I think that the Paris Agreement is pretty
interesting because it is much more…it’s much closer to the real life [than Copenhagen].
It’s more holistic. It provides the good incentives in terms of promoting action. You act because
it is your duty, your responsibility and because you invest in yourself. That applies to governments,
to governments dealing with their own societies and to business or to civil society associations
whenever they feel such about this agenda. It is a challenge. It is uncertain, because
the main motivation is not because someone is telling you what to do, but because you
understand that it is your duty to your own responsibility in the world where you live
and so according to your own capacity. It changes also the understanding of the commonalities.
In fact, it’s a treaty dealing with governance issues. What is the common goal? How we learn
together? How we share the risk? And how we implement solidarity instruments to make this
engagement, or the rest of humankind a variable in the context of suffering difficulties or
great challenges? It makes it stronger, because it allows much more flexibility, understanding,
freedom and different manners to be positive and active. It is true that it can only work if people
really do what they should be doing. That’s the good point. To what extent we all are
in the same level of understanding. Or to what extent we try to escape, we try to avoid
duties and responsibility.