Presidential: who is the most eco-responsible?

By quantifying the carbon weight of each measure, it reveals the decisive influence of the pro-nuclear choice of candidates, and the shortcomings of Marine Le Pen in other areas. Its choice to favor purchasing power does not include the imperative of decarbonization.

• In terms of nuclear energy, the two candidates are choosing new reactors to accelerate decarbonization, with a slight advantage for Marine Le Pen: Emmanuel Macron's program provides for 6 new reactors to save 32 Mt CO2 eq per year, i.e. 7% of France's total footprint, compared to 10 new reactors for Marine Le Pen, and a potential saving of 54 Mt CO2 eq per year, or 12% of the annual national footprint once the power plants are operational.
• In terms of renewables, Marine Le Pen is backing down on wind turbines, with a potential excess of 6 Mt CO2 eq more per year, or 1,5% of the annual national footprint, while Emmanuel Macron proposes to continue their development.
• In terms of fossil fuels, Emmanuel Macron proposes the end of coal, for a potential saving of 14 Mt CO2 eq per year, which represents 3,2% of the annual national footprint. Marine Le Pen does not commit.
• To decarbonize the industry, Emmanuel Macron proposes an investment of more than 5 billion euros, which would save 5 Mt CO2 eq, or 1,1% of the annual carbon footprint. Mrs. Le Pen does not comment on the subject.
• To reduce transport emissions, Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen want to develop hydrogen technologies. The latter proposes raising the speed limit to 90 km/h, which would generate emissions estimated at 0,4 Mt CO2 eq, or 0,1% of France's annual carbon footprint.
• In terms of housing, the two programs lack precision to properly quantify the impact, even if Emmanuel Macron advances more objectives on the renovation of housing, and that Marine Le Pen simply mentions a loan to help with renovation.

For Alexis Normand, CEO of Greenly: "The presidential campaign is yet another missed opportunity to raise awareness among French people of climate issues which are however clouding their future. In its sixth report published on April 4, 2022, the IPCC presented a complete roadmap of actions to be implemented now. , to effectively limit warming to 1.5° degrees."

Despite the clarity of the proposals and the urgency, discussions on the climate represented only 2,7% of the speaking time of the candidates. Deliberate strategy or low level of awareness, the candidates did not wish to use this privileged debate time to educate their voters. There are only a few studies left that have attempted to assess the climate impact of the candidates' proposals.

For Alexis Normand, CEO of Greenly: "Greenly's climate experts wanted to remedy this lack of information by quantifying the proposals of the candidates in the second round. The study measures the impact of the candidates' proposals by sector, with regard to the sectoral trajectory prescribed by the IPCC and the recommendations ."

The IPCC evokes a window of opportunity of three years to act before the objective of 1.5° becomes unattainable. Are the candidates' programs adequate to tackle the major problem of this century?

Methodology

This costing exercise focused on the most precise proposals, giving orders of magnitude supported by scientific hypotheses, on the estimated impact for each of the most emissive sectors: Energy, Industry, Transport, Construction/Housing.