On Friday 24 February, the 48th César ceremony was interrupted by a climate activist. The activist, who was quickly removed by security, wore a T-shirt with a countdown slogan “We have 761 days left“.
The scene was censored by Canal +, a group owned by Vincent Bolloré. Security quickly removed the activist before the César ceremony resumed as if nothing had happened. Nice moment Don’t Look Up. At the same time, the action was claimed by Last Renovation :
Nina, a citizen supporting Last Renewal, interrupts the 48th ceremony of the #Cesar2023 live on stage at the Olympia, this Friday, February 24. This event marks the resumption of action for the civil resistance campaign. Today, I entered the field because I can no longer take the risk of doing nothing in the face of the climate emergency.
What does “We have 761 days left” mean?
What does “We have 761 days left” mean?
This comes from an erroneous tweet of the AFP which said at the time of the release of the last IPCC report “humanity has less than three years to reverse the curve of greenhouse gas emissions“. This is a misinterpretation, since the report does not say that.
As a reminder, we don’t have 3 years to reduce our emissions or bend the curve, but 30 years behind. The logic is always the same: the later we act, the more we reduce the margins of maneuver and will be likely to not respect theParis Agreement.
PS: I take advantage of this article to ask all the people who wrote an article or made a post to REMOVE/MAKE their post/tweet/article about these famous three years, out of respect for the work of scientists. It makes no sense to propose deadlines and it will be reproached by the climatosceptics and climato-rassurists in 3 years, I bet.
PS2: if we fail to limit global warming to +1.5°C, the next target is not +2°C, but +1.51°C.
Mockery of the room and insults on social networks
After the censorship of the images and the return to “live”, the two actors on stage preferred to mock the intervention and the unironed T-shirt of climate activism. The comedian Ahmed Sylla said “ah had to fall on me” when the environmental activist arrived on stage.
Following the remarks on social networks, he said on Twitter “I did not know what she was campaigning for”. To find out, he could have let her speak, as has happened many times in similar ceremonies…. He could also have understood if he was interested in current events, since the same thing happened at Roland Garros, during the Tour de France, etc.
One more proof that the world of cinema has not taken the measure of the climate emergency, as we explained in our article“Can we separate the carbon footprint of the artist? On the other hand, the reactions were very strong on social networks, with the usual insults:
For the people who react strongly, understand that the ecologists have other things to do than to annoy you, and that if they do this, it is also for you. Interrupting the Cesar 2023 for two minutes will not change your life. Climate change is.
If you think that the climate emergency is not a problem, I invite you to read this article, and then this one.
Are these actions counterproductive?
For a few months now, more radical actions have been making the news and fuelling debates, going far beyond the ecological bubble of those already convinced by the climate emergency.
If the question is whether these actions are counterproductive, the answer is “no one can tell.” It will take time, study, and the answer will depend very much on the method, the social and temporal context. In other words, anyone claiming that these actions are counterproductive in February 2023 is simply stating their opinion, and they most likely know nothing about activism.
But if the form crystallizes a majority of the debates, let us refocus on the substance. A society where scientists are ready to chain themselves to be listened to instead of working quietly is a sick society. This should be of much more concern to us than throwing soup on a window. If you are more upset by an activist interrupting the Caesars than by the fossil fuel multinationals condemning our future, you probably don’t understand the problem.
An entire article explains it here: “It’s counterproductive,” “it serves the cause”: is activism still effective?
Who are the radicals?
” Climate activists are often described as dangerous radicals, but the dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing fossil fuel production. These words are not from Greta Thunberg but from Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary General, about the latest IPCC report.
When states and companies do not assume their role in a possible ecological transition, it is not surprising to see desperate acts and/or civil disobedience.
When the current law is not in line with the Paris Agreement, and without radical change the Earth will soon be uninhabitable for more than a billion people, should the law be scrupulously respected?
When multinationals like Total, Gazprom, Saudi Aramco etc. are preparing 195 climate bombs and neither the States nor their shareholders are ready to prevent this, should we stand by and watch the world go up in flames?
