“Who could have predicted it? Science, experience and public action.” This is the theme that candidates for the external competition of the National Institute of Civil Service (formerly ENA) had to address at the end of August, during the “contemporary question” test. A particularly well-chosen theme, which could not be better applied to the moment in which we find ourselves and which should allow the selection of the new type of “decision maker” that we urgently need.
We remember that it was the President of the Republic himself who, to everyone’s astonishment, dared to use this formula, during his wishes, on December 31, 2022: “Who could have predicted (…) The climate crisis with spectacular effects, again this summer, in our country? “, causing outrage among scientists. This, despite the fact that a policy of training public officials on this burning issue had been launched and that climatologist Valérie Masson-Delmotte had been received at the Elysée Palace to provide specific training.
He presented all the information, already terribly worrying at the time, available to climate science. Climatologists, but also physicists and other professionals in the exact sciences, have been warning for years about the reality of current and future changes.
They have recently stepped up their warnings, stating that the situation is now extremely dangerous for all of humanity and that their worst predictions have already been surpassed. According to them, warming could reach 4°C in the not-too-distant future. turning points Climate (“tipping points”) – those critical thresholds that, once reached, lead to irreversible and large-scale changes – could be crossed in the very near future.
Merchants of doubt
How can we understand then that public decision-makers have not made this issue their top priority for years? Isn’t governing planning and anticipating? Isn’t this the absolutely essential, vital issue around which all the others should be organized?
Sociologists have offered numerous explanations for this blindness on the part of decision-makers. The weight of lobbies, the influence of the merchants of doubt, the tangle of responsibilities and skills all play a role. But we must also take an interest in the place of science in public action.
Although most of the technical progress of the past two centuries has been due to the exact sciences, their representatives contribute little to public decision-making. Few of these scientists spend part of their careers in the executive branch or in Parliament. The media generally gives them little space. They themselves hesitate to speak publicly even if a faction is involved, or even now openly call for rebellion. There is no structure to directly inform or alert public decision-makers, and few have direct and regular contact with them.
You have 49.63% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
