The A69 Project, or the Inertia of our Current System

It is no surprise that our current system needs a radical makeover if we wish to keep our blue planet habitable. As of today, we have crossed 6 of the 9 planetary boundaries, entered the danger zone for 7 critical climate tipping points and we will exceed 1.5°C rise – the supposed ambitious limit of the Paris Agreement – within 4 years.

Before looking at one of the reasons why this system is resistant to change, let me clarify what I mean by “system”.  In this context, I will refer to the capitalist economy which places GDP growth as the highest priority, and its system of production that freely exploits the ecosystem services of our planet – such as the air we breathe and the resources we extract.

It is important to mention that this system initially played a key role in driving innovation and growth that actually improved our living standards. It helped increase life expectancy, lifted millions out of poverty, and delivered undeniable material progress. But in today’s context, it has become outdated. And yet, at a time when climate scientists and environmentalists are calling for a radical shift, the same system – and the ideas behind it – continue to be pushed forward. The A69 highway project is one striking example.

The A69 case study

Initially thought of in 1994, the A69 project aims to link Castres to Toulouse in southern France with a new 2x2 highway. Despite strong protests from environmental groups and many citizens in recent years, the construction began two years ago following legal approval. However, the Administrative Tribunal of Toulouse recently ruled to annul the decree that had authorized the project. In response, the French government filed an appeal, continuing to justify the project based on a“declaration of public utility” issued in 2016–2017.

According to this report, the A69 is in the public interest for two main reasons:

First being that the Castres region is allegedly isolated from the major economic hub of Toulouse, which limits its economic and demographic development. The second, that the motorway would reduce travel time between the two cities, benefiting daily commuters.

The report argues that the listed benefits outweigh the project’s environmental impact – ranging from deforestation, biodiversity loss, and land artificialisation causing soil infertility for up to 30 years. However, this line of reasoning is highly problematic.

First, the assumptions behind the two justifications are deeply flawed.

The idea that Castres is “isolated” does not hold up when looking at the facts. Data shows that Castres region does not suffer from an economic drawback compared to other regions around Toulouse, and cannot be considered as isolated as the A69 report claims.

Then, although the A69 will indeed reduce travel time, it doesn’t mean that people will spend less time commuting.  The influential Zahavi’s law shows that when travel becomes faster, people tend to move further away from their workplaces, leading to longer distances traveled and more urban sprawl. In the end, individuals’ daily travel time remains about the same.

Second, beyond these flawed assumptions, the bigger issue lies in the underlying logic of the project: the belief that perceived short-term economic benefits should be prioritized over long-term ecological realities.

This makes the A69 highway project emblematic of our system’s inertia – a system that continues to push for outdated projects and ideas, rooted in the assumption that tomorrow’s world will be the same as yesterday’s. It rests on the belief that what has worked in the past will keep working in the future.

The issue is that we know for certain that tomorrow’s world will be significantly different. Climate change will drive stronger and more regular climate catastrophes, causing millions and millions of climate refugees, impacting our food production and destabilising the insurance system as we know it, to the point where coverage becomes unaffordable or unavailable for many.

Meanwhile, our relentless hunger for resources will accelerate their depletion (water, rare earths, different metals, oil) shifting power dynamics between countries that control these resources and those that don’t. I will not attempt to list every challenge here, or this article will become an encyclopedia. But the point is clear: our impact on our planet will spark major geopolitical upheavals and reshape the world as we know it.

Still, the inertia of our system stems not only from a misperception of the future (or environmental scepticism), but also from its structural rigidity. I will explore two built-in characteristics that make it inherently resistant to change, even when urgently needed.

First, cognitive rules provide stability to the system. Many people at the highest levels of bureaucracy and other institutions were educated through a specific lens – one that no longer aligns with today’s radically different reality. This creates a lack of creativity and makes it very difficult to imagine alternatives to the way the current system works. What were once core capacities have now become core rigidities.

Let’s take the French education system as an example. The people who hold decision-making power were formed by a specific model of education – one they tend to continue once in power. As their current perspective is shaped by past experience, it makes it more difficult for them to imagine or implement teaching methods that are significantly different from the established status quo. This prevents the system from changing direction.

Second, regulative and formal rules also provide stability. Legally binding contracts established decades ago – such as technical standards, rules for government subsidies, or regulations – still favour certain technologies or sectors today. While these agreements may have made sense at the time, they’ve since become institutionalized, locking us into a specific path that is increasingly misaligned with today’s environmental realities. 

Let’s use the transport sector as an example. The 1944 Chicago Convention exempted the aviation industry from fuel taxation, a decision later reinforced by agreements such as the 1999 ICAO Council Resolution. While this was originally intended to democratize international air travel, it no longer makes sense considering its environmental impact. Yes today, this exemption contributes to a significant price imbalance between modes of transport, particularly between planes and trains. While aviation fuel remains untaxed, trains are taxed on the electricity they consume, as well as cars on fuel. This regulative rule reinforces our system’s inertia, making it all the more difficult to transition towards a more sustainable transport sector.

The problem of this inertia of our system is that it locks us into a dangerous trajectory. A path, driven by an infinite goal: the relentless pursuit of GDP growth, which inherently contradicts with the limits of our planet. Just imagine maintaining a 2% annual GDP growth for the next 100 years. The size of the global economy would multiply by 7.24 - from 110 trillion dollars (2024) to around 794 trillion dollars. That’s 7.24 times more goods and services to produce, consume, and dispose of, with fewer resources and collapsing ecosystems. How can that possibly work?

Still, some people make the argument that this path is inevitable – that human nature is inherently individualistic and wired to maximise consumption. But this is a deeply reductionist view. When we turn to anthropology and ethnology, we find that the Western mindset — and its way of inhabiting the world — is not only rare but almost unique. Even if the argument might hold true for today’s Western civilization, it does not represent the indisputable nature of humanity and thus can be changed.

As Aurélien Barrau so strikingly puts it: “The singularity of our time does not lie in the mistake but in the stubbornness.”

So the problem lies in the stubbornness of the system we created, causing its inertia. The stubbornness of building the A69 highway while we know that it is not necessary anymore. Yet change is possible. Our way of living isn’t an inherent trait of human nature, but the outcome of a system — and systems can be changed!