Janie Orlean played by Meryl Streep refuses to act because “political timing” is not right for her. This is quite revealing of how politicians are dealing with these issues right now …

It’s very interesting. When we look at the Citizen’s Climate Convention decided in response to the great national debate (after the movement of yellow vests, editor’s note), it is clear that there was a political aspect. Among the citizens’ proposals, there was one aimed at limiting the speed on the motorway to 110 km / h, which is quite relevant from a climatic point of view and accepted in many countries. Emmanuel Macron has made it clear that he will not take this step because it will not be accepted by people. There is therefore a political dimension that we are obliged to recognize.

In the case of Nicolas Sarkozy, the Grenelle de l’environnement was extremely relevant, giving rise to good proposals in 2007. But at the agricultural fair in 2011, he says: “the environment is starting to do well” because he fears that it will not bring him a vote. What he had started, with good intentions, he stopped and gave up.

In France, we cannot say that we do not have a long-term vision in the texts since carbon neutrality by 2050 is included in climate law, in perfect harmony with the diagnosis of scientists. Where the shoe pinches is in the action and we are falling behind on this point.

At the end of the film, only a few rich people make it out by migrating to another planet. Do you see there again an allegory of the climate crisis?

I don’t believe in the existence of Planet B like in the movie, I think it’s ridiculous! But in the spirit, it is indeed my fear. Global warming risk of widening inequalities. In the extreme case of a + 4 ° C world, there would still be a few nice places to live on Earth, but they might be more accessible to the rich than to others.

Another concrete example is the increase in the carbon tax at the origin of the yellow vests movement. Low incomes would have been three times more affected by the increase in this tax than high incomes.

There may be inequalities both in the consequences of global warming, but also in the measures taken to combat the phenomenon. And for me the strength of Don’t Look Up it is to show this relationship between science and society which is central.

Tyler Perry, who plays the co-host of the fictional show The Daily Rip recommends that scientists do “media training”. Do the specialists who speak on television really take this type of training?

Personally, I have never done one, but there are some in our laboratories today. When I was at the IPCC, I participated in the creation of a communication unit in 2009. This shows how important it is today to have the tools to raise public awareness.

On television and radio, we know that we must try to simplify our work, without giving too many figures. But conversely, the people who come to listen to us at the conferences want to learn things. They want to understand the complexity of the climate issue. So, above all, we must know how to adapt to our audience.

What is the best way to convey a scientific message: the fatalistic but transparent side of Kate Dibiasky (Jennifer Lawrence) or on the contrary the calm and pedagogy of Randall Mindy (Leonardo DiCaprio)?

In fact, we need both. Both of this hard-hitting doctoral student who is a bit Greta Thunberg of astronomy and of this doctor who rather tries to act from the inside, with a certain sobriety in the communication.

As a scientist I cannot communicate like an activist, it is not my role: I have to rely on the knowledge of my community and not be fatalistic because there are solutions. By being too catastrophic, we don’t necessarily hit the target either. But everyone communicates as they wish and I understand the position of young people and I appreciate their commitment. This communication was sorely missed 30 years ago when we were trying to bring these messages to the public. What hurts our cause is above all climate skepticism, which is still very present in our society, not the style of communication.

Do you think that media coverage of this subject has increased in recent years in France?

I think the media in France are of good quality in this area. Especially in the written press, which deals with the issue well. But my great regret is the lack of television shows that evoke scientific themes in prime time. If we take the show C in the air on France 5, when it was launched, there were very often programs on scientific questions. Now it is essentially political. On the news channels, when you invite a scientist, as soon as there is the slightest event, you are told “we will call you back later”. In fact, immediate news takes precedence over long-term concerns.

Also on The HuffPost: 5 “Don’t Look Up” (Netflix) Details You May Have Missed