I could tell you about inflation today. From the rate going up to the United States, to 2.7 %, as foresee the economists given the customs duties, well beyond the target of 2 %.
I could tell you, in this context, the stupidity of Donald Trump to want to force the president of the Fed, Jerome Powell, to lower American interest rates to help consumers, if not to dismiss him to achieve his ends.
Limiting the independence of the American central bank would shake the financial markets, as its actors feared, who know that lower interest rates would nourish inflation and harm the economy.
I could give you the example of Turkey, where inflation climbed up to 85 % in 2022 after President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan took control of the Turkish Central Bank, in 2018, a decision which finally turned against the country, since interest rates have increased to 30 % recently1.
I could tell you about inflation in Canada, which is maintained under 2 %, fortunately, because Canada does not have the means to increase interest rate to slow down inflation in the context of Trump’s erratic decisions.
I could tell you about this vacation that start in a few hours for me and their benefits on morale. How important to win, isn’t it?
I could tell you about all these subjects, but there is this background of the air, in recent days, which has encouraged me to maintain you on something else, this smell of western smoke, mixed with the disarray of flood victims, which forces me to devote this chronicle to it.
On Monday, citizens of Montreal picked up the damage of a new flood, the second in two summers, while others avoided doing outdoor activities so as not to breathe the stale air of historic forest fires in Manitoba.
In the United States, the Texans still sought the dead of the sudden flood of the Guadalupe river and on the other side of the planet, the Acropolis closed its doors to tourists, in Greece, due to the too intense heat.
To see their greatest frequency, these extreme events are visibly linked to climate change. They force us to make a lucid observation: the state has failed in its role of prevention.
30 years ago – 30 years! -, a first report of the IPCC suspected that human activity had effects on global warming, a report which led to the Kyoto protocol in 19972.
Since then, the reports have followed one another to specify how the main humans are responsible for increasing GHG and global warming, which will multiply extreme events, with their dramatic effects on humans.
However, neither the citizens nor the companies have imposed themselves by themselves or will be essential, overall, to modify their behaviors enough to prevent such floods, such forest fires, such unbearable heat.
Each individual benefits from the situation of the moment without being always aware of his impacts on the environment and the community.
The consumer prefers to bet on cheaper products even if they are more polluting, the air traveler cannot help living the well-being of his frequent escapades abroad, however very delicious in GHGs, the company will continue to use a more harmful technology if it gives competitive advantages, etc. Homo economicus…
There are many voluntary gestures of some, here and there, sometimes striking, and that’s good. There are also bearing initiatives, bills, which give hope. But overall, the laissez will not limit the use of the petrol automobile, the explosion of air transport or the overconsumption of the main products responsible for GHGs. Nor will suddenly discover oil technology that will absorb GHGs.
A recent example? Commentators well in view – and in means – wanted to make the abandonment of their electric car public because its disadvantages required too much effort on their part, involved too many costs. My comfort and my money are worth more than your planet.
State intervention in the environment is therefore fully justified. In general, it is true, the state must be careful not to intervene in the economy, or if not to do it with caution, because its presence, even commendable, leads to distortions, which can harm rather than help.
The state has nevertheless successfully intervened in many areas to protect collective well-being. He imposed rules for road safety, banished from materials deemed toxic, such as asbestos, and supervised tobacco.
Unfortunately, our democratic model has not allowed governments to achieve it with the environment, at least not enough within the deadlines imposed on us.
The measures necessarily make unhappy, which lose advantages, income, jobs. Politicians federate these dissatisfied, sometimes by denying science, forcing decision -makers to abandon the bearing measures, such as certain portions of carbon pricing, even if society loses it as a whole.
The environment does not have the right to vote.
The planet governments therefore failed in their mission to prevent disasters and this is where we are.
Now that we have our feet in the water and nose in the stale air, can we, despite the individual inconvenience, tighten our elbows to defeat polluting initiatives? Are we willing to make the sacrifices allowing us to avoid the increase in future disasters?
1. Read an article from New York Times (in English)
2. GIEC is the acronym for the name group of intergovernmental experts on climate evolution.
