# “The Paris Agreement Has Sparked an Extraordinary Collective Learning Experience” **Date de l'événement :** 09/11/2025 * Publié le 09/11/2025 ### Date 01/11/2025 ## Chapô **The Paris Agreement in 2015 triggered a tremendous increase in climate expertise around the world, in all fields and at all levels. However, the transition remains stalled, and we are even seeing growing opposition to environmental policies. Will we be able to rethink our world, which is entirely built on dependence on fossil fuels, fiercely defended by their interest groups? Three** **eminent specialists on environmental issues debate this question here and highlight the role that social sciences can play in identifying and understanding the institutional and political obstacles to the essential transformation of the carbon society.** ## Corps du texte _**Could you outline the current climate situation in France and around the world?**_ **Sophie Dubuisson-Quellier**: The heatwaves we experienced during the summer of 2025 were a wake-up call. They revealed how unprepared our societies are for the impacts of climate change. They showed how much more exposed some groups are than others, particularly people who work on the roads, in construction, in catering and in agriculture. The effects on health are also noticeable and, contrary to what is often claimed, they do not affect only a small part of the population. Of course, they affect the most vulnerable, but also people in good health, because heatwaves put the body under strain. The risks we face are massive, very unevenly distributed and relatively unknown, and they raise many operational issues. How can our societies continue to function if these risks are not addressed? **Valérie Masson-Delmotte:** Europe is the region of the world experiencing the most significant warming, with the exception of the Arctic. Today, in France, the average temperature is 2.2°C higher than at the beginning of the twentieth century. Heatwaves on land, which sometimes occur outside the summer period, have become more frequent, more intense and longer lasting. In Western Europe, droughts and temperature increases are even more severe than predicted in climate projections. Global warming is continuing at a rapid pace as greenhouse gas \[GHG\] emissions continue to rise, even though efforts have slowed carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion. If the pace of the last ten years continues, the world will be 1.5°C warmer on average in just five years. We should remember that the most ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement was not to exceed this limit. We did exceed it for the first time in 2024. However, it should be noted that about one-fifth of the warming we are currently experiencing partly results from progress made in Europe, North America and China to improve air quality. As pollution particles have a cooling effect, their reduction contributes to global warming. These two factors – increased GHG emissions and improved air quality – explain why the current rate is higher than expected. _**Are policy responses adequate?**_ **V. M.- D**. If action on GHG emissions isn’t strengthened, current public policies and commitments may, at best, lead to a slight decrease in emissions by 2030. This means that the emissions trajectory is not following the very high reduction scenarios that would be necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C. Conversely, scenarios involving very sharp increases in GHG emissions are no longer plausible, because clean technologies have become competitive and are being deployed. In 2024, for example, global investment in renewable energy was double that in the fossil fuel sector. If we extrapolate public policies currently being implemented, and without taking into account the retreat of the United States, global warming is expected to reach 2°C by 2050, around 3°C by 2100, and continue until global carbon neutrality is achieved. For mainland France, this means +4°C in 2100 and ten times more heat waves, which will be more intense and longer than during the second half of the twentieth century. In other words, an untenable situation. We cannot install air conditioners everywhere. We cannot air condition the seas. Yet marine ecosystems and fish stocks are already severely affected. We cannot put forests under a bell jar. Yet tree mortality is rising sharply and forests are dying, undermining their role as carbon sinks. If we want to preserve ecosystems, maintain their functions and services, and preserve our living conditions, and if we also want to have the widest possible range of adaptation options, it is in our best interest to limit global warming to as close to 1.5°C as possible, and well below 2°C. **Laurence Tubiana:** Denial of the dramatic consequences of global warming, even at the highest levels, is difficult to address, and this will be one of the missions of the Sciences Po Paris Climate School (see box). Politicians take refuge in denial because it is difficult for them to adopt a systemic vision and devise policies that are radically different from those they usually pursue. As they are unable to adapt, and this challenge causes a kind of panic, they look for loopholes. **V. M.-D**. Meanwhile, local officials, who are rooted in their territories, have come a long way. They have grappled with the impacts of climate change at their level, with the resources, capacities and means necessary for adaptation, and the limits of such adaptation. Climate change raises questions about well-being, health and social cohesion. If these are not all addressed, adaptation efforts will produce inadequate results and constantly bring us to the brink of crisis situations. **S. D.-Q**. During the heatwave in France in late June and early July 2025, for example, schools that were not equipped to accommodate children in such high temperatures were closed. But we know that for some children, the effects of the heat may be even greater in their own homes. The decision-making is complex and the solutions are not easy to implement. By protecting in one area, we expose elsewhere, and so on. It is imperative that we take a systemic and planned approach to long-term change, as recommended in the latest report by the High Council for Climate (see box). **V. M.-D**. Several recent studies show that exposure to the consequences of global warming varies greatly between generations. People born in the 1960s have been and will be much less exposed during their lifetime to events such as agricultural droughts, heatwaves, extreme rainfall, very intense cyclones or serious fires than people born in the 1990s, who are themselves less exposed than those born in the current decade. This research also shows that if we manage to limit global warming not to 3°C, but to 2°C, we could significantly reduce the cumulative exposure. This finding alone suffices to justify strengthening collective action. Who wants to subject their children to this reality? It is crucial to understand that the extreme events we are experiencing have chronic and lasting effects. For example, increased droughts weaken the soil and ultimately damage homes. France is particularly exposed to rising sea levels. The rise will continue over centuries, underscoring the need to take a long-term view. Since 1900, sea levels have risen by 23 centimetres and the rate is accelerating, currently reaching 4 millimetres per year. The regulatory framework has been reworked, particularly after Storm Xynthia, but projections for sea level rises have not been updated to bring them into line with the reference trajectory for climate change adaptation and to reflect new scientific knowledge. With 3°C of warming, the rate of the rise would increase to 1 centimetre per year by 2100, meaning that sea levels would rise by 25 centimetres in a quarter of a century and that there would be a fifty-fifty chance of exceeding a 60-centimetre rise by 2100. **L. T**. In western France, a growing number of municipalities are buying houses damaged by rising sea levels, demolishing them and compensating the owners so that they can relocate elsewhere. It is a bold but reasonable decision. This type of approach is rarely seen at the national level. Sharing experiences is also an extremely powerful way of helping people understand that disasters that occur at the local level have real global and systemic dimensions. This is the goal of an organisation I helped to create, Conséquences, which helps flood victims share their experiences and explain how and why it happened to them. Another example is the policy implemented by the City of Paris to combat heat islands. This policy was mocked by urban planning officials working within the municipality itself. As if greening Paris would disfigure its formidable architectural heritage! Admittedly, it is not a miracle solution, but it helps. What we were witnessing was a somewhat aristocratic denial – a defensive attitude that, through ignorance, turned into contempt. **_How do you explain the fact that environmental policies are often perceived as infringements on individual freedoms that exacerbate inequalities?_** **S. D.-Q**. The concept of framing public issues, developed by the social sciences, is very useful here. Since it emerged, the climate issue has been addressed from the perspective of individual responsibility. The growth in CO2 emissions is attributed to the lifestyles of Western countries, making each of us responsible for changing our behaviour. In other words, if the transition does not happen, it is because of a lack of will on the part of individuals. This framing has been dramatic because it has obscured the essential point, namely that our lifestyles and behaviours are the result of our socio-technical and institutional organisations. They are the product of the giant mechanism of our social structures and their interdependencies. Western societies have developed thanks to fossil fuels, and have built a collective dependence on their energy. This does not mean that we should absolve ourselves of all individual responsibility, but rather that the right levers for change are to be found at the collective level: in the development of public policies and post-carbon organisations. On the one hand, by emphasising individual responsibility, we have created despair among the most committed. I often hear people say, 'I've been riding a bike for 20 years, I don't eat meat, I don't fly, and yet nothing has changed.' On the other hand, we have demanded efforts from people who were unable to make them. The Yellow Vests movement is a good example of the revolt of all those who are being discouraged from using their cars even though they are completely dependent on them because of land use planning, property prices, and the labour market – in other words, collective decisions. Being in favour of the transition is not just a matter of individual choice; it also depends on the socio-material constraints we face and the opportunities we have to access low-carbon solutions. The behavioural and hyper-individualistic view of climate change has alienated people from the transition by making them feel excessively guilty. Some political parties have no qualms about exploiting these difficulties. This is one of the main causes of what is now known as the ecological backlash. The behaviouralist framing has also led to a very strong polarisation of society. This polarisation, which has been studied extensively at Sciences Po, reflects a rejection of adherence to an imposed ecological citizenship by a section of society. Climate action has become the preserve of a social group that has led people to believe that the efforts required for the transition are within everyone's reach. Issues of freedom have therefore been widely exploited. ‘Environmentalists want to stop you from living your life, they want to impose more restrictions,’ is a frequently heard talking point. The failure to take social science knowledge into account, be it in public policy, climate expertise or business, has contributed to the prevalence of a misguided framing of the climate crisis.  **L. T**. We must also highlight the role of economics, which has approached climate change as a problem of imbalance between the supply and demand for public goods that the market is unable to resolve. In other words, in economic jargon, as a market failure. Massive efforts have been made to correct this failure using traditional instruments, notably the infamous fuel taxes. In the absence of any infrastructure that would enable behavioural change, this type of measure is simply regressive because it leads to a decline in income and well-being. Furthermore, as economists are unable to assess the cost of inaction and continue to favour the idea that we will be much richer in 20 or 30 years' time, they are tempted to downplay the problems, postpone all action until tomorrow or pursue these regressive policies. Hence the anger. Today, 79 per cent of French people believe that they are paying for the emissions of the richest 1 per cent of the population. A striking example is advertising for SUVs, which remains omnipresent in the media, while we are advised to walk for our daily commutes. These contradictory exhortations are an insult to common sense. One can't be encouraged to change behaviour while being bombarded with SUV adverts. In 2020, one of the proposals put forward by the Citizens' Climate Convention was to ban this type of advertising. The outcry this provoked was deafening. ‘You're going to ruin the media!’ ‘You're going to undermine their independence!’ I am very shocked by the contempt and arrogance of various groups towards those who dare to say that the system needs change. The Yellow Vests have been described as anti-environmentalists, but this is not true. The famous petition with a million signatures that launched the movement in 2018 said that it was not incumbent on the poorest citizens to pay for the government's mistakes, and it made some very simple recommendations: public transportation, access to cheap electric vehicles, etc. In short, it listed what needed to be done instead of simply imposing a regressive measure. **V. M.-D**. I would like to respond to several points. First, on disinformation. The invention of the climate-sceptic smokescreen aimed at journalists, decision-makers and the general public dates back to the 1980s in the United States. Today, the climate remains one of the primary characteristics of these disinformation campaigns, but the phenomenon has shifted. It no longer focuses on the reality of global warming or human influence; instead, it strives to make the levers that would enable decarbonisation increasingly divisive. This is sometimes the result of foreign interference, which systematically aims to paralyse and delay collective decisions and transformations. Recently, public debate on the actions to be taken in terms of adaptation has also become more divisive. Second, I would like to address the attacks on science. Since the 1990s, the impacts of climate change have continued to worsen. We now know that, for the same level of warming, the effects will be much greater than we imagined in 2015 when the Paris Agreement was signed. At the same time, our experience of these impacts has grown, and our capacity for action is better understood. We know what can work, we know that we need to transform our energy, food, industrial, urban and social systems. As our understanding of the challenges of transformation improves, the obstruction is becoming more entrenched. It is being thought through, organised and implemented. In the United States, it manifests in a cynical and deliberate campaign to destroy climate science through censorship, purges, budget cuts, and other ploys. We are seeing a real change of scale. In Europe and France, attacks on climate, environmental and biodiversity science are more insidious, but they are also very much present. In times of crisis and insecurity, environmental protection serves as a scapegoat. **How can we combat such a deeply entrenched construct?** **V. M.-D**. We must learn to think differently. To return to the example of the coastline, risk management has long been based on the construction of permanent structures. But we have seen that this does not work, and that these structures can even become traps. In some places, we will have to come to terms with nature. In others, we will have to retreat, decide to live elsewhere or inhabit temporary dwellings. Today, we understand that choices can open up possibilities or, on the contrary, obstruct situations and create deadlocks. **L. T.** Qualitative surveys show that environmentalists are disliked because they are perceived as Cassandras. They are also criticised for their highly technical and moralising approach. I met a young woman who is the founder of Banlieues Climat, an association that raises awareness about climate and environmental issues among people living in working-class neighbourhoods. She described to me the first time she came into contact with environmental organisations when she was in charge of health and pollution issues at the municipality of Cergy Pontoise. ‘These are people from another world, another social background,’ she told me, outraged. ‘They come and tell us, “You immigrants don't know how to manage rubbish."’ Not understanding who you are talking to and how you are talking is very revealing of a form of isolation. Hence, environmentalists have been perceived as the messengers of the elites against the people. As activists, they embodied environmental issues and the response to them. This made them superior to society. In other words, it was a guaranteed failure. **_From what angle should the problem be tackled? What would be the right framework for public policy, for businesses, for scientists?_** **S. D.-Q**.  In this discussion, we are trying to understand why the transition is not happening, even though we have all the solutions in hand, as we often hear. This is true, but only partly, because the transformations that need to be implemented are in fact very complex and structural. For two centuries, our societies have been built entirely around carbon. Decarbonisation is clearly not just a technical issue, as if there were a carbon block that could simply be removed from the system. It is also, and above all, an institutional issue. Take cars, for example. Of course, it is technically possible to decarbonise cars, but that is not the real issue. The crux of the issue is rethinking mobility. Private cars, hypermobility and the use of fossil fuels are highly interdependent. However, the notion of decarbonisation, inherited from a techno-centric vision of transition, ignores these interdependencies. Rethinking mobility also means rethinking land use planning, time and distance. These challenges are both socio-technical and political. They are socio-technical because, as Bruno Latour said, technology cannot be conceived outside the society in which it is invented. They are also political because the development of fossil fuels has created winners and losers and established power relations: the winners have little interest in seeing this change. The structure of interests that has emerged from the carbon society is unlikely to support transition options that are unfavourable to it. **What can the humanities and social sciences contribute in this context?**  **S. D.-Q.** The social sciences help to uncover the socio-technical, institutional and political lock-ins of the carbon society. For example, from the macro to the micro level, from GDP measurement to economic decision-making tools such as return on investment calculations, all economic instruments are tied to the value of fossil fuels and therefore favour carbon-based decisions. In this context of highly structural lock-ins, calls for behavioural change have little impact. How much weight can recommendations to limit car travel carry when entire areas have no alternative, or calls to fly less often when jet fuel taxation makes this mode of travel highly competitive? Furthermore, because of the moralisation of these debates, we overlook the fact that structural barriers are also linked to professional practices and rules that are sometimes highly valued in our society. Take the example of heritage. Aesthetic and conservation standards for historic buildings favour, or even impose, decisions that are not all favourable to the climate. This can be seen in the difficulty of equipping certain buildings with shutters to protect them from the heat. It is therefore essential to change the structures involved by making use of the many instruments, principles and rules that frame decisions. Finally, we need to think about the issue of access to alternative solutions and learn to sequence decisions in a less counterproductive way. Rather than increasing the price of fuel on the one hand and then giving out energy cheques on the other so that people can actually afford it, we could have started by thinking about access to low-carbon travel. In other words, devising solutions to car dependency for the 11 million or so people who have no access to any form of public transport. Take, for example, urban areas where the most polluting vehicles are banned un low emission zones. Why didn't we wait until everyone had alternative solutions before creating these zones? Instead, we have created divisions that are very damaging to the transition. **L. T.** In the case of coal, Spain has acted much more intelligently than Germany. In Germany, the government announced a date for the closure of all power plants, meaning that companies producing electricity from coal demanded compensation equivalent to their loss of depreciation until that date. They called this a just transition, when in reality it amounted to paying polluters. In Spain, on the contrary, instead of giving a closure date, discussions were first held with trade unions and local elected representatives, and then a transition process was initiated for those who would be affected by the closure, for example early retirement. This example shows that it is possible to deal with the problem when and where it needs to be dealt with, rather than the other way around, as is often worryingly the case. Another example is that France has not yet managed to introduce mandatory training for tradespeople in low-carbon technologies. Reports have been recommending this for twenty or thirty years, but professional organisations reject the idea of mandatory training, so none is provided. This is a typical case of deadlock in the political economy of labour, when it is clear that tradespeople need to be trained because they are not going to invent new practices. **V. M.-D.** The United Kingdom has conducted an experiment involving the distribution of heat pumps to employees of small businesses, with the idea that they would first install them in their homes so that they could then apply what they had learned in the workplace. It might be interesting to create this type of transformation ambassador. People of different ages, backgrounds and circumstances would try out a practice that is often a source of concern and resistance, and then help others to take the plunge. This would be useful, for example, for electric cars, which face many psychological barriers to adoption. We traditionally limit ourselves to considering decarbonisation from a technical and financial perspective, and adaptation from the perspective of risk and exposure. In reality, the key common factor is vulnerabilities and climate injustices, which interact with social, generational, health, and regional inequalities, etc. If we do not act to address these vulnerabilities, the situation will become explosive. Territorial inequalities are a case in point. I recently attended a meeting of the Order of Architects where the situation in Mayotte \[an island in the Indian Ocean\] was discussed. In Mayotte, everything is down. We can see the devastation caused by increasingly intense tropical cyclones in very fragile territories. In such a situation, architects know how to make rapid diagnoses in order, for example, to assess within fifteen days which school and which classrooms can be used safely as quickly as possible in order to avoid disruption to schooling and the resulting loss of opportunity and education. They can also propose affordable solutions to improve the resilience of buildings with accessible tools (reinforcement of windows, roof anchoring). These relatively light approaches to increasing the resilience of existing buildings sometimes run up against government standards on building size, resistance criteria, and so on, requiring the (re)construction of oversized and extremely costly structures that are therefore limited in number. This creates an inability to act. By drawing on local expertise and feedback, very simple and agile solutions can be highly effective. All these small improvements help to invent new responses. I recently spoke with some very small rural municipalities about their difficulty in liaising with the regions and the state. They see the representatives reason on the basis of land surveys and maps without necessarily knowing the realities on the ground. However, in practice, the key to successfully completing a project is not so much finding funding as establishing dialogue, which is the exact opposite of a planned, top-down transition. A transition can be linked to the national framework, while also taking into account the realities, needs and projects of small municipalities and the aspirations of their inhabitants, helping them to consider opportunities in energy production, employment and the circular economy. **L. T.** In the Drôme region, which experienced severe flooding in 2023, with loss of life and destruction, we reflected collectively. Less than €10 million was invested simply to better understand water flow and then install very large pipes in flooded areas. Since then, flooding has occurred every year, but without causing damage. Of course, we did not repeat the mistake of building houses on flood-prone sites, unlike what happened in India and Pakistan in 2022, when 75 per cent of large areas were destroyed by floods and the World Bank only gave money to rebuild them identically. Today, this type of centralised decision-making is no longer appropriate. We can only act differently from the ground up. _**In 2025, ten years after the Paris Agreement, what is your assessment?**_ **L. T.** Clearly, there is a before and after Paris, even if the post-Paris period has seen a lot of trial and error, particularly in terms of environmental governance. The agreement has helped to unlock a number of issues that had remained unresolved since the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, particularly those relating to national sovereignty and climate debt, meaning our past responsibility. This collective and international learning process, although sometimes quite violent, has been extraordinary. Just ten years after the Paris Agreement, there is almost no country left with no climate law or climate plan, and no country that has not developed the expertise to understand the relationships between the various factors of climate change. In France, resilience has become a central political issue at the High Council for Climate. Quite frankly, when it came to getting the countries participating in COP21 to adopt the net zero emissions target by 2050, they signed without fully understanding. They were aware of the urgency of reaching an agreement given we are facing a collective crisis. Emotionally, it was a very powerful moment. Then, countries began to grasp the meaning of this commitment and translate it into law and plans for businesses. Even though, thanks to our friends in the oil industry, there have already been setbacks in the decarbonisation plans of businesses and investors, considerable mobilisation occurred. All this within ten years, which is nothing compared to two centuries of oil, gas and coal. Contrary to what is often claimed, the problem is not so much that commitments are not being kept. Instead, people are doing what they say they will do, but the commitments remain too timid given the seriousness of the situation. Before the Paris Agreement, the assumption was that global warming would reach 4°C, or even 5°C. Today, we are probably around 3°C, and I hope we can do better. Investments in renewable energy and technological advances have developed much more quickly than I imagined on the day the Paris Agreement was signed on 12 December 2015. I did not believe in the roll-out of electric vehicles, even if they are not a miracle solution. I did not believe that the price of batteries would fall by 65 per cent and the cost of producing solar panels by 90 per cent. Of course, there are obstacles. They are put in place by players who are dependent on fossil fuels, such as car manufacturers, which are trying to capture profits for as long as possible. However, there is no longer any doubt about the direction we need to take. The most interesting case is that of China. Even before the Paris Agreement, China understood the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen COP and invested in the future. As it knows so well how to do, China has committed itself to the entire supply chain – minerals, batteries, electrolysis. It therefore has a vested interest in the Paris Agreement working. That said, in ten years, the situation has changed significantly because we now need to invest in adaptation and resilience. Governments are beginning to factor in the costs of climate change – an extraordinarily powerful lever. Cities and regions are taking action, including in China. They all have targets for 2030 and 2035 that are much more ambitious than those set by governments. Theories of international cooperation explain this phenomenon very well: when legal constraints are significant, commitment is minimal. It is maximal when constraints, enforcement instruments and sanctions are weakest. This explains why China could reduce its emissions by 30 or 35 per cent by 2035. **_Today, what do you think is most urgent, both internationally and locally?_** **V M.-D.** The opinion issued last July by the International Court of Justice is a significant step forward. The court affirmed that states have an obligation to prevent significant damage to the environment and that they must cooperate in good faith to curb climate change. I am also curious to see what will become of the ambition to move away from fossil fuels, outlined at COP28 in Dubai in 2023. The fossil fuel sector accounts for 60 per cent of GHG emissions. The food system accounts for around 30 per cent. However, the latter is particularly exposed to climate risk and no structured thinking on this subject seems to be emerging. **L. T.** We're finally getting there. At the time of the Paris Agreement, it was forbidden to talk about agriculture. I remember the president of the National Federation of Farmers' Unions saying: ‘If this agreement is made to develop organic farming, I will block it.’ Blocking the Paris Agreement was a little beyond his powers, but that was the kind of reasoning we were hearing at the time. Today, more than 1,500 climate lawsuits are pending around the world. They are generally based on human rights, particularly those of future generations, and on compliance with the Paris Agreement. There was the lawsuit against Shell, even though Shell, as a company, is not a party to the Paris Agreement. There was the German Constitutional Court, which criticised the government for failing to meet its commitments. This decision caused an incredible shock in Germany, as it used an international agreement as a national legal framework. There was the Paris Administrative Court ordering the French State to repair the ecological damage caused by its failure to comply with the national low-carbon strategy, and there is no doubt that other lawsuits against the French government will follow. Judges, the Council of State, administrative judges and supreme court judges are now able to understand the climate. Using the porosity between national and international law, so to speak, a legal force has succeeded in making the Paris Agreement binding. **V. M-D**. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has also considered CO₂ to be a pollutant... **L. T.** ...and Ukraine is going to file a complaint against Russia for the environmental damage, including climate damage, caused by the conflict. **V. M-D**. Since 2015, geopolitical tensions have increased, conflicts have multiplied, and investment in the military and defence sector has risen at the expense of other priorities. This makes it even more difficult to build resilient peace in a warming climate, particularly in regions where water supply is a growing source of tension. At the same time, people are becoming more knowledgeable in many different fields and sectors, increasing accountability for public policies. Regional climate councils and expert groups, for example, are bringing the facts to the public's attention. Citizens are also becoming increasingly concerned. There is a growing demand for independent evaluation of public policies, particularly at the city or regional level. **S. D.-Q**.  The publications of the High Council for Climate have gained undeniable scientific legitimacy and robustness. **V. D.-M.** We are reaching a level of interdependence between ecosystems, biodiversity, human society and the climate for which decision-making frameworks do not yet exist. Our public policies remain largely designed in silos. The 2024 Nexus Assessment report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on the interactions between water, food, agriculture, health, energy and climate, is very informative in this regard. We need to establish more open training and reflection frameworks on all these interdependencies, and that is what the Sciences Po Paris Climate School intends to do. **_This article was originally published in [Conférence issue No. 4, titled "Facing the Environmental Challenge"](https://conference.sciencespo.fr/p/editions), a publication that sheds light on major contemporary issues and informs public and private decision makers._** ### Thématique `#Environnement` **Langue :** `#Anglais` --- ### Navigation pour IA - [Index de tous les contenus](https://conference.sciencespo.fr/llms.txt) - [Plan du site (Sitemap)](https://conference.sciencespo.fr/sitemap.xml) - [Retour à l'accueil](https://conference.sciencespo.fr/)