"We need to move towards a simpler way of life. Better to do it voluntarily than face a catastrophic recession."

"We've known about the terrestrial greenhouse effect for 150 years, and we've known for more than a century that if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere were to double, the earth's temperature would increase by four or five degrees.
For more than 20 years, using data taken from ice cores (and other methods) to make precise measurements of past climates, we've been able to say that a mere five degrees of warming separates the last Ice Age from today's climate. And the same laws of physics that govern automobile and jet engines apply to our climate as well!
So, because the major media keep bringing it up, there's only a debate about the physical processes involved (and fortunately it seems to be waning). But the scientific findings, what's been established in the scientific press, using very consistent methods of verification, are being buttressed every day - and unfortunately they've grown increasingly worrisome as the years pass. In the scientific press, none of the naysayers with any media visibility has ever been able to cite solid evidence in support of his claims, and that's to be expected."

"Because that represents far too rapid a change in climate era for us to adapt to it painlessly. The retreat of the glaciers involved a rise of 5 °C over 10,000 years, and that affected a few million nomads who were already accustomed to a precarious way of life.
A transformation on the same scale over the course of a century, involving seven billion people, would be much too abrupt to allow for a smooth transition, and the most likely result would be chaos. The energy-climate issue contains all the elements needed to completely destroy any stability and peace in our society.
We've enjoyed being able to transform the world in a short amount of time thinking there wouldn't be any cost. But now, unfortunately, the bill has come due."

"Because that represents far too rapid a change in climate era for us to adapt to it painlessly. The retreat of the glaciers involved a rise of 5 °C over 10,000 years, and that affected a few million nomads who were already accustomed to a precarious way of life.
A transformation on the same scale over the course of a century, involving seven billion people, would be much too abrupt to allow for a smooth transition, and the most likely result would be chaos. The energy-climate issue contains all the elements needed to completely destroy any stability and peace in our society.
We've enjoyed being able to transform the world in a short amount of time thinking there wouldn't be any cost. But now, unfortunately, the bill has come due."

"We currently face two problems that cannot be reconciled with a continuation of current trends: the problem of energy resources and the problem of the by-products that result from their use - CO2 and its effects on our climate.
In France, nuclear power has taken precedence over coal and natural gas, but oil accounts for 35% of the energy balance, just as it does in the rest of the world, and the French public is forgetting the extent to which it's the planet's biggest energy source. Moreover, the price of gas is aligned with the price of oil, and the price of coal depends substantially on the cost of transport - and therefore oil. Economic systems are nothing more than systems for converting natural resources, and therefore they feed off energy. If the price of energy rises too quickly, the system slows down, and there's no point in thinking that we have a virtual economy: every indicator of material predation - energy, built land, minerals, fish, soil, loss of biodiversity, etc. - has risen over the past few decades!"

"We need to move towards a simpler way of life. Better to do it voluntarily than face a catastrophic recession, which is all but guaranteed. We need to gradually raise the price of energy by taxing it. Taxes on non-renewable energy are simply a provision for depreciation of the non-renewable resources we consume, and a risk provision for the deferred effects of our current behaviour. It's the insurance premium we have to pay. It isn't easy, but unfortunately it's that or war."

"An increasing number of them understand that it's necessary; the fact that I'm appearing in these pages is evidence of that. What's important for them is that the increase be gradual and foreseeable: the keyword in terms of planning their investments is transparency. Similarly, we have to set a floor and a ceiling on fluctuations in carbon quotas, for the same reason: to ensure transparency for everyone involved. Moreover, we know that obstacles spur innovation.
European and Japanese automobile makers have been more innovative in producing energy-efficient vehicles than their American counterparts, who were lulled by the very low price of petrol and the lack of a significant petrol tax.
On top of these price mechanisms, we need to add regulatory measures to boost progress even further, such as capping CO2 emissions at 50 grammes per kilometre for every vehicle sold on the market by 2020, or requiring thermal quality in buildings."

"As every engineer knows, you can't have progress without being able to measure it. So it's difficult to get around the fact that, in order to make progress, you need to know where things stand at the outset by doing a carbon assessment. Then, based on that assessment, you need to prepare climate plans that are consistent with the problems we face and not be content with cosmetic changes that will only make a crisis inevitable. That involves everything: motorised travel, building thermal performance, the siting of economic activities, educational institutions, food, everything.
We'll need policies for tackling another problem, too, one that's difficult to resolve from a social standpoint: transplanting a portion of the population. Urban sprawl is doomed to decline.
In 50 years we have created new cities and suburbs by emptying rural areas and putting all those new urban dwellers to work at service-sector jobs during the day. We have 30 or 40 years to do the reverse: make people leave the suburbs and go where the resources are, in rural areas or small, dense towns with more limited job markets. And lastly, we need to (re)design an industrial policy worthy of the name, and help manufacturers decide on their markets and their investments.
The few times that we've done that (such as with the nuclear industry, trains or aeronautics), it's been rather successful."

"Different, inevitably, but not necessarily less exciting. The challenge that awaits us is to be happy and at the same time give the lie to Tocqueville, who thought that democracy was inextricably linked with mass consumption."