Citing Nicholas Stern and his report on the economics of climate change, Dominique Bidou, the author of "Recivilisation", reminds that "action against global warming makes it possible to avoid expenditures at least five times greater than the initial cost."
There is an emergency! In France, in Switzerland and in the rest of Europe, the electrification of our uses is certainly already underway, but its pace is not what was hoped for. It must therefore be accelerated across all areas: heat pumps for heating, electric vehicles for mobility, furnaces in heavy industry, not to mention new electricity‑intensive uses, such as artificial intelligence and data centers. A plan has been drawn up to boost this now essential electrification.
For many uses, electricity proves more efficient than the traditional reliance on fossil fuels. Nothing is more effective, for example, at powering an engine. This energy transition would also be favourable to the climate, to the balance of our foreign trade, to our sovereignty and to technical efficiency. Who can ask for more ?
The Treasury Directorate, in France, also confirms the interest of renewable energies, indispensable for achieving climate objectives and supporting the electrification of uses (transport, buildings, industry). They also help reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels, a source of economic and geopolitical fragility.
Sustainable development was, in its early days, characterised by the notion of the “double dividend”, in other words a win‑win logic. The term “co‑benefit” is now more commonly used, but the meaning remains the same: an action or measure produces positive effects in several domains. Nicholas Stern had already underlined this twenty years ago in his report on the economics of climate change (2006): action against global warming allows avoiding expenditures at least five times greater than the initial cost.
At the corporate level, a recent Boston Consulting Group study confirms the value of investments in sustainability. These increase companies’ earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) significantly: +4.1% in North America and +6.6% in Europe. This gain is split into two parts: a reduction in costs (3.2% in Europe) and an increase in revenues (3.4%). Ecology thus appears as a true driver of economic growth.
The double dividend, evident when it comes to the climate, is also found in other environmental aspects, notably in nature protection. “Every euro invested in restoration generates eight euros of benefits related to the advantages of a healthy ecosystem,” said Virginijus Sinkevičius, then European Commissioner for the Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, during debates on the European directive on nature restoration in 2023.
This link between companies and nature also works both ways: on the one hand, the impact of economic activities on ecosystems; on the other hand, the influence of natural resources and sustainable services on company performance.
By making biodiversity “an ally of decarbonization,” one could then speak of a triple dividend: economic prosperity, climate and biodiversity.
The Intergovernmental Science‑Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), at its congress last February in Manchester, highlighted the benefits for companies of integrating nature into their business models. It specifically recommends “making biodiversity an ally of decarbonization.” One could then speak of a triple dividend: economic prosperity, climate and biodiversity.
But why aren’t we moving faster in this direction, since everyone stands to gain ? The reasons are multiple.
There is, as elsewhere, resistance to change. Innovation can sometimes be frightening: it is not always understood and, above all, its benefits are not distributed evenly. Some actors benefit more than others, which can provoke jealousy. While the overall benefit is hardly disputable, some may nonetheless feel threatened.
We observe this with the electric car. The transition implies a profound transformation of the automotive industry with less maintenance to be expected and therefore fewer employees needed. It thus represents a legitimate source of concern on the social level, but also for governance.
It should therefore be expected that abandoning fossil fuels will require professional retraining and the adaptation, even the transformation, of certain industrial installations. Nothing insurmountable, certainly — it is even in the natural order of things — but it must be anticipated and this transition accompanied so that no one is left behind.
This transition also requires significant financial resources. The necessary investments can be considerable, that is several tens of billions of euros each year. But the challenge is less to increase financial flows than to reorient existing capital, notably that which remains unfavourable to the climate — also estimated at several tens of billions of euros per year in France as in the rest of Europe.
In industry, the sensitive point lies in the timing of the transition and in the capacity of all the actors concerned to commit to it. Planning therefore appears indispensable so that returns on investment are compatible with commercial and industrial requirements. The delay in the electrification of mobility affects, for example, both car manufacturers and charging‑point manufacturers and the companies that operate them.
Preferring renting rather than owning one’s own vehicle represents a real change in mindset, a transformation that requires time to spread through society.
Another reason lies in the complexity of the necessary transformations. It is not only modes of production that are affected, but also consumers’ uses and behaviours. These developments change our habits and contribute to a loss of reference points acquired over the years. It is a collective learning process, which takes time and requires rigorous planning and appropriate support mechanisms. This cultural dimension is, in that respect, unavoidable.
Taking the automotive sector as an example again: we are used to owning our own vehicle; preferring renting according to needs requires a genuine change in mentality, even if this option can prove economically advantageous. It is a real change in mindset, a transformation that requires time to spread through society.
Of course, there are those who exploit these difficulties: proponents of doing nothing, defenders of fossil fuels and of an economic model inherited from the past. They try to delay the transition, relying on the range of obstacles mentioned above. The prosperity they may have inherited in the past gives them the means, and they do not hesitate to resort to all the instruments at their disposal, ranging from lobbying operations to the spread of disinformation.
The double dividend therefore remains a fine promise — provided it is deserved. This requires moving resolutely on the major trends that will structure tomorrow’s society, such as decarbonization and the restoration of nature. To do so with method and coherence in order to advance in good order.
This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.
"It is neither fair nor constructive to pit technologies against each other in a supposed race for funding: it's a false debate," says Eric Plan, secretary-general of the CleantechAlps association.
A worrying phenomenon has been growing for several years: the gradual withdrawal of insurance companies from the most at-risk areas.
As this Thursday marks the official creation of a Swiss entity of the World Sufficiency Lab, we revisit the question of sufficiency with its cofounder and director, Yamina Saheb.
Let's be at least minimally honest with ourselves. Moving thousands of athletes and spectators to one or more regions of the world will never result in a 100% virtuous and eco-friendly outcome.