[en] The present article focuses on the already discernable key objectives of the climate agreement due to be signed in December 2015 in Paris, to come into force in 2020. The agreement - promoted by the G2 USA-China - will be based exclusively on 'national policies', turning its back on the first climate policy enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol, synonymous with an outdated, top-down architecture and hopes of a binding international agreement. All states, including those, such as China, which the Kyoto Protocol placed in the list of developing countries, are expected to propose 'intended nationally determined contributions' to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. These contributions are heterogeneous, with only modest medium-term targets, and not legally binding. The Paris Agreement will represent a turning point, heralding a new climate governance in the continuation of state-centered governance, but henceforth on a global scale. In other words the agreement will take into account the preferences of the 196 parties to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, in particular those of the most powerful among their number. We maintain that this agreement will change the course of climate change mitigation and adaptation for decades

[en] The stakes for poverty alleviation and the measures required to avoid unbridled climate change are inextricably linked: climate change will slow down and may even reverse trends in poverty reduction while trajectories consistent with a 2 deg. C limitation of climate warming require that strategies for poverty alleviation integrate the constraint of low carbon development. Until now, existing climate funds have failed in targeting poverty alleviation as a high priority strategy for adaptation or as a component of low carbon development. The article proposes the creation of a financing window within the Green Climate Fund focusing on synergies between poverty alleviation, adaptation and mitigation. This financial mechanism is based on indicators of satisfaction of basic needs. It could offer an answer to developing countries that consider poverty alleviation as their first priority

[en] Current climate policies were developed from a macro-economic approach in a production perspective, and thus have long neglected the issue of lifestyles. Lifestyles are however the result, and a major factor of greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Their integration in emission inventories, through the deduction of exports and inclusion of imports, along with a better understanding of exchanges between economic branches, allows renewing the analysis framework. This approach helps to envisage climate policies based on a convergence of emissions per capita, expressed in terms of lifestyles, articulated with sectoral production objectives. They also pave the way for tools such as a future 'carbon VAT'. This is however limited by practical constraints and political acceptability. In the short term, dedicated instruments can help raise awareness and involve households, in particular at the local scale. This paper recalls the main elements of these discussions based on recent literature

[en] The present article focuses on the already discernable key objectives of the climate agreement due to be signed in December 2015 in Paris, to come into force in 2020. The agreement - promoted by the G2 USA-China - will be based exclusively on 'national policies', turning its back on the first climate policy enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol, synonymous with an outdated, top-down architecture and hopes of a binding international agreement. All states, including those, such as China, which the Kyoto Protocol placed in the list of developing countries, are expected to propose 'intended nationally determined contributions' to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. These contributions are heterogeneous, with only modest medium-term targets, and not legally binding. The Paris Agreement will represent a turning point, heralding a new climate governance in the continuation of state-centered governance, but henceforth on a global scale. In other words the agreement will take into account the preferences of the 196 parties to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, in particular those of the most powerful among their number. We maintain that this agreement will change the course of climate change mitigation and adaptation for decades

[en] Over the past 25 years, anthropogenic climate change has been addressed as a global environmental problem, which must be resolved by reducing human greenhouse gas emissions through a global agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN. The role of sciences in the construction of the problem is essential and is aptly summarized by the claim that 'science speaks truth to power', with science and politics assumed to be hermetically separated. Although this 'linear model' is in fact largely inadequate to account for the much more complex links between climate science and politics, notably within the IPCC, it has long been hegemonic, leading to debates focused on science rather than political responses. This dominant approach has been undermined by the failure of international negotiations: it is now clear that scientific consensus does not suffice to produce significant global political decisions. It is now evident that climate change is a geopolitical, economic, and development problem as much as an environmental one. As the Paris CoP approaches, in a phase of political uncertainties and discussions around the need for a change of paradigm in negotiations, our paper examines critically the evolving relationship between science and politics in the climate regime, revisiting the role of science and discussing emerging critiques, proposals, and perspectives on models of expertise

[en] The financial and environmental crisis are usually handled in different academic, expertise and public decision networks. This separation has become untenable in the age of the Anthropocene. In fact, no ambitious climate agreement can be achieved without first finding an answer to the question of how to finance the transition towards a de-carbonized society. In this text, we further develop the reasons for which these two fields should be considered as a single unit. To this end, we go back to the fundamental difference between the price of carbon and the social value of carbon. The belief that the two can be equated through simple market mechanisms has been a failure. An external force is necessary to reduce the difference between the two. In the case of climate change, it takes the form of the IPCC's results and the political commitment to keep the temperature increase below 2 deg. C compared to its pre-industrial levels. New forms of climate policies emerge from this analysis, which now incorporate all financial actors toward this goal

[en] In the past decade, work on the concepts of vulnerability, resilience and adaptation became central in climate change literature. At the same time a growing number of studies have focussed on the influence of cognitive factors on decision-making processes, such as interpreting elusive concepts such as adaptation. Comprehension of adaptation has evolved considerably since its recognition as a response to climate change in the 90's by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Currently protecting systems from weather events (the 'adjustment adaptation' approach) is still the prevailing view in climate policies. Nevertheless, a shift toward a 'transformation adaptation' approach is being observed. This position would take better account of the complexity of existing systems and allow reexamining their mechanisms (institutional, technical, financial). This paper aims to analyze conceptual advances on adaptation across the five IPCC reports from 1990 to 2014. This contribution attempts to show that the prominence given to adaptation in the latest report (2014) reflects the cognitive difficulty of conceiving this concept, responds to the growing demand to facilitate its operationalization and confirms its relevance for a better understanding of the underlying complexity of climate change and the global environmental change issue. Pursuing reflection on the adaptation concept should certainly contribute to the emergence of a promising and interdisciplinary field of research

[en] This paper analyzes the challenges related to the assessment of co-benefits of climate policies underpinned by the implementation of multi-objective policies which seek synergies between climate policies and other development objectives (poverty alleviation, employment, health etc.). The analysis highlights the increasing interest in co-benefits in the latest 5. IPCC report, in particular by integrated models. Nevertheless, the quantified evaluation of co-benefits is still confronted to several methodological limitations which reduce the scope of co-benefits, particularly at the global level. In a growing context of climate-development approaches in climate negotiations, this article insists on the need to also assess co-benefits of other policies which induce a significant part of GHG emissions. Considering climate policies focused only on Greenhouse Gases emissions reduction limits the range of policy instruments to carbon taxation, tradable carbon emissions permits or dedicated mitigation and adaptation funds. This also hinders the integration of climate objectives in non-climate policies. Analyzing impacts of development policies on Green Gases emissions in the form of co-benefits requires to broaden the range of policy instruments and to take into account other drivers of emissions such as land dynamics. Including these mechanisms in integrated models therefore represents new scientific frontiers for integrated models in the coming years

[en] The disappointing outcomes of international negotiations on climate change are frequently associated with inaction and the consequences of a perceived disconnection between science and politics. However, our experiences and empirical findings based on research carried out in France in highly diverse situations and among very different operators invalidate this thesis. By analysing climate change from the standpoint of territories and local adaptation and mitigation strategies, our article contends that the problem stems instead from a still insufficient fit between local and global levels of expertise and action frameworks. Moreover, we also need to analyse climate change from a new angle and recognise its dual nature in material and objective terms as well as in its cultural, symbolic and subjective components

[en] Taking as a starting point the communications at an international conference held in Paris in 2014, the article analyzes the construction of confidence in climate sciences and politics. How, by which methods and procedures, do climate modeling communities establish the validity of their models? What link can be established between the confidence in numerical simulations of global warming and in the capacity of the international system to successfully tackle the climate issue? The article shows that the existence of a close link between these different forms of confidence questions common belief that expertise should be completely separated from the political process. More generally, it examines the necessity of a 'constitution' for the science-policy relationship at the global level at a time where new paradigms for research and for policy converge toward increasing importance of regional and local levels