Who will save the climate: "those above" or "those below"?

Holcim could well find itself in court for its role in global warming. Four residents of Pulau Pari, an island in Indonesia, filed a complaint against the cement maker in January 2023. This action has the merit of raising an essential question: who is responsible for climate disruption?

Today, two visions oppose each other. The first, embodied by the Holcim plaintiffs or by the "elders" who obtained the conviction of Switzerland for climate inaction, targets the "big players": multinationals, governments, airlines… According to this approach, their weight and power give these actors the ability to change things. If the climate is deteriorating, it is because they are not acting. Change must come from the top; our role, at the bottom, would be to put pressure on those above to change their behavior. The problem would therefore be others first.

The second vision, on the other hand, is embodied by individuals who give up the car for the bike, or by SMEs that commit to a sustainability approach. It is based on the conviction that change comes from the bottom: if, individually, average citizens have little weight, they are so numerous that, collectively, their actions can play a decisive role and push those at the top to follow the movement. The problem is all of us.

Of course, one can have a foot in both camps, such as cycling to file a lawsuit against a multinational. But in practice, most people identify more with one or the other of these visions.

For my part, I feel closer to the second vision. It has the merit of taking into account the systemic dimension of the problem. If ExxonMobil sells oil, it is precisely because customers buy it from them. If the oil giant converted tomorrow to hazelnut oil, those same customers would simply buy their oil elsewhere — just as former Enron customers did not stop consuming energy after the group's bankruptcy in 2001.

And if a government tried to force all oil companies to convert to hazelnut oil, its project would likely meet the same fate as the increase in fuel prices in France, linked to a rise in taxes and torpedoed by the Yellow Vests movement in 2019. You can only implement what is implementable.

Even if a monumental fine were to hit Holcim, preventing it from expanding and causing it to lose market share, cement would simply be supplied by other actors.

Futile attacks

Attacking Holcim for its role in global warming therefore seems futile, all the more so in an era when the construction sector consumes staggeringly large quantities of concrete. Even if a monumental fine were to hit the company, preventing it from expanding and causing it to lose market share, cement would simply be supplied by other actors.

Those actors would no doubt strengthen their sustainability policies to avoid future similar legal actions. Except that Holcim is already considered one of the best performers in this area and it would take them time to reach its level. Paradoxically, putting a wrench in Holcim's works could therefore end up... causing more CO₂ emissions.

It is therefore better to act from the bottom. If enough developers, architects, buyers and investors become aware that cement is a product whose manufacture is harmful to the climate, if each makes efforts at their level to limit its use and favor cements that emit less CO₂, the overall effect will be far more significant than an isolated sanction targeting a single link in the chain.

The solution is probably between these two visions. "Those at the top" obviously have an essential role to play: support those who adopt the right behaviors, establish favorable framework conditions, offer financial incentives and encourage sustainable offerings. But if "those at the bottom" are not ready to take advantage of them, nothing will really change. And you, which vision do you feel closest to?

This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.