Daniel Boy is Emeritus Research Director at the Center for Political Research at Sciences Po (Cevipof). Specialized in electoral sociology and political ecology, he observes the evolution of opinion on these subjects.
Are we witnessing a proliferation of environmental actions or are they more publicized?
Yes, today there are a myriad of actions, it is undeniable. This is not a new phenomenon. Environmental historians, such as François Jarrige, Jean-Baptiste Fressoz or even Christophe Bonneuil, have shown that there were demonstrations in France from the start of the industrial era in the 19th century.e century, for example against gasometers, large leaking gas tanks. Then there were actions against specific subjects, such as GMOs with José Bové, or against large useless projects such as the Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport or, recently, mega-basins. These are often local issues with strong resonance with the organization of an area to be defended. Today, the cause is much more global, because it concerns global warming and its consequences.
Does this change the conflictuality?
When we demonstrate against the pension reform, for example, the opponents know exactly what they are asking for, for example the withdrawal of the measure. Against global warming, the stakes are very high. It is a matter of legitimately alerting us to the fact that we are not on the right track. But, during certain actions, the demands are not necessarily precise. For those who throw soup on the tables, the governments do nothing, whereas they would like to do everything at the same time. Suddenly, this opposition can have no end. There is no possible common ground if the opposition remains so general. On more specific things, such as thermal renovation, we can have a debate on the amount: 12 billion or 2 billion euros?
Is this a sign of a radicalization of youth or of a government that is not doing enough?
A little of both, there is a radicalization of a part of the youth confronted with a very strong and understandable eco-anxiety. There are undeniable environmental disasters, and the future can be frightening. The young radicals who throw soup mean that the rulers sacralize culture more than the climate. But this message is complex, it may appear disconnected while deflating SUV tires is crystal clear. By attacking a painting to shock, we take the risk of alienating the mass of people who are now aware of the seriousness of global warming. This is the whole political debate around these actions. For governments, it is difficult to make sense of a set of small steps to take. Leaders may come across as too timid.
You have 43.76% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.