On June 1st, 2023, as part of the lecture series “Reading the IPCC Reports to Understand the World Ahead, ” Avenir Commun Durable interviewed Laurent Fonbaustier—an associate professor in the law schools at Paris-Saclay University, a legal scholar, and a historian of ideas—about the values that do or do not emerge in the IPCC’s synthesis reports. Some of these values, such as equity, have gained prominence over the years, while others, such as democracy, seem strangely absent.
The full lecture can be found here or at the end of the article.
Throughout the IPCC’s latest reports, one concept seems to be taking on increasing importance: that of “equity.” What does the IPCC mean by this term? Is it an end in itself or a means to an end—an end that still needs to be defined?
Laurent Fonbaustier : This issue of equity is indeed central to the framework of values that help structure or guide the IPCC’s discourse. As noted during the conferences (particularly the second one, on June 1st, 2023), the concept of equity (the working language of the IPCC authors) has not held the same prominence in all reports, synthesis documents, and abstracts for policymakers since 1990. The year 1995 is of particular importance, as Assessment Report No. 2 delves into the concept, effectively assigning it several dimensions: the first allows for the articulation of procedural equity and substantive equity. Procedural equity refers to the idea that all affected individuals (in the case of climate change: everyone) in the development of response strategies (hence the “procedural” concept) to climate challenges, with particular consideration for vulnerable populations (within a geographic and social context), coupled with a commitment to the proportionality and legitimacy of the decisions thus made. Substantive equity is linked to the outcome achieved and refers to how the policies implemented ensure that burdens are distributed equitably and that adaptation opportunities and needs are met fairly, without losing sight of the increasingly clear imperative to mitigate emissions. This first “two-pronged” dimension is combined with a classical spatiotemporal approach to equity through the coupling of intragenerational equity (within populations of various locations and social classes within the same generation) and intergenerational equity (across the continuous succession of generations). Considerations of equity, within the framework of the IPCC’s work, are obviously not immune to the “background noise” of the international arena and the array of conventions, reports, and studies it produces (which, for example, currently highlight indigenous peoples as a pressing symbol of the demand for equity). However, equity should not be confused with proportionality or with equality in the strict, arithmetic sense. The idea, nonetheless, is to make room for the concept of a just transition (the vague notion of “climate justice” may have a place here), and equity raises thorny questions when considering the distribution of past burdens and future debts, as well as the allocation of efforts (among countries, social groups, civil society, businesses, individuals, etc.) to adapt to climate change (that is, notably to mitigate its consequences) and limit emissions.
Regarding solutions, how does the IPCC distinguish between “public entities” and “private entities”? What are their respective responsibilities, between adaptation and mitigation? What is its position on businesses?
This is undoubtedly one of the most delicate points in a cursory and summary analysis of the reports. What must be understood first and foremost is that an organic, institutional approach to climate issues brings us face to face with a wide variety of entities, all affected to varying degrees, that are involved in either emitting greenhouse gases or being impacted by them (the two roles can be assumed differently and to varying degrees simultaneously). The term “entity” has the advantage of being able to encompass very different organizations and situations. In the context of a discussion of the IPCC’s values and models (or, as we have noted, in its documents), it is important to consider that, when examining response strategies, the choice of which entities to “prioritize” in implementing them is obviously not neutral. This is not to claim that the IPCC has strong preferences, but rather to acknowledge that the underlying ethical and political values vary considerably depending on whether one emphasizes the importance of individual behavior, corporate actions, or public policies. Of course, the coordination of these entities’ actions is taken into account, as the idea of synergy and complementarity appears to be essential. It is clear that if the focus is on individual behavior (the responsibility of individuals through “choices” often made under the constraints of socioeconomic determinants), we are in a very different political landscape than if state regulation of businesses is emphasized; just as options involving incentives contrast sharply with those involving prohibitions or mandates. Within this nuanced framework, the question of the role of business (which is not always well defined, given the wide variety of business forms and scales) appears inseparable from a broader political-economic approach to the society in which the response is situated. Faced with the great heterogeneity of situations, the IPCC certainly does not make a choice, but rather situates its findings within a framework dominated by a certain conception of what is called “economic realism.” Since many businesses are emitters of GHGs, it goes without saying that their role in mitigation can only be decisive. It can also be noted—particularly in the wake of the famous Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006)—that the global economy and businesses can likewise be considered victims of global warming (to which they contribute). Finally, depending on the documents reviewed, it becomes clear that the IPCC highlights—simultaneously or alternately—solutions involving voluntary corporate commitments, corporate social responsibility (CSR), or government regulations, with the various approaches functioning differently depending on whether certain conditions are met. Voluntary actions do seem to enjoy a certain degree of credibility, but from one report to the next, what we believe we can infer from the “IPCC’s positions” remains uncertain: the role of business is essential, to varying degrees depending on whether we are discussing mitigation or adaptation, but the terms of its effective involvement (spontaneous, incentivized, or mandated) depend on multiple factors.
In the abstracts for policymakers and the synthesis reports, you noted a major omission, namely “democracy.” Do you consider this a diplomatic necessity or a value judgment? What political forms—or at the very least, what political values—does the IPCC seem to favor?
It is not so much that democracy is entirely absent from the IPCC’s reports, but rather that it seems unlikely that the IPCC would favor any particular political system—especially a democratic one—as a political framework capable of providing an appropriate and effective context for options and solutions. Not only because, given its composition and the process by which reports move from working groups to synthesis reports and abstracts for policymakers, it is diplomatically sensitive to highlight democracy when the forms taken by public entities indirectly present in the debates (because they are represented) are by no means all democracies, but also perhaps (to put it provocatively) because representative democracy is a type of regime that has a complicated relationship with the history of rights and freedoms and fossil fuels. Moreover, it is not clear that, precisely because of the way they function—the role reserved for conciliation mechanisms, the participatory approaches used to legitimize decisions, and the cumbersome nature of their institutional and procedural operations—democracies as we conceive them and as they currently operate can be considered the obvious and exclusive answer to climate challenges. This obviously does not mean, when we revisit the question of the legitimacy of the decisions to be made, that authoritarian approaches would be both desirable and appropriate. Let us say that climate-related problems point to the urgent need today to… “de-fossilize democracies” (if we may use this phrase in the dual sense it suggests). Thus, while the democratic model appears only very rarely in the documents we have consulted (we refer here to the visual materials from our Conference No. 2), certain values—influenced by the evolving composition of the IPCC and by the focus of the research underpinning the reports—are not unrelated to a certain democratic perspective: inclusive governance, consultation, and participatory processes are just a few of the concepts that illustrate this relationship. However, the IPCC appears to us, on the whole, to be clear-sighted regarding the complexity and variety of institutional levels and forms within which relevant responses to climate change adaptation and emissions mitigation can be envisaged.
