CEC: long live the energy tax by Hervé Kempf

[Christophe]

Under the controversial debate on the carbon tax ... sorry about the Climate Contribution Energy, Hervé Kempf, already known to some econologists (made a research) just published, I think, the best article on the carbon tax.

I say the best because it is short, synthetic, full of common sense and does not open any controversy ...

But all of this, we are used to H. Kempf

Long live the energy tax!
THE WORLD | 05.09.09 | 14h02 • Updated the 05.09.09 | 14h02

What a hustle and bustle, friends! "Antisocial", "populist", "fiscal hold-up", "Sarkozy tax", "ridiculous", "punitive ecology", the climate energy contribution - er, the "carbon tax" - is roaring in the cottages.

Excellent news ! If we remember that the 1992 energy tax project had been quietly buried under pressure from industry, we measure the path traveled: the ecological issue has emerged in the democratic debate. This is the sign that the heart of politics in industrialized countries today is how to establish a new relationship with the biosphere.

Second positive point: the debate was organized around the question of justice. Is the proposed tax fair? The articulation between social justice and ecology is brought to light as it had never been the case. Third observation: the myth of the "French desert" is dead. The liveliness of the debate is due to the fact that a large part of the population lives in rural areas, and therefore depends on the automobile.

This being observed, let us recall the logic of the approach.

1 - Starting point: the planet is engaged in a major ecological crisis, notably through climate change. This one could have huge consequences. It comes from our greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore a conclusion is necessary:

2 - We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. But these are related to our energy consumption.

So :

3 - We need to reduce our energy consumption. How? Alternative technologies are not available on a large scale and in the short term. To reduce the consumption of fossil energy, which produces CO2, we must increase the price to dissuade consumption.

4 - If the price increases, either we spend more, or we consume less. Yes, it is a loss of purchasing power. But politicians who claim to fight against the ecological crisis without considering a change in lifestyle ... lie.

5 - How many people in France are in such an economic situation that a reduction in their energy consumption of 10% is absolutely unbearable? A ladle, 20% of the population. For them, help is indispensable, vital, indisputable. But others must agree to consume less oil and electricity.

6 - Income from the energy tax must be clearly offset by more public transport and aid for energy savings.

7 - The proposed tax remains unjust in the context of a particularly inegalitarian income distribution. Its acceptance supposes a tax reform correcting this social disorder: abolition of the tax shield, recasting of tax loopholes, maximum allowable income.

Email: kempf@lemonde.fr

Source

It changes the blah of politicos and politicas no?

[Ahmed]

He is certainly right to refocus the debate by putting aside the passion. However, he points out that without a clear desire to reduce social inequalities, there will never be a common front against this problem of reducing consumption.
Another criticizable point, and one that is not covered (at least in this text), is that it is imperative to tackle all aspects of waste: when to take into account the lifespan manufactured products?
As long as this subject continues to be taboo, we will evade the deep reality. There is obviously very little chance for this to change, since the production-consumption cycle is at the root of the inequalities.

[Flytox]

Another criticizable point, and one that is not covered (at least in this text), is that it is imperative to tackle all aspects of waste: when to take into account the lifespan manufactured products?
As long as this subject continues to be taboo, we will evade the deep reality. There is obviously very little chance for this to change, since the production-consumption cycle is at the root of the inequalities.

+100 Ahmed. This is exactly the bottom of the problem this organized waste of obsolescence of manufactured products. As Kempf's article points out above, 17 has been daring to talk about wasteful energy.

I will see the association Econology work to raise awareness ... it will be necessary to tax products designed at the base to be obsolete quickly without justification intelligent / durable (in the true sense of the word) without putting 17 years older just for the awareness

[Ahmed]

100 +! As you go, Flytox!

I believe that Hervé Kempf is fully aware of this important point.
Instead of basking ourselves in "sustainable development", it will be necessary to arrive at sustainable products and designed to be repairable. One thing is certain, it is only under pressure from users that things will change.
This is the only chance to counterbalance the lobbying of industrialists who take advantage of the circumstances to accelerate legislative obsolescence: for example, antipollution standards for technical inspections are gradually adjusted to the characteristics of new vehicles, which will require to change everything and will be much more effective than the scrapping bonus!
After the incandescent bulbs, let's wait to see this vein exploited until the rope!