Simon Persico, Professor of Political Science at Sciences Po Grenoble and at the Pacte laboratory

The outpouring of criticism directed at Greta Thunberg since her speech at UN headquarters is impressive. "Irrational", "fanatical", "totalitarian"... the degrading degrading adjectives. As the international spokesperson for a movement for climate action climate action movement that she herself has helped to energize, Greta Thunberg has become a prime target.

How do you explain this change in tone towards the Swedish activist? activist? And what do these critics and their transmitters tell us about the state public debate on the climate issue? To answer these different types of criticism.

First, there's the classic questioning of ecology by those who have long been warning against "doomsday preachers" or of the apocalypse" or other "green Khmers". These include Pascal Bruckner, Luc Ferry or Michel Onfray. There's nothing new here, except that this anti-green rhetoric is now being taken up by several leaders of the radicalized of a radicalized French right-wing, both LR and RN. By declaring that the environment was "starting to look good" in 2009, Nicolas Sarkozy had shown the way for a large part of the French right to give up ecological issues. In this respect, France is closer to the the United States, where the Republicans have a discourse that combines climate denial and defense of the unsustainable American way of life.

Criticism also comes from a more moderate, liberal bloc, of which Emmanuel Macron is today the main representative. Carried by members of the executive who once praised the dynamism of the climate movement, these criticisms are of a different nature. Firstly, they are notargumentum ad personam, which does little to mask hatred of women or the disabled. Above all, they don't deny the existence of the problem - how could they, when the President of the Republic, in his speech, displays an unwavering determination to make the planet great again? Instead, Greta Thunberg is criticized for her "very radical positions", to quote Emmanuel Macron. And we question the modalities of her action: the school boycott, the vehement speech in international arenas and the complaint to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Is the case for radicalism well-founded? As to the form, each is the judge. It hasn't changed since August 2018 and the first "school strike". strike". It's precisely this pugnacity and very direct discourse that caught the public's attention.

In essence, Greta Thunberg is simply demanding what the committed to. If we want to limit global warming and respect the respect the Paris Agreement, we need to halve our greenhouse gas emissions emissions by half in just over ten years (2030), then by four by 2050. This commitment has been enshrined in our Energy Code since the passing of the Energy Transition Act. We find the same objectives, repeated in the UK, Germany and Sweden. These consensual, long-term have the advantage of focusing on a future that is often too distant for current for current leaders to be held accountable. They also to citizens who are more aware than ever more aware than ever that they understand the scale of the problem, and - why not? and - why not? - to win back a few voters.

The problem is that there's a gap between these voluntarist commitments and the reality of ecological transition in all countries, including France. including France. France, like like 181 of the 197 signatory countries, is failing to meet the commitments Paris Agreement. Its emissions are falling very slowly, even though they be halved in ten years' time. More than Greta Thunberg's positions More than Greta Thunberg's positions, it is these legal commitments, based on scientific knowledge, that are radical. based on scientific knowledge.

How can we respect them without radically transforming our modes of production and consumption? Cars (and the automotive industry), travel (and the aeronautics industry), food (and the food industry), advertising... (and the aeronautics industry), food (and the agri-food industry), advertising... is a long list of sectors that are set to undergo profound change in the very very short space of time. Many economists agree that it will be difficult to that a four-fold reduction in our emissions will have a major impact on GDP growth - which is very clearly correlated with emissions. As a result, the list of unhappy people that such a transition is bound to create is also long. industrialists, of course, but also the employees of these industries. of these industries. It's easy to understand the urgency of Emmanuel Macron, who, like his counterparts, remains convinced that growth is the mother of all all policies, not to act.

Greta Thunberg and, with her, the four million young and not-so-young people who marched on September 20, 2019, refuse to give up in the face of an economic rationale that no longer even manages to reduce inequalities. Like the vast majority of ecologists before her, she takes the IPCC reports and international commitments seriously. Like the vast majority of environmentalists before her, she questions the dogma of growth. Greta Thunberg's ability to refocus the democratic debate on our modes of production, combined with her exceptional impertinence in exercising her most basic rights as a Swedish citizen - to boycott, to exchange views with climate scientists, to speak out in public, to communicate on social networks - are provoking a sharp and unsurprising reaction from the advocates of unbridled economic development.

By clarifying the terms of the structural conflict underpinning the climate challenge, Greta Thunberg is forcing leaders to move away from a facade of unanimity. At a time when supporters of the status quo have a vested interest in preserving an apparent consensus that authorizes all manner of green ripolinings, she is re-politicizing ecological issues. For climate advocates, this is good news.

This analysis was originally published by Le Monde on September 28, 2019.