During the CNES summer universities, the National Center for Space Studies, Presse-Citron was able to speak with Bruno Millet, CNES deputy director in charge of sustainable development. He is particularly concerned about climate change and the still colossal misunderstandings among the general public on the subject.
Presse-Citron a The Earth is experiencing global warming, yet the weather this summer is not splendid, how do you explain it?
Bruno Millet: It is very important not to confuse weather and climate. People tend to confuse things and politicians like Mr. Trump play on this point. Just because it rains in the middle of July doesn’t mean global warming doesn’t exist. Scientists, what we look at are long-term trends. And they are unanimous. There is no scientific doubt about their existence and their origin. It is human activities that have created climate change.
Lemon Squeezer : You don’t like to talk about “climate change”, you prefer “climate disruption”, explain to us why?
Bruno Millet: I find that the word disorder he is talking about. It leaves an impression. It’s something that’s no longer right. When we say “climate change”, it’s gentler, it’s an evolution, there’s almost normality in that. But this is just my opinion, I know that many colleagues like this terminology. I don’t find it impactful enough with regard to the climate emergency facing us. With the expression “climate disruption” we understand better, I find, that the climate is going out of its framework, is becoming out of control.
Lemon Squeezer : The space industry contributes to 1% of greenhouse gas emissions, this may seem very little, but you are already sounding the alarm…
Bruno Millet: Of course ! Because space pollutes. No pollution is good to take. We cannot just pollute 1% and ask others to make an effort. This is the triangle of inaction. If we consider that we have to wait for the big contributors to make the effort for us, also to take action, in reality no one is moving.
Especially since the space sector is growing, today it’s 1%, but tomorrow it will be 4 or 5%. And still, there are lots of things we don’t know. The 1% only measures known matrices, but we do not know the consequences of a space launch on living things, on the biosphere.
We could very well take the problem in reverse and apply the precautionary principle. As long as we do not know precisely the extent of the pollution, we do not act. And the day we demonstrate that pollution is low and reduced as much as possible, then we will be able to resume normal activity.
Lemon Squeezer : we should therefore make space inactive, for environmental reasons?
Bruno Millet: No, just like we keep going to the dentist even though it also pollutes. We accept an environmental footprint from the moment it meets a societal need. Certain space activities meet these needs. Let’s list them together and then I want to say that we “evacuate” the rest.
But for that you have to make concessions. We are developing satellite constellations for millions of people, but for what purpose? Just because a need is shared by many does not mean it is “vital”. Numbers do not and never have been of interest.
Presse-Citron: So we must put an end to manned missions, and towards Mars?
Bruno Millet: For me this is of absolutely no interest. But other scientists think that, on the contrary, the search for the origin, particularly on Mars, could lead to an equivalence, a similarity between what potentially happened on Mars and what awaits us on Earth.
It’s an interesting question, but I’m not sure it’s a priority when we see the upheavals we have to face. But in all cases human presence is really not necessary.
Presse-Citron: Nevertheless, you propose several solutions to overcome climate change, or at least reduce the environmental footprint of space…
Bruno Millet: In my eyes there are 4 solutions. The first, utopian, is to drastically and almost immediately reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This is the “rosy” vision of things.
The second solution, which seems dangerous to me, would be to expect technical solutions from engineers and scientists to combat climate change. It’s a gamble and by definition it can be lost. Even without knowing the odds, would we be able to risk our planet? Our life? In the hands of a few.
I don’t believe this “restorative bet” for a second. The engineer is a “predator”. If tomorrow he discovers clean, inexpensive energy, what are we going to do? We are going to take trawls, scrape the bottom of the oceans, produce like never before, destroy biodiversity and ruin the planet even more quickly.
The engineer will find a solution to resolve a problem, but he will inevitably, through a rebound effect, create others elsewhere. The third option, the least optimistic, would be to let the status quo continue, with unequal and insufficient national efforts. If humanity follows this path, it may not survive for long on a sick earth.
Presse-Citron: But there is a 4th hypothesis, which you put forward as “the one to follow”?
Bruno Millet: Yes, it is “international cooperation”. Even if politically I find it hard to believe it, it is the solution that seems best to me. Yet it is the only example of an effective fight against climate change that we have had.
In 1987 all the countries in the world (or almost) came together, sat around the table and said no to CFCs. If today we had a global awareness worthy of this moment, then perhaps we would have a chance.
Editor’s note In 1987, 24 countries signed the “Montreal Protocol” banning the use of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). These gases were responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer, creating a “hole” in it. Today, the famous “ozone hole” is closing, thanks to the cessation of the use of CFCs around the world.
Presse-Citron: You don’t think that the Paris agreements of COP21 can be this new unifying element?
Bruno Millet: Of course not! The Paris agreements are already outdated. The Earth has already reached +1.6°C (on a peak). The Paris agreement is +1.5°C by 2100, we have already exploded this ceiling. We will exceed these figures within a few years.
Yet on paper, it’s a very nice agreement. I was there at the time and I sincerely believed it. I was project manager of a greenhouse gas monitoring mission, and I presented the mission at COP21 and I believed in it. But today I no longer believe it. It is factually lost.
Lemon Squeezer: but should we be worried about the future of the Earth?
Bruno Millet: No, you don’t have to worry about the planet. Earth will do just fine without humanity. She knew how to live with dinosaurs, then without them, it will be the same for us. I just find it very unfortunate that the human species is destroying itself like this, while being aware of what it is doing. We are not dinosaurs who are going to take a meteorite to the back of the head. I have children and grandchildren, I hope they can live in a decent world.
Presse-Citron: Do you think that the effects of climate change will be visible so quickly, over the course of one or two generations?
Bruno Millet: This is the great unknown. We don’t know when we’re going to hit the wall. We know that humanity is heading straight towards it, but we do not know the precise moment of impact. After climate change, this is already a reality. We already have climate crises, floods, tsunamis, extreme heatwaves, like we have never experienced before. We will lose the notion of a temperate climate.
