In a few days, two major agreements have been concluded between, regarding the first one, the three quarters of the world population and for the other one countries producing more than one third of the total oil extracted in the world. In New York, during United Nations General Assembly, it has been recorded that a sufficient number of countries has ratified the Paris Agreement, concluded at the end of COP 21, to permit to it to enter in application. In the same time, in Algiers, leaders of OPEC reached an agreement to cap their production. Fossil fuels combustion is the most important source of the emission of greenhouse gas and it was necessary to find a way to stop its increase to limit its consequences on climate. And the persistent clash, during the last two years, between producing countries, belonging to OPEC, has resulted in a significant fall of oil prices, and at a smaller extent, of natural gas prices, in opposition to policies aimed at reducing their utilization. The simultaneity of these two agreements is probably a mere chance and they don’t have the same nature. But they can contribute to the same objective, at the condition to have a right appreciation of their significance and to put in place appropriate policies.

Paris Agreement consequences must not be overestimated. It doesn’t include any restricting provisions. It is the expression of political goodwills without any precise commitments supposed to be controlled by existing institutions or new ones created for that purpose. China, never accepts, as a principle, a provision which could affect its own sovereignty and would never have contributed to COP 21 diplomatic success if the Agreement would have infringed this principle. President Xi Jinping easily brought his support since his country inhabitants, especially in big towns, are the principle victims of excessive emissions. Locally, due to rejection of particles in the atmosphere, it makes cities air irrespirable. And the global warming affects water resources of the country, which have always been confronted to heavy disequilibrium. In the United States, president Obama, for the same reason, didn’t have to ask Congress to examine the Agreement. It was a necessary condition since he wouldn’t have obtained its support. Republican majority, for ideological reasons, is hostile to any policy affecting energy production and consumption and Democrats representing coal producing states are already fighting against Washington attempts to reduce its utilization in thermal powers. And, regarding these issues, what about Europe? It, until the end, has adopted an ambiguous position. Germany and Poland, as North Carolina and West Virginia, did all they can do to protect their brown coal and coal mines and vetoed any carbon quotas market reform, which could have been able to reduce CO2 emissions. But, as the Paris Agreement did not affect their interests, they let at the end Brussels approve it, which, after India and Brazil approvals, guaranteed its coming into application.

Algiers Agreement, between members of OPEC, is just about principles. Since the oil price fall, during 2014 summer, no state-member, and in particular Saudi Arabia, had accepted the principle of a reduction of its production. The calculation, at that time, was based on the fact that price fall would eliminate shale oil American producers, whose extraction costs were higher than their own. This calculation went wrong. Rigs number, in fact, did fall because less productive ones were temporarily stopped but production by itself only slightly fell since oil companies did reduce their extraction costs. Strategy followed for two years had failed and it was necessary to change it. This evidence appeared in Algiers at a general surprise. The sharp hostility between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been overcome and the principle of a reduction of production quotas accepted. They still have to translate it into numbers and to split it between producing countries, which has been postponed until the next meeting in November. It is a minimal Agreement, as the Paris one, because if it protects against a new price fall, a substantial rise is impossible since American companies would take advantage of it to restart their production or to increase their exploration investments. For a long time, OPEC has lost the power it had during the last forty years.

A moderate price for fossil fuels is now guaranteed for the coming decades. How conciliate this new situation with the climate requirements? Through two ways. First, states can compensate prices fall through an increased taxation of oil consumption. At a time when, unanimously, public debts are considered as excessive and unsustainable, there is, there, a way to reduce their weight. It is precisely when oil prices are low it is necessary to act. This fall slows attitudes evolution toward a more comprehensive behavior regarding environment. It is proper to neutralize windfall effects of the new abundance of fossil fuels and to keep the pressure on consumers and on car producers in order to encourage them to maintain their efforts to innovate with less gas-guzzling vehicles. Regarding this point, France attitude about diesel is impossible to understand and the tax advantage it carries is an incentive to pollute, dangerous, in addition, for public health. It is the same about housing and home insulation. The diminution of the cost of fuel heating systems, and, at a lesser extent, of natural gas heating ones, is also an incentive not to make the necessary investments to reduce consumption. So, an increased taxation contributes, at least partly, to neutralize these consequences.

But this new context and it will last is not automatically unfavorable to the achievements of the objectives inscribed in the Paris Agreement since the most important source of CO2 emissions and of local pollutions, is coal combustion. The shale gas revolution had provoked, as its first consequence, a fall of natural gas prices. It made this resource competitive for power production. In several countries and in the United States in particular, we begin to notice a substantial reduction of CO2 emissions due to that. China is also going through this direction and India is already thinking about it. Unfortunately Europe is late because of Germany and Poland attitude trying to impeach such a move. The alibi, constituted by investments in solar and wind energies must not create illusions. These sources are intermittent and due to that, necessary capacities must be three to six time higher than conventional ones. And it exists, if we put aside hydropower since most sites in Europe are equipped, only two non intermittent sources, nuclear and thermal ones. Among thermal ones, natural gas has an undisputable superiority. France which has technological leads and a strong experience in transport, stocking and distribution, should take advantage of it in Europe and export it all around the world.